Origin of Philosophy

[Clinias]

In reply to you Gingko, Plato expressly says that Philosophy is derived from "the nature of the cosmos". Timaeus, (§47a-b) The source of philosophy is nature. It is not a "philosophy of nature". Socrates says that "only God is wise and we are friends or lovers of the Wisdom of God". The wisdom of God is found in Nature, in the Cosmos. Man borrows the Logos in Nature.

Aristotle is a philosopher but discussed all sorts of things, biology and physics along with metaphysics. This was all considered "philosophy". Then, in the Renaissance, the study of the natural world was called "natural philosophy". In turn during the early Modern Age, the term "Natural Philosophy" morphed into "Science". Science is the discovery of the physical world. Philosophy is the mother of science. Philosophy is a universal science.

Metaphysics is the Natural Law. Aristotle uses the terms "Telos", the Golden Mean, Righteousness. These are the Natural Law, ie. Metaphysics. It is also the "Sophia of God". There are many terms for the same thing. See, philosophy is about using the understanding of the principle of nature of the Telos to describe all things. All things have a Telos. The Natural Law guides all things from Metaphysics, ethics and religion.

Socrates was a monotheist because the Natural Law is "The Rule of One is Best". It guides all things. Through that proverb, which is a Natural Law, one knows that there is One God in Heaven.

To understand more what the Natural Law is and its core, one must understand Macrocosm/Microcosm. This Natural Law teaches that things repeat. The Natural Law "The Rule of One" runs all herd animals, social insects, human society and the heavens. Things repeat. I can see the unseen world scientifically thru the Natural Law--that is metaphysics. To understand that it is necessary to understand Macrocosm/Microcosm:
https://www.academia.edu/1619468/Macroc ... ght_Part_I

Philosophy is derived from the nature of the cosmos. It is using the Natural Law in human thought. That is how Socrates in Plato's Republic understand that the Soul is partitioned in Three parts. And how Reason must rule over the appetites.

[Ginkgo]

In reply to you Gingko, Plato expressly says that Philosophy is derived from "the nature of the cosmos". Timaeus, (§47a-b) The source of philosophy is nature. It is not a "philosophy of nature". Socrates says that "only God is wise and we are friends or lovers of the Wisdom of God". The wisdom of God is found in Nature, in the Cosmos. Man borrows the Logos in Nature.

Aristotle is a philosopher but discussed all sorts of things, biology and physics along with metaphysics. This was all considered "philosophy". Then, in the Renaissance, the study of the natural world was called "natural philosophy". In turn during the early Modern Age, the term "Natural Philosophy" morphed into "Science". Science is the discovery of the physical world. Philosophy is the mother of science. Philosophy is a universal science.

Metaphysics is the Natural Law. Aristotle uses the terms "Telos", the Golden Mean, Righteousness. These are the Natural Law, ie. Metaphysics. It is also the "Sophia of God". There are many terms for the same thing. See, philosophy is about using the understanding of the principle of nature of the Telos to describe all things. All things have a Telos. The Natural Law guides all things from Metaphysics, ethics and religion.

Socrates was a monotheist because the Natural Law is "The Rule of One is Best". It guides all things. Through that proverb, which is a Natural Law, one knows that there is One God in Heaven.

To understand more what the Natural Law is and its core, one must understand Macrocosm/Microcosm. This Natural Law teaches that things repeat. The Natural Law "The Rule of One" runs all herd animals, social insects, human society and the heavens. Things repeat. I can see the unseen world scientifically thru the Natural Law--that is metaphysics. To understand that it is necessary to understand Macrocosm/Microcosm:
https://www.academia.edu/1619468/Macroc ... ght_Part_I

Philosophy is derived from the nature of the cosmos. It is using the Natural Law in human thought. That is how Socrates in Plato's Republic understand that the Soul is partitioned in Three parts. And how Reason must rule over the appetites.

Yes, you certainly do have a theory of "oneness" and "threeness" no doubt about that.

