[MD] Plato's Good

[Ant McWatt]

Mark Smit stated May 8th:

The reasons I say that "The Form of the Good" and Pirsig's Quality
are similar are various.  

 
> 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:

Firstly, Mark, I notice you’re shifting your argument here, from
asserting that “Plato’s ‘Good’ is the same thing as Pirsig's Quality” to the
weaker contention that "’The Form of the Good’ and Pirsig's Quality are similar”.

I know they’re similar; at least on face value.  However, Plato thinks dialectic is the best
way to understand the Good while Pirsig thinks dialectical reasoning obstructs
such an understanding.  This is why Pirsig brings up the example of even a baby knowing the 
distinction between good and bad.  Of feeling comfortable or uncomfortable.  (Empirical 
observation of handling a healthy child for any period of time shows that this is the case.)

By stating that the Good is an idea, Plato gives the impression that in the World of Forms, 
the static “template” of the Good can be found.  Conversely, Pirsig asserts that
the Good can only be understood essentially through direct non-verbal experience
hence why a baby can understand the Good even before it can string a few words
together.

If we take a look at Book VII of the “Republic” (and assume the English translators have 
got it largely right – I’m using Desmond Lee’s translation found in the 1974 Penguin Classics 
Edition here), we see that my assertions above are confirmed. Plato is saying in his analogy 
of the Sun with the Good, that non-philosophers are akin to the prisoners of the cave (who, of
course, see only the shadows thrown by the fire behind them) and that it is
only the philosopher who has managed to become unchained and ventured out; that
can see the sun/the Good directly.  In Pirsig’s MOQ, there’s no cave and no prisoners. 


Mark Smit continued:

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).  

Ant McWatt comments:

In the “Republic”, Plato says that the Good can be defined.  In which Dialogue did Socrates/Plato state
otherwise?

 
Mark Smit continued:

Therefore it is far from static.  It was Speusippus who rejected the idea of Form… 

Ant McWatt comments:

A near contemporary of Plato, Laertius Diogenes (the writer of the “Lives
and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers”), implies otherwise.  Moreover, there’s 
so little surviving of what Speusippus wrote to know with any certainty what he thought.  

 
Mark Smit continued:

…(followed by the Devil Aristotle).  In your
own words, why would you say that The Form of the Good is Static?

Ant McWatt comments:

Because, Plato’s theory of the Forms assumes the Forms are
perfect.  If they’re perfect then they don’t change.  It’s only the world of
appearances (or Shadows) that does change.  You also seem to agree with this 
(to quote you from a sentence from later on in your post):

“According to Plato's theory of Form, The Good is always the same…”



-----CUT-----



Perhaps we have a different understanding of Quality.  In a few
sentences, how would you explain Quality to somebody?  

Ant McWatt says:

Well, I agree with Pirsig in that the Good’s essential nature
can only be experienced non-verbally.  However, if you think differently, 
no doubt you can let me know “In a few sentences, how would you explain 
Quality to somebody?” with ease!  

Best wishes,

Ant

 

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
>




.