What does Plato think philosophy is?

answers1: "...Socrates argued that people cannot understand the world
until they use rational thought to understand the true nature of
themselves [12]. Socrates was a mind-body dualist, this means that he
thought that the mind is composed of a different substance to the
brain, one that does not obey the same physical laws. The argument
that the mind is made of a substance which does obey the laws of
physics is known as Physicalism or materialism. <br>
<br>
Socrates believed that the mind has an irrational part which is
controlled by emotions and this is drawn to the body. Once the mind
and body merge, the mind is limited by what we are able to perceive
with our senses. The rational part of our mind mostly remains beyond
our conscious knowledge, however Socrates believed that it is the job
of philosophers to connect to the rational mind in order to become a
whole person. Once this is achieved, a rational person will see things
for what they really are. <br>
<br>
Socrates' pupil, Plato, elaborated upon this theory in The Republic,
where he described how the things we perceive on Earth are really
composed of ideas, or Forms [13]. A Form is an eternal and perfect
concept, something which is strived for but never actualised. All
horses, for example, are united by the concept of 'horse', an ideal
which all horses on Earth were built to resemble. But it is not just
physical objects that have Forms. Forms also apply to abstract
concepts such as beauty. Plato argued that all of the Forms exist
outside of the realm of regular perception, in the 'realm of the
Forms'. <br>
<br>
Plato did not trust sensory information because we can confuse reality
with the imagination, the most extreme cases happen when we dream or
hallucinate but this also occurs when we confuse one object for
another. Plato argued that we are often presented with illusions of
this kind, a stick, for example, can appear bent in water, yet when we
pick it up we will find that it is straight. Things are not always
what they seem and we are not always aware that we are making these
mistakes. Plato praised mathematics as one of the only forms of true
knowledge and disliked art because he thought that we distort our
perception even further when we attempt to copy an imperfect image.
<br>
<br>
Plato's simile of the cave describes how we are analogous to people
who spend their lives looking only at shadows. These people will come
to believe that only shadows exist and when someone tells them of the
world of light above they do not believe them. Plato argued that it
takes a philosopher to leave the cave and see the world as it truly
is. Like Socrates, Plato believed this could only be achieved through
rational introspection. <br>
<br>
Socrates and Plato's belief in the soul came from the need to explain
human intellect, animals do not possess anything similar and it could
not be explained mechanically. The Forms explain how the mind
interprets the continuous stream of sensory data it is exposed to by
recognising certain, eternal concepts. If our intellect is composed of
Forms, then it is eternal and distinct from the body. Plato did not
believe that the mind exists in time or space and thought that it
would return to the Realm of the Forms upon death. <br>
<br>
Plato set up an academy for men to learn philosophy and one of its
pupils was Aristotle, who was born in 384 BC. Aristotle rejected many
of Plato's theories including rationalism, he argued that the mind
does not have innate ideas and compared it to an unscribed tablet, a
'tabula rasa' [15]. Aristotle rejected Plato's realm of the Forms,
arguing that the Forms are concepts devised by men to categorise
things. Aristotle argued that the soul was a part of the human body
and so also rejected dualism. He did however, believe that intellect
was different from any other part of the body as our conscious range
is not restricted in the way that our physical senses are. Aristotle
argued that intellect does not have a corresponding bodily organ. This
means that it does not exist in space, despite having a physical
origin..." <br>
<br>
http://www.thestargarden.co.uk/FirstScience.html
answers2: let me check in books.