[Gee]

Philosophy is derived from the nature of the cosmos. It is using the Natural Law in human thought. That is how Socrates in Plato's Republic understand that the Soul is partitioned in Three parts. And how Reason must rule over the appetites.

Clinias;

I may not have been able to absorb and read your whole link, but I am very much enjoying reading this thread. Maybe when I get my new computer, and it does not lock up on me, I will go back and look at your link again.

In the meantime, I have a question about the partitioned Three parts of the Soul. While studying Freud's divisions of mind, I came across a reference to Plato's divisions in the IEP (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). All that it stated was that Freud's divisions were comparable to Plato's, but it gave no particulars. I do not have a formal education in philosophy, and yours is the first reference that I have seen to Plato's divisions of Soul.

So could you give me a brief explanation of these divisions, and maybe an idea of where to find out more? Thank you.

To Gee, the word philosophy was coined by the Doric Greeks on what they were doing. Pythagoras was just the first to use it. It should be trademarked. It belongs to the Doric Greeks. No one else did "philosophy", not the Chinese, not the Germans, not the Jews. If they coined the term--they get to define it. Socrates, imitating the Dorians, does define it: Only God is wise, and we only partake of His Sophia.

I can agree that the word was coined by the Greeks. I can agree with everything else that you state above, except to note that defining something is not the same as inventing something. When we named a tree, we did not invent a tree -- it already existed and was waiting for a name.

I think I was seven years old when I fell in love with philosophy; well before I heard of the Doric Greeks, before I heard of Socrates, and before I knew what the word "philosophy" meant.

G

[Wyman]

Gee, it's all in Plato's 'Republic.' Look up commentaries on the Republic. Aristotle also wrote a great deal on this.

[Clinias]

Wyman is right; it is in Plato's Republic. Plato uses the analogy of a charioteer driving three horses. The three horses represent the three parts of the soul, the appetites, the thymos (spirit) located in the chest, and reason. Together Reason, guiding thymos controls the appetites.

The Tripartite paradigm is found in the family of Father, mother, children. It is what nature teaches. We see this in race, which is family writ large with Monarch, aristocracy, commons. The Tripartite paradigm is a pattern found throughout nature. It is what nature teaches. Then, you can transport that to the soul and know for sure that the soul is tripartite. We see this in human conduct. Humans have appetites, they show excitedness, or umbrage and then humans use reason. The soul is tripartite.

Plato then transposed the tripartite paradigm into the heavens. Plato surmised that there is nous, demiurge (the maker/creator of the cosmos), and world soul. Plato's concept of a triune God prepared the way for the Trinity of the Christian Faith.

This Tripartite paradigm was throughout Doric Society where the Dorians were separated from the Perioci and the Helots. It was Dorians/Perioci/Helots. and then Doric society was divided by three, Royalty/Aristocracy/Homonoi (or equals). Plato in the Republic talks of three soveriegns or three in one. This paradigm is throughout nature and human institutions. The Natural Law is Macrocosm/Microcosm, things repeat and things repeat throughout the cosmos. Repetition is a sign of Order which the cosmos entails.

[Ginkgo]

Wyman is right; it is in Plato's Republic. Plato uses the analogy of a charioteer driving three horses. The three horses represent the three parts of the soul, the appetites, the thymos (spirit) located in the chest, and reason. Together Reason, guiding thymos controls the appetites.

The Tripartite paradigm is found in the family of Father, mother, children. It is what nature teaches. We see this in race, which is family writ large with Monarch, aristocracy, commons. The Tripartite paradigm is a pattern found throughout nature. It is what nature teaches. Then, you can transport that to the soul and know for sure that the soul is tripartite. We see this in human conduct. Humans have appetites, they show excitedness, or umbrage and then humans use reason. The soul is tripartite.

Plato then transposed the tripartite paradigm into the heavens. Plato surmised that there is nous, demiurge (the maker/creator of the cosmos), and world soul. Plato's concept of a triune God prepared the way for the Trinity of the Christian Faith.

