Another Term Paper

This last term I wrote on Platonic Epistemology and like such stuff that was nearly incomprehensible to me. Epistemology is one of my favorite topics, but I stepped in pretty deep with Plato. What I came out with is more or less and introductory exploration of the topic, and probably not the polished term paper my grader was looking for (oh well). This paper proved to be probably the most interesting and valuable paper to myself I have wrote. It was not that I emerged on the other side with clarity, wisdom, and a consise presentation. Rather, studing for and writing this paper showed me how little I knew about the topic. It reopened old problems that had been scabed over by half-sufficient answers. It taught me how humble my own understanding is. Most importantly, I believe, I learned that this is an erea that I want to invest with much further thought. So please enjoy the messy conclusions of an amuture, who thoroughly enjoyed his first romp into foreign teritory. If you find either the lack of professionalism or the dryness of subject matter a hindorance to enjoy the article, by all means do not read it. One click of the mouse will wisk you away to some other more interesting find.

The Pursuit of Truth;
Platonic Problems and Biblical Answers

“For the foolishness of God is wiser than men”[1]

There is likely no other philosophical system, nor any other philosopher that has influenced the history of western thought more than Platonism and Plato has. This influence does not extend over just the secular world, but has influenced Christian thought throughout the ages. From Augustine, to C. S. Lewis, to preachers and academics today, Plato’s ideas have been formative. Although some of his ideas provide useful methods of understanding, others are incompatible with a Christian worldview. It is important, then, to critically examine, compare, and test Plato by the Bible. His understanding of knowledge, an important doctrine for him, is a good starting place to conduct this examination.
Before any Biblically informed criticism of Platonic philosophy can be commenced it is necessary to state the obvious and the striking. The obvious fact is that nearly all bodies of thought contain a mixture of truth and falsehood. Therefore systematic and categorical rejections of whole schools of thinking without critical examination and dialogue are simply impermissible. Plato offers helpful perspectives and useful insights as well as some ideas that should be discarded. The most fundamental fact of Plato’s epistemology falls under the striking. Nicholas White states:

“The fundamental fact about Plato’s theory of knowledge, from the beginning of his career to the end, is his conviction that there are matters of fact in the world, in some sense independent of our ideas and judgments, about which these ideas and judgments may be correct or incorrect.”[2]

So also Copleston: “Plato accepts from Protagoras the belief in the relativity of sense and sense-perception, but he will not accept a universal relativism.”[3] This should come across as a cool spring breeze in the twenty-first century when ‘universal’ relativism is in vogue. Christian thought should avail itselfs of a strong ally in the defense of a universal truth, the same for all men, for all times. Plato’s unrelenting pursuit and brutally critical examinations of his ideas in order to truly know this universal Truth is admirable and should serve as a pattern for those pursuing God. Augustine was particularly influenced by this Platonic zeal to seek after the truth. He writes that he was “learning from them (Platonists) to seek for immaterial truth.”[4] Augustine was also right when he wrote:
“And I had come to you from the Gentiles and fixed my attention on the gold which you willed your people to take from Egypt, since the gold was yours, wherever it was.”[5]

This, however, does not justify a wholesale acceptance of Platonic philosophy, nor even Platonic epistemology. Plato’s methods of getting universal knowledge and his ultimate goal leave much lacking.
Knowing these universal truths became the greatest quest for Plato in his writing and life. What made his quest a lifelong journey was his belief that real truth is found only in the immutable and unchanging. Only knowledge about these universal truths is real knowledge for Plato.

“Knowledge must be knowledge of eternal values which are not subjective to the shifting and changing impressions of sense or of subjective opinion, but are the same for all men and for all peoples and all ages.”[6]

So knowledge must be universal and immutable, and henceforth knowledge cannot be learned by the senses or physical perception. Plato does not believe in the empirical method; examining the raw materials of the world will not end in the discovery of true knowledge. Rather Plato describes the role of philosophy:

“Then when does the soul attain truth? —for in attempting to consider anything in company with the body she is obviously deceived.
Yes, that is true.
Then must not existence be revealed to her in thought, if at all?
Yes
And thought is best when the mind is gathered into herself and none of these things trouble her—neither sounds nor sights nor pain nor any pleasure—when she has as little as possible to do with the body, and has no bodily sense of feeling, but is aspiring after being?”[7]

