[MD] Plato's Good

[118]

Hi Ant,
Yes, I have read the Republic dialogue.  I read a number of Plato's
writings after I read ZAMM many years ago.  These were topics for
discussion in a class I had that brought Pirsig into the dialogue
(ZAMM was popular at the time).

I would like to know more about what forms the basis for your opinion.
 Simply saying that Pirsig says it is insufficient.  We have other
literature at our disposal.

The reasons I say that "The Form of the Good" and Pirsig's Quality are
similar are various.  As you know, Plato believed that the highest
achievement for man was in terms of Arete (excelence).  I will provide
some arguments below for your rebuttle.  I can provide references, but
a simple Google will give you what you want on that score.

Neither Quality or Good are definable.  That is, both exist outside of
the intellect's ability to encompass with words.  In fact Plato cannot
define it (or at least his protagonist Socrates is said to have said
this).  Therefore it is far from static.  It was Speusippus who
rejected the idea of Form (followed by the Devil Aristotle).  In your
own words, why would you say that The Form of the Good is Static?

The Form of the Good, was also known as "the One".  This Form is the
basis for all other forms.  As such, it is the fabric of "being" but
transcends being (The Form of forms).  According to Plato,
understanding the Form of the Good makes one a philosopher king,
implying its fundamental nature.   Again, let me stress that this Form
is not of the static variety.  Doesn't this sound like Quality to you?
 If value comes before subject and object, wouldn't that fit with the
Form of the Good?

In Plato's (or was it Socrates'...) simile using the sun to represent
the Good, it sounds like he is speaking of Quality. That is, the sun
comes before our being able to see (understand).  This would also put
it out of the static world as it comes before our ability to create
the static.

According to Plato's theory of Form, The Good is always the same and
not a bunch of little personal "goods" (sound like Quality?).  This is
the resolution to the argument that if everybody has a different sense
of quality, how can Quality be one and the same?

As you know, Aristotle criticized Plato's theory of Form.  This is why
I place the wrong turn of the West squarely in the lap of Aristotle
not Plato.  It was Aristotle who claimed that everything must be
explained in static terminology.  That there could not be anything
meaningful in metaphysics beyond the static.

Perhaps we have a different understanding of Quality.  In a few
sentences, how would you explain Quality to somebody?  If I understand
where you are coming from, then I am sure we probably agree more than
not.

Regards,
Mark

On 5/8/12, Ant McWatt <antmcwatt at hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Mark Smit stated May 7th 2012:
>
> Ant, tell me what the problem with Plato was.  His "Good"
> is the same thing as Pirsig's Quality.
>
>
> Ant McWatt comments:
>
> Well Mark,
>
> Not according to Pirsig they're not.  I don't know whether you really
> believe this statement of yours or just haven't read the material in
> question            but (to paraphrase) Pirsig states that his Quality is
> fundamentally Dynamic and indefinable while Plato's Good is a static Form
> that (supposedly) can be defined.  Plato's "Republic" refers to the Good in
> a couple of places and what he says here does tend to support Pirsig's
> view.  In my honest opinion.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ant
>
>
>
> .
>
>
>
>  		 	   		
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>