This Tripartite paradigm was throughout Doric Society where the Dorians were separated from the Perioci and the Helots. It was Dorians/Perioci/Helots. and then Doric society was divided by three, Royalty/Aristocracy/Homonoi (or equals). Plato in the Republic talks of three soveriegns or three in one. This paradigm is throughout nature and human institutions. The Natural Law is Macrocosm/Microcosm, things repeat and things repeat throughout the cosmos. Repetition is a sign of Order which the cosmos entails.

Yes, a pretty good summary.

When Plato applies these ideas to his politics we end up with a justification for authoritarianism, ie., the allocation of political power to a special group in society. Plato had no love for democracy, he favored an oligarchy of men who were best suited to the job of ruling.This idea taken though to the Middle Ages engenders itself in The Chain of Being which is also hierarchical and authoritarian.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_chain_of_being

[Clinias]

You've got it Gingko but there is a discrepancy in one part of your conclusion.

Gingko wrote:
"Plato had no love for democracy, he favored an oligarchy of men who were best suited to the job of ruling."

Correct, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle all hated democracy. They all categorically state that Tyranny comes out of democracy. Second, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle ALL favored "mixed government"!--NOT oligarchy. The natural law is the Golden Mean. Oligarchy nor democracy follow the natural law. Democracy follows the general will.

The Greek term for mixed government is 'politiea'. The Romans translated 'politeia' as respublica. Plato said of Crete and Sparta that they had "true politeias". Why? Because they were built on the principles of nature. Republics operate on Wisdom. On the direction of Wisdom. Democracy does not.

To understand the true government of Crete and Sparta you must understand their Republics:
http://www.sparta.markoulakispublicatio ... php?id=105

That link should answer your problem of defining forms of government and what a true republic is.

[Gee]

Clinias;

Thank you. Your post was very informative. i always expected that I would retire and spend 20 years or so studying "The Greats", but things don't always work out the way we plan, so I settle for bits and pieces that I can pick up on-line. I envy you your knowledge and understanding of these issues. With that in mind, maybe you could peruse my thoughts below and maybe answer another question, or two?

Wyman is right; it is in Plato's Republic. Plato uses the analogy of a charioteer driving three horses. The three horses represent the three parts of the soul, the appetites, the thymos (spirit) located in the chest, and reason.

After reviewing the above, it is clear to me that Plato's parts of soul are an early representation of Freud's divisions of mind. The appetites would be the Id, or drives, in Freud's model, and represent the instinctive aspect of mind in my interpretation. The thymos, because it is spirit and located in the chest, has to relate to emotion, so it would be the SuperEgo, or unconscious, in Freud's model. The unconscious is reactionary, rather than directed, because it is ruled by emotion, so I see this as the emotional aspect of mind. Apparently, Plato thought of reason as being the directed and rational aspect of soul, so it would be the Ego, or rational mind, in Freud's model. I see reasoning and rationalizing as being different, because I believe that input from the unconscious aspect of mind is required for reasoning, but not required for rationalization.

Together Reason, guiding thymos controls the appetites. The Tripartite paradigm is found in the family of Father, mother, children. It is what nature teaches. We see this in race, which is family writ large with Monarch, aristocracy, commons.

The first sentence seems to follow the ideas of Stoicism. Did Plato see reason as being above emotion and the appetites? Does this make Dad the boss? Are we talking about a little Freudian slip here, because his analogy of the three horses should place them as being equal.

Plato then transposed the tripartite paradigm into the heavens. Plato surmised that there is nous, demiurge (the maker/creator of the cosmos), and world soul. Plato's concept of a triune God prepared the way for the Trinity of the Christian Faith.

I have no doubt that your above assessment is true, but I would not interpret it the same way the Christian Faith did. I would interpret "nous" as knowledge; "demiurge" as awareness; and "world soul" as matter -- the three components that are necessary to cause consciousness as we know it. A lot of people relate consciousness to "God", but I think that is a different issue.