For Plato physical feelings have nothing to do with finding truth. To be ethically normative truth must be rooted in absolute, unchanging truth.[8] This, in Plato’s ontology is essentially opposed to the change of the sensory world. The price was too much to pay, and he stuck by his rigid realism.[9]
This does not mean that there is no way to know or perceive knowledge. Rather Plato established a hierarchy of knowledge. For sure one could know or recognize things in this physical world. However this knowing of sorts is not nearly on the same level as knowledge based on the universals. This lower level of ‘knowing’ Plato labels do,xa (opinion) and true knowledge he labels evpisth,mh.[10] He labels the occupations that deal with do,xa as pandering and those that deal with evpisth,mh as the true sciences passim Gorgias. For example, politicians are panderers, while philosophers practice a real art (science), for they deal with truth. So while there is a faith that works in the world all over, it does not touch serious matters of truth and therefore has little force upon ethics. The philosopher is always better off and better qualified to serve in the community because his knowledge goes back to universals.
The main problem for Plato’s theory of transcendental truth was how man could ever know it, because it transcended perception. Plato devoted space in most of his dialogues to wrestle with this problem.[11] The main answer was Plato’s theory of Forms. Basically, this theory states that all objects in the sensory world are shadows or replications of the ideal form. A circle, for example, is a copy of the idea of circle, and from this idea or form comes its circular nature. It becomes a circle not because of its relation to other examples of circles, but because of its connection to the idea of circle. With the idea of the form Plato could preserve his ideal that truth is independent of human judgments. He also attempted to show with this idea that true knowledge is attainable.[12] This was Plato’s answer to bridge the gap between the particular and the abstract. For through the particulars the form could be seen. Yet this did not solve his problem completely. The journey from the particular to the form could still not be rationally described. A mystical process describes the transition that still has to be made. [13] Neither does Plato fully deal with the change and mutability of language. He refrains from using complex and unstable terms, and sticks to basic and fairly stable terminology.[14]
Plato’s answer comes partly in the nature of the soul. Man contains a microcosm of the idea of form and copy. The soul is connected to the form, and the body to the copy. The answer to how man can comprehend transcendent universals lies in the human soul itself. “The soul is the very likeness of the divine, and immortal, and intelligible, and uniform, and indissoluble, and unchangeable.”[15] As Crombie put it: “The human soul is essentially a pure intelligence.”[16] The key for Plato was that the soul was a part, in some small way, of the nature of the forms. The reason most people have nearly no knowledge of the forms and the best have an imperfect understanding is because of the body. The soul is enslaved to the body and its sensual experience.[17] The aim of philosophy is to be free from the body: “Would you not say that he [the philosopher] is entirely concerned with the soul and not with the body? He would like, as far as he can, to be quit of the body and turn to the soul.”[18] The final achievement of the philosopher toward discovering truth is when his body is finally free from the body at death. The means of knowing truth during life is not through learning rational steps, but comes in remembering knowledge from before the soul was enslaved to the flesh.
The problem still remains, though, of relating the ideal to the actual world. Even if the soul can reach up and find the ideal forms, how can these be brought back and applied ethically (for Plato is concerned about ethics). Plato’s staunchly refuses to place final meaning (evpisth,mh) in any particulars. His search for definitions is always a quest for the final abstraction. In Euthyphro, for example, Plato will not accept any particulars as even a working definition. He must have an abstract definition, which is part or dependent upon nothing else, and in Euthyphro he does not find any conclusive answer. The same pattern follows in other dialogues.[19] Yet the more abstract a statement is the less it tells one about more objects. The most abstract statements of all tell us nearly nothing about particulars.[20] How then does one take these abstract truths and apply them to ethical situations in particular situations in life? Plato does not particularly accept even a heuristic understanding of particular, sensory knowledge as a bridge to reaching the forms. The scientific process used today is not the Platonic method. Rather Plato argues that one must start with the form in order to truly understand something.[21]
In Christian systems epistemology is a separate field of study from the doctrines of salvation. Yet, in the Platonic system there is no such clear-cut distinction. Plato speaks of those who are enslaved to their bodies and ignorant of the forms.[22] Yet how does one switch allegiance from body to soul? The answer for Plato is the same as the end: knowledge. Plato speaks of rescuing the soul from the passions of the body, and says it “can be attained only by philosophy.”[23] Elsewhere he speaks of knowledge producing righteous behavior:
Socrates: Then by the same reckoning a man who has learnt about right will be righteous?
Gorgias: Unquestionably.[24]

