[MD] Plato's Good

[118]

Hi Dr. Ant,

On 5/11/12, Ant McWatt <antmcwatt at hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> 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”.

Ant, of course they cannot be the same thing since neither of them are
anything at all, remember?  I am speaking of the concepts of each.  No
two concepts are ever entirely the same, and you know that.  So, I am
not shifting my argument one bit; that you would think so would imply
that you think Quality is some thing.  If this is true, then you need
to begin at the beginning.
>
> 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.)

Yes, but here you are speaking of modes of investigation, not about
concepts.  I am fully aware of the dialectic v rhetoric debate.  It
would seem that many in this forum are not since they claim to be
speaking truths which can come from discussion.  I have never claimed
such a thing.  I am not the one saying that somebody is "wrong" or
"right" about something.  Others are doing this.  Either somebody is
convincing or unconvincing.  Perhaps you do not understand the
dialectic v rhetoric argument.  Or if you do, it does not come out in
your writings.  You are full of dialectical truisms as shine through
in this very response of yours.  Drop that load, dude.
>
> 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.

No Ant, Plato does not imply that.  Through Socrates, Plato states
that the Good cannot be known (sound familiar?).  This is very
different from what you think he is stating.  It is what creates form;
it is the form of form.  Perhaps you have not read the appropriate
discussion that Plato writes about.  If so, show me where Plato states
that The Form of the Good is a static template.  It was after Plato
that it became so.  We can say that it began with Plato, but it was
done subsequent to him.  Plato was much too smart for that kind of
nonsense.

I am not sure how you are using the word "understood" there.  What
exactly does non-verbal experience create?  Please explain.  Are you
speaking of "Knowing" as opposed to knowledge?  Are you saying that
knowledge is not a form of Knowing.  Or are you saying that knowledge
is created but cannot be transmitted, so each person must create their
own knowledge from this "non verbal" area?  You are confusing me here.
 Try an analogy.
>
> 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.


I see nowhere in the paragraph above that your assertions are
confirmed except you saying that they are.  Remember, I am a
scientist, not a gossip columnist.

Ant, I am not quite sure how you are interpreting this myth.  Yes, the
sun is the Good, the sun is also Quality in this analogy (myth).  Are
you saying that Pirsig has not "seen" Quality?  How could he write
about it then?  The shadows can be considered words.  Words are not
the real things, but only their shadows.  However, there is a tendency
to mistake appearances for reality.  Does this not sound like Pirsig?
Besides, it is just a metaphor, do you think prisoners are really
chained.  I would not say that Pirsig was chained and then became
free.  I would say he explored beneath the surface of the water.

Of course there is a cave and prisoners in Pirsig's MoQ.  Again, this
is just a metaphor.  The cave is the Western manner of looking at
reality as superficial and disjointed by subjects and objects.  The
prisoners are the many people who cannot see through the triviality of
words. There are those who grab onto concepts such as "Freedom" as if
they were real things and then die for them.  Or those who die for
some projected leader who is telling them what to do in their prayers.
 Those are the prisoners, in exactly the same way Plato meant it.
They cannot see beyond the world of appearances, beyond Maya.
>
>
> 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?
>
I am not going to spend my time going through the Republic again but
here are a few quotes from Great Googlie Mooglie.  (Remember that
Plato speaks through Socrates.  It is like one of those ventriloquist
acts.  "So, Socrates, what do you have to say about Good?"  Hand goes
up and down, mouth starts to move, wrist flexes around spazmodically,
and with an almost imperceptible movement of Plato's mouth, the
puppett says "Quack, Quack, Quack)).
"Plato writes that the Form (or Idea) of the Good is the ultimate
object of knowledge, although it is not knowledge itself, and from the
Good, things that are just gain their usefulness and value."

"...the Good makes all other universals intelligible, and in some
sense provides being to all other Forms, though the Good itself
exceeds being." -ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_of_the_Good

The Good therefore may be said to be the source not only of the
intelligibility of the objects of knowledge, but also of their
existence and reality; yet it is not itself identical with reality,
but is beyond reality, and superior to it in dignity and power.
[508e-509b, Lee translation, p.273.]

"The form of good in particular is described as something of a mystery
whose real nature is elusive and as yet unknown (Republic)."
-http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato/

And somewhere I read that Plato wrote that in order to know the Good,
one must do the Good.  This does not sound at all static to me.  Now
it is your turn to show me where Plato says the Good can be defined.
>
> 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.

OK, you know more about this than me.  All I read was that he rejected
Plato's theory of Form (what do you expect from a son-in-law), as did
Aristotle.
>
>
> 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…”

Well Ant, tell me how something that comes before subject and object
can change as is the case with the Good.  Just like Quality it does
not even exist within time, only objects do.  What has actually
changed about Quality?  All we can see is what has changed in the
objective world.  You seem to be referring to Quality as some growing
animal rather than a source.  What I meant by static, is that it fits
within the confines of SQ.  Please show me how it does.  You can say
that Plato defines Good, but in order to bolster your argument, should
you not show me where?>
>
>
> -----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!

Ant.  Is this your evasive answer?  Come on; let's show a little
intellect here.  If one understands something, one can explain it to a
layman. Or perhaps you are saying there is nothing to understand.  If
so, what is MoQ all about?

We experience Everything non verbally until we make words for it.
This does not seem to provide an explanation for Quality.

Experience IS the Good.  Using words IS the Good.  It is impossible to
separate ourselves from Quality.  We are just under the illusion that
we are separate.  The effort is in realizing this.  This is Zen.
There is not something separate from us which is The Good or Quality.
This is a misguided idea of Quality.  We exude Quality.  Quality is
all that one can see and feel and taste and hear.  They are all
qualities which make up Quality.  Coming out of the cave means to
“realize this”.  It means to stop looking at shadows as if they were
the only thing.  Any subject/object separation is an incomplete
paradigm.  You know this!  Don’t pretend like Quality is some kind of
objective God.  There is nothing to experience the Good, it is all
Good.  Don’t set up a false dialectic.  DQ and SQ are rhetoric, they
do not really exist.  They are tools for showing what does exist.
Don’t get stuck in all the words, they are just words.

Ant, have you ever thought about what Quality is?

Faithfully yours,
Mark
>  		 	   		
> 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
>