This Tripartite paradigm was throughout Doric Society where the Dorians were separated from the Perioci and the Helots. It was Dorians/Perioci/Helots. and then Doric society was divided by three, Royalty/Aristocracy/Homonoi (or equals). Plato in the Republic talks of three soveriegns or three in one. This paradigm is throughout nature and human institutions.

Agreed. The only problem that I see with this is that people do not always value the three parts equally. People tend to value the Royalty/Father as being above; the Aristocracy/Mother as being lesser; and the Homonoi/children as being the least. It is the Order that I question.

I see the Royalty/Father as being the family representation to the outside world; the Aristocracy/Mother as being the family representation to the inner world of the family; and the Homonoi/children as being the future and strength of the family. All are equal in value in their own ways and necessary for the continuance and harmony of the family. When people take Plato's ideas and try to put a hierarchy or Order to them, they invariably reduce value to one or more of the divisions. It is like the ongoing Battle of the Sexes, we think there has to be a winner.

The Natural Law is Macrocosm/Microcosm, things repeat and things repeat throughout the cosmos. Repetition is a sign of Order which the cosmos entails.

Well it is great to know that the method that I have been using has a name. Macrocosm/Microcosm. I will have to look that up and study it. (chuckle)

I can agree that things repeat, as cycles and patterns are what I study, but I can not agree to the word "Order" as I doubt the truth of it. When something is Ordered, it is organized in a linear way, even more it is assumed to be static, as change would disrupt the Order. It would be like putting M&M candies in a round bottomed bowl and trying to put them in Order. Every time you moved one, the others would move also, so it would be impossible to put them in order without some artificial help -- like maybe glue. Reality is in constant motion, so it is not orderly, and I do not find order to be a true reflection of reality.

What I think, is that when we find a pattern or cycle that repeats and is also represented in other levels of reality, we have found truth -- not order. There may be some Order in the Universe, but there are so many patterns within patterns within patterns and cycles within cycles within cycles all working together and influencing each other, that no human mind could find the Order.

So when we try to Order things, what we most often do is disrupt the natural balance of the cycles and patterns. I noted in the Chain of Being that Ginkgo linked, a lion is thought to be above an antelope in the Chain of Being. But a lion is dependent upon the antelope for survival; the antelope can survive quite well without the lion, so which is higher? The truth is that every specie, great or small, in an ecosystem is necessary for the continuance of that ecosystem. Every specie has patterns and cycles that interact with other species, so there are thousands of patterns and cycles in every ecosystem, and it is chaotic.

So I think it is more about balance than it is about Order.

G

[Clinias]

I liked your post Gee.

I see that you have a problem with order. The Greek word "cosmos" means "ordered beauty". That Fall precedes winter everytime and follows summer is Order. Order means two things hierarchy and repitition. This is what Nature teaches. Aristotle carries forward a Greek concept. Harmony is the combination of the high and the low. You have that in music. You have high tones and low tones. Music is produced by the play between them. You have to have the High and the Low. ---because this is how reality works.

The family showcases this. The father is of course stronger taller than women. He is more linear thinking. Women are the weaker sex. But women do have their gifts and men have their gifts. Nature combines them.

Another way to see this is that the Dorians combined the old and the young. Old have wisdom but not spirit but the young have spirit but no wisdom. They each have certain gifts. The Dorians combined them so that what was lacking in one was fulfilled in the other.

Hierarchy is normal. It is what Nature teaches. Equality only exists in kind. Only exists in the confines of the group.

Reason is like dad. Yes, Reason is higher because as Socrates and Plato point out, it is Divine. It is the Divine spark. Appetites are lower. There is no equality. Animals share in our appetites. It is the animal nature to have appetites but animals, by their very reason as animals, don't have reason. The whole point of philosophy is to perfect the Divine Nature in us. We are more like God when we use what we share with God. Part of philosophy is theosis. The Natural Law guides all things. Hierarchy is a Natural Law. It is how Reality works.

