What do you think of Plato?

[narrowpath]

Just a question for anyone out there. I am reading some of his books and think that certain theories (this world is an imperfect version of a perfect realm) can almost be considered christian. Also, Socrates. Peter Kreeft is influenced by him and has said many times he would be surprised not to see him in heaven.

 

[Sam_Maloney]

I think that what I think doesn’t really matter: he’s been considered one of mankinds greatest minds for nearly 2500 years.

Surely you wouldn’t give up your studies due to any criticism your likely to encounter in an online forum.

 

[Greg27]

Plato is a very great philosopher. There were other minds equal to his, but unfortunately we have lost their works (Epicurus, Democritus, and Heraclitus for example).

 

[Katholish]

Plato was an astounding advancement over the theories that had been present in Greek Philosophy before his time. He was certainly closer to truth than many philosophers operating without the guide of revelation. However, Plato’s philsophy is generally incorrect in most areas (although more correct than many other theories). Many Catholic philosophers and theologians have tried to work with his theories as much as possible and take whatever was good from them, but it has been proven to be a dangerous exercise, even for great saints like St. Augustine.

The real master of philosophy in the ancient world is Plato’s student, Aristotle. The improvements and corrections that Aristotle made to Plato’s efforts are astounding, and Aristotle was ultimately correct on the vast majority of his theories and systems of logical progression. St. Thomas Aquinas, who is the Catholic Church’s pre-eminent philsopher (as stated by many popes and made into official policy by Pope Leo XIII) is essentially just adapting Aristotle to Christian revelation.

Plato is certainly worth reading. As has been stated, he is one of the most influential philosophers in history, but as a Catholic, I would advise caution in accepting his conclusions. Aristotle is a much safer read, and is even ultimately more influential for Catholic philsophy and theology than Plato is.

 

[OriginalJS]

Katholisch, I have read some of Aristotle’s works, or at least works attributed to him. In viewing his extensive pronouncements on everything from medicine to poetry and rhetoric, it strikes me as impossible for one man to have a grasp of so many subjects. I think it is possible, if not probable, that much that is attributed to Aristotle may have been passed down in oral tradition or in works that have since been lost and was not his original work. ( I don’t mean this to detract from the value of the works.) Do you think this is possible or likely?

 

[Katholish]

Quite Frankly, I share your amazement at the possibility that one man could have been so exceptionally gifted with insight into the natural world.

Aristotle is one of the world’s greatest anomalies. However, from a historical point of view, I am not aware of any reason to question Aristotle’s authorship of the work ascribed to him. We have a large amount of corroborating evidence regarding Aristotle as a historical person, given that he lived in the late Golden Age of Greek culture. Also, the stability provided by the Roman Empire (both before and after the fall of the Western half), meant that Greek philosophical works were well preserved in the East.

Regarding Aristotle’s works though, it is important to remember that Aristotle didn’t sit down and write as Plato did, rather his works (in so far as I am aware) are primarily the class notes from his lectures–which explains why they are sometimes difficult to read unlike Platonic dialogues that are more reader-friendly. (which is my I like to get my Aristotle as digested by St. Thomas).