answers3: He thinks philosophy is a lot of things; (training for
death; pursuing wisdom; grasping the world of the forms/ideas; a
"passed torch"); but only talks about the "true philosophy", mostly
employing Socrates as an exemplary philosopher to describe the "true
philosophy", rather than to actually define philosophy as you request
above. Why wouldn't Plato actually define this "true philosophy"? He
tells you why, quote <br>
<br>
PLATO: <br>
Thus much at least, I can say about all writers, past or future, who
say they know the things to which I devote myself, whether by hearing
the teaching of me or of others, or by their own discoveries-that
according to my view it is not possible for them to have any real
skill in the matter. There neither is nor ever will be a treatise of
mine on the subject. For it does not admit of exposition like other
branches of knowledge; but after much converse about the matter itself
and a life lived together, suddenly a light, as it were, is kindled in
one soul by a flame that leaps to it from another, and thereafter
sustains itself. Yet this much I know-that if the things were written
or put into words, it would be done best by me, and that, if they were
written badly, I should be the person most pained. Again, if they had
appeared to me to admit adequately of writing and exposition, what
task in life could I have performed nobler than this, to write what is
of great service to mankind and to bring the nature of things into the
light for all to see? But I do not think it a good thing for men that
there should be a disquisition, as it is called, on this topic-except
for some few, who are able with a little teaching to find it out for
themselves. As for the rest, it would fill some of them quite
illogically with a mistaken feeling of contempt, and others with lofty
and vain-glorious expectations, as though they had learnt something
high and mighty. <br>
<br>
On this point I intend to speak a little more at length; for perhaps,
when I have done so, things will be clearer with regard to my present
subject. There is an argument which holds good against the man
ventures to put anything whatever into writing on questions of this
nature; it has often before been stated by me, and it seems suitable
to the present occasion. <br>
<br>
For everything that exists there are three instruments by which the
knowledge of it is necessarily imparted; fourth, there is the
knowledge itself, and, as fifth, we must count the thing itself which
is known and truly exists. The first is the name, the, second the
definition, the third. the image, and the fourth the knowledge. If you
wish to learn what I mean, take these in the case of one instance, and
so understand them in the case of all. A circle is a thing spoken of,
and its name is that very word which we have just uttered. The second
thing belonging to it is its definition, made up names and verbal
forms. For that which has the name "round," "annular," or, "circle,"
might be defined as that which has the distance from its circumference
to its centre everywhere equal. Third, comes that which is drawn and
rubbed out again, or turned on a lathe and broken up-none of which
things can happen to the circle itself-to which the other things,
mentioned have reference; for it is something of a different order
from them. Fourth, comes knowledge, intelligence and right opinion
about these things. Under this one head we must group everything which
has its existence, not in words nor in bodily shapes, but in
souls-from which it is dear that it is something different from the
nature of the circle itself and from the three things mentioned
before. Of these things intelligence comes closest in kinship and
likeness to the fifth, and the others are farther distant. <br>
<br>
The same applies ... (snip)... For this reason no man of intelligence
will venture to express his philosophical views in language,
especially not in language that is unchangeable, which is true of that
which is set down in written characters. [Plato 7th Letter; 341b -
343a] <br>
<br>
In other words if Plato defined "the philosopher" or "philosophy" that
would be a 2nd level or very low level of understanding of the word at
about 3 removes from the "true philosophy itself", which he refuses to
put into writing, for the above stated reasons. That is why he
founded an "Academy" so that he could personally "pass the torch" of
"true philosophy" on to other personal initiates. <br>
<br>
Kevin
answers4: The method wherein the tale of Atlantis is written makes it
transparent that it was once now not intended to be truly. The concept
that the Greeks traced any form of civilisation again to nine,six
hundred BC (roughly) is under no circumstances intended to be a truly
date; even the legendary groundwork studies of towns do not date again
so much past a thousand BC. As such, it's completely external the
authentic global because the Greeks knew it, facet of the legendary
global of tale. It is used as a philosophical allegory; attributing
the tale to Solon is a typical trope of Athenians seeking to deliver
the which means in their stories bigger respectability. Critias might
good be an incomplete textual content, which means it's some distance
from transparent what its over-arching which means was once intended
to be, however this doesn't imply that the instantaneous context isn't
especially transparent. People - good, people who take greater than a
superficial curiosity, a minimum of - don't suppose that Socrates'
conversations as recorded always occurred. It is the message inside
them that's huge, now not the element of the tale itself.