Be careful of using Jewish sources, like Freud, for any type of knowledge. They all have a natural revulsion towards hierarchy. For the Jews, Hierarchy is a natural evil. For a European, hierarchy is normal. There is such a thing as polylogicism.

Where you downloaded my book you can also download my article on Macrocosm: "Macrocosm/Microcosm in Doric Thought".

In order to have balance, you have to have the high and the low. The High limits the low and the low limits the High. The Balance is the Golden Mean. This is all part of the Natural Law.

[uwot]

Be careful of using Jewish sources, like Freud, for any type of knowledge.

How about Jesus? Albert Einstein? Richard Feynman?

They all have a natural revulsion towards hierarchy. For the Jews, Hierarchy is a natural evil. For a European, hierarchy is normal.

I am a European, to us fighting hierarchy is normal. If that is because our civilization has been ruined by the Jews, hooray for the Jews. Some of us thought the best way to combat hierarchy is revolution, as in Britain, France, the USA, Russia and more recently the former Eastern Bloc. It is natural to work and sometimes fight to achieve the best that you can. Accepting your 'place' in a hierarchy is for losers. Lycurgus, Plato and Aristotle were aristocrats, they wanted to persuade the hard of thinking that people like them should have all the power and some fools believed them.

[Wyman]

Why does anti-semitism so often rattle around in the same heads as do numerology, mysticism and paranoia?

[Clinias]

The philosopher is supposed to read "nature". All things are by their nature. To know reality. All things have a particularity about them. Just like a farmer must know the difference between a Hereford and a Holsteing between a Quarter horse and a Morgan. Between a blood hound and a Jack Russel. Throughout nature, all things have a peculiar nature.

Karl Marx wanted to abolish the Family because it shows the division of function. He was an egalitarian, extreme. Moses Hess wanted to do away with all hierarchy in a society. Hierarchy is "oppresion". Kadmi Cohen wondered why his fellow kinsmen were so against hierarchy. There is a lot of material out there to support that. It is a philosopher's job to notice all things. It has nothing to do with anti-semitism, it is just the nature of the beast.

Philosophy is about the reading of nature--the physical cosmos, animal nature and human nature. It is all game.

[uwot]

The philosopher is supposed to read "nature". All things are by their nature. To know reality. All things have a particularity about them. Just like a farmer must know the difference between a Hereford and a Holsteing between a Quarter horse and a Morgan. Between a blood hound and a Jack Russel. Throughout nature, all things have a peculiar nature.

Each of those creatures that you mention is the product of mankind intervening in nature. Humans are no different to any other animal, in that they will exploit their environment, nature, to the best of their abilities. If you read nature, you will notice that the ones that do so successfully are more likely to attract a mate, a bit like Charles Darwin mentioned. Nature changes, some people are smart enough to adapt, others just whine about how things used to be.

Karl Marx wanted to abolish the Family because it shows the division of function.

There are much better scholars of Marx than me contributing to this forum, who could perhaps refute that. I simply ask you to cite the passage in which Marx actually says that. Having done that, you could then explain why that makes him typical, any more than the fact that Bob Dylan is a singer means all Jews are singers.

Moses Hess wanted to do away with all hierarchy in a society. Hierarchy is "oppresion". Kadmi Cohen wondered why his fellow kinsmen were so against hierarchy.

Hierarchy, when it is dynastic, means that the children of the rich and powerful go to schools that teach them to be rich and powerful, thereby perpetuating a situation in which people who might be better at wielding power don't get the opportunity. This is what Plato was trying to achieve in the Republic with the myth of gold, silver and iron souls. Apologists for Plato have argued that this makes him a meritocrat, to do so is to overlook the fact that philosopher kings were to interfere in the drawing of lots for mates, to ensure that the right sort of people didn't breed with the wrong sort. Whatever any Jews have against hierarchy, I'm sure some could support with a compelling argument.

Philosophy is about the reading of nature--the physical cosmos, animal nature and human nature. It is all game.

That is one way of looking at it, but only an idiot would take a snapshot of one small piece in one short time and assume it is true everywhere and forever.

[Gee]

Clinias;

Please consider my following thoughts and respond when you may.

I liked your post Gee.

Well, let's see what you think of this one. Since you are fairly new here, someone should warn you that moderators in this forum have a dim view of racial slurs. So if AMod, the Great God of To Be Or Not To Be, sees something that s/he perceives as a racial slur, s/he sometimes gets twitchy fingers, and the entire thread disappears, is gone, never to be seen again. So be careful.

I spent yesterday copying anything from this thread that was important to me into my home computer -- just in case.

I see that you have a problem with order. The Greek word "cosmos" means "ordered beauty".

But the "ordered beauty" was ordered by whom? Back when Bush Jr. was throwing out words like, New World Order, my daughter asked me why it irritated me so much. So I explained, "Have you ever seen anyone reorder something and put themselves anywhere but at the top?" Perspective is the problem of ordering things. Ordering things generally means, get in line -- behind me.

That Fall precedes winter everytime and follows summer is Order.

No. This is a cycle, it is not linear and has no hierarchy; all of the seasons are equally necessary to sustain the life in that area.

Order means two things hierarchy and repitition. This is what Nature teaches. Aristotle carries forward a Greek concept.

This is not what Nature teaches, and if it is true that Aristotle said so, then Aristotle corrupted the concept. Nature teaches interdependence, cycles, and balance.

Harmony is the combination of the high and the low. You have that in music. You have high tones and low tones. Music is produced by the play between them. You have to have the High and the Low. ---because this is how reality works.

A few high notes and a few low notes do not necessarily make music, and may produce screeching. There is a lot that is between the high and the low. Combining the high and the low to represent balance is too simplistic a concept and in no way describes the beauty and balance of Nature and reality.

The family showcases this. The father is of course stronger taller than women.

You did it again. You stated that the "father" is stronger than "women" -- not stronger than the "mother". Apparently being a "father" puts one above the entire female gender. Another Freudian slip? You are going to tick off a lot of people with comments like that.

He is more linear thinking.

I seriously doubt this and would ask for a reference. My studies indicate that linear thinking and holistic thinking are more related to culture than to gender.

Women are the weaker sex. But women do have their gifts and men have their gifts. Nature combines them.

If you are going to expect me to believe that you understand anything about Nature and balance, then you are going to have to state at least one of women's "gifts" other than her being "weaker". You might also want to state one of men's weaknesses -- just for balance. And yes, I will likely know if you are BSing, as this is an area that I have studied.

Another way to see this is that the Dorians combined the old and the young. Old have wisdom but not spirit but the young have spirit but no wisdom. They each have certain gifts. The Dorians combined them so that what was lacking in one was fulfilled in the other.

This makes sense to me. Every kid should have a Grandparent around; every Grandparent should have access to kids.

Hierarchy is normal. It is what Nature teaches. Equality only exists in kind. Only exists in the confines of the group.

This is exactly backward from what I think. Your view seems to represent an outsiders objective view of the different kinds and groups. I see hierarchy as existing within a kind or group, but equality is necessary between kinds and groups. For example, a buck will fight for mating privileges over another buck, but does not fight with the doe. In a wolf pack, the males have their own pecking order, but so do the females have their own pecking order. In both of these cases, the males and females are equally necessary, or the specie would die off and become extinct.

Reason is like dad. Yes, Reason is higher because as Socrates and Plato point out, it is Divine. It is the Divine spark.

But what if Dad is an idiot? (chuckle chuckle) So what you are talking about is reaching for the Divine, which is fine, but believing that you can succeed, or comparing yourself to the Divine is Idealism.

Appetites are lower. There is no equality. Animals share in our appetites. It is the animal nature to have appetites but animals, by their very reason as animals, don't have reason.

I can't agree with this. In the first place science is discovering that some animals may have the ability to reason. I also can see where the "appetites" could be equal in value to the study of philosophy. Consider that one can spend years studying philosophy without really reaching the Divine, but if they ignore their "appetites" and quit eating and drinking, they can personally reach the Divine in less than a month.

The whole point of philosophy is to perfect the Divine Nature in us. We are more like God when we use what we share with God. Part of philosophy is theosis.

So is it "The whole point" or is it "Part of philosophy"? This sounds like Idealism, so I suppose it would depend upon what one believes "God" is.

The Natural Law guides all things. Hierarchy is a Natural Law. It is how Reality works.

Hierarchy is a small part of Natural Law, and is motivated by "Want". "Want" is how Reality works. "Want" causes change which disrupts order and topples hierarchy. This happens in cycles, which are also an important part of Natural Law.

Be careful of using Jewish sources, like Freud, for any type of knowledge. They all have a natural revulsion towards hierarchy. For the Jews, Hierarchy is a natural evil. For a European, hierarchy is normal. There is such a thing as polylogicism.

Quick now, think of something that the Jewish sources have contributed to the world -- for the sake of balance.

In order to have balance, you have to have the high and the low. The High limits the low and the low limits the High. The Balance is the Golden Mean. This is all part of the Natural Law.

I have been studying consciousness for almost 50 years and can agree that it is all about balance. But when most people talk about balance, they talk about something that equals itself, like a teeter-totter or a scale. Reality does not work this way, because when a teeter-totter or scale is in balance, it stops.

Reality never stops so the balance of reality is never really equal; it is always in flux. Consciousness can not be seen or heard or touched, and is difficult to study, so I studied how it works. My conclusion was that consciousness is a "self-balancing chaos motivated by want in perpetual motion". This seems to be true of the smallest life forms, of our bodies, of our minds, and of ecosystems, so I think that it may be true. A physicist explained that it could also be used to describe the activity of photons and the activity of the universe, so I think that it may be true of all reality.

The ideas of Order and Hierarchy do not fit with constant change, so I doubt them.

G

[Wyman]

In order to have balance, you have to have the high and the low. The High limits the low and the low limits the High. The Balance is the Golden Mean. This is all part of the Natural Law.

The Golden Mean does not support your obsession with hierarchy. It is not the high balancing the low, but two extremes balancing each other. For instance, courage is the mean between cowardice and rashness. Rashness is not higher than cowardice, nor vice versa. They are both equally bad extremes. Aristotle advocates for a very pragmatic ethics, where if you have a natural tendency towards jumping in to things (rashness) then you should shoot towards pulling back (cowardice) and thereby habituate yourself towards the mean, which is a compromise. If you are naturally a coward and shy away from danger, then you should shoot for the other extreme. Nothing to do with hierarchy or the high ruling over the low.

uwot:

Although I agree with you and see your point, you are 'riding my friend too hard' - as Theodorus complained to Socrates' critique of Protagarus in the Theaetetus. That is, I have a soft spot for Plato and although I agree that your psychological critique of Plato's motivations for the Republic could very well be true, here is the other side of the argument.

What is good for the whole (a society or individual person, for instance), is not necessarily or always good for the individual parts (the appetites and desires, or the iron and bronze). For the good of the whole, it may be best to sacrifice or compromise some of the parts.

This creates grave moral issues when it comes to a recipe for society and government, which is what you're objecting to. But in the individual, sacrificing appetites and desires for the good of the whole does not create such issues, because the parts of our 'self' do not have moral standing. The stated aim of creating the Republic is to analogize justice in society to justice in the individual. Whether Plato really advocated for such a society is subject to debate.

But let's suppose he did so advocate:

The more the 'whole' - here meaning society - is at risk of destruction, the more tolerance there is for sacrificing the liberties of the individual for the good of the whole. That is why armies are not liberal democracies. The city-states of Greece were at constant risk of destruction and enslavement at the hands of their neighbors. Thus, if Plato did fancy his brainchild for how a city state ought to be run, it may not have been only his place in the aristocracy that supplied psychological motivation, but also the much different and tenuous circumstances in which he and his fellow Athenians lived.