So also comments Ross: “By knowledge of what virtue is, and by that alone, men can become truly virtuous.[25] The chief salvific agent for Plato was his philosophy. Platonic salvation hangs on a slender thread of hope.
As mentioned above, Plato is in line with a Biblical understanding of epistemology when he rejects a universal relativism. He is still singing in tune when he embraces an objective reality independent from human judgment. Plato is even right when he claims that there is a final, unchanging definition of good and beauty. God is that final, transcendental authority. He is independent of human judgment. Yet, He is so much more than this. He is not impersonal, like Plato’s ideals, but is very personal.
God is clearly upheld as the great transcendent majesty of the Bible, yet what makes Christianity so distinct from Platonic philosophy is God’s immanence—His personal involvement in the physical world. God not only is the sovereign ruler default, but also makes this known to mankind. That is, not to some people, but he reveals himself to all people through creation. God speaks to people directly through language, he testifies about Himself in his interactions with His own people, he speaks to people and gives them words (scripture) to write down, and ultimately comes himself into the world to testify to the Truth.
Not only does God reveal himself to mankind, but also he readily chooses to use methods of knowledge that are accessible to men. “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.”[26] Knowing God through physical means is not a less valuable knowledge. It will most likely not be the final means of knowing God, but it is adequate to reach Him. It is indeed the only way that one can know God. It is true that God cannot be fully known; there will always be a part of God that is beyond comprehension. Yet the knowledge God has revealed is adequate to know God and to live purposeful lives on earth.[27] God’s greatest act epistemological grace was in sending His son. “I am the way, and the truth, and the life,”[28] Jesus said while on earth. Also “whoever has seen me has seen the Father.”[29] The Father is the essence of truth and beauty, and Jesus tells us that one can see the Father through Himself. John also testifies later to the revelation of God being seen with eyes, heard with ears, and touched with hands.[30] These sensory methods of knowledge John sees as validating the truth of God.
So sensory, particular, and incomplete knowledge is valid because God reveals himself through it. The nature of progressive revelation also shows God willing to working through incomplete knowledge to accomplish His purposes and save men. The Christian, then, is freed to use incomplete, particular knowledge because He trusts in God.
The problem in knowing true life, however, is not just that man is ignorant, as Plato would say. All men truly know of God: “For what can be known about God s plain to them, because God has shown it to them.[31] The problem is that man has rebelled against God and has no desires to obey him at all.[32] Simple knowledge is not the answer; the answer is God’s free grace mediated through the gospel.
One final problem with Platonic salvation is that in the end it is autonomous. It leads to pride, because knowledge is self-procured, and it leaves little hope, because the body will be lost. When the body leaves at death the soul may ascend to godhood, but the individual is lost. The Bible speaks rather of a transformation of the person. It offers redemption for the whole person: body and soul. God saves people partly by changing their desire for their own praise to a desire for His praise. Platonic knowledge stands in the way of this. Rather than wisdom, God chose “through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.”[33] This is wise because it removes any reason for the believer to boast in himself, and gives the believer every reason to boast in Christ.
It should be observed that there are similarities and distinctions between Platonic knowledge and the saving knowledge of the Bible. Not only does Platonic philosophy not form a clean union with the Bible, it fails to answer some of the same questions as well as the Bible does. More fundamentally important, it does not contain the salvific hope of the gospel. Augustine remarks that he found the great transcendent vision of Truth or God in Platonic writing, but He did not find “the Word became flesh.”[34]
“None of this is in the Platonist Books…your sacrifice…the salvation of your people, the espoused city, the guarantee of your Holy Spirit, the cup of our redemption. In the Platonic books no one sings: ‘Surely my soul will be submissive to God? From Him is my salvation; he is also my God and my savior who upholds me.’”[35]

[1] 1 Corinthians 1:25, all Scripture quotations in ESV.
[2]Nicholas White, Plato on Knowledge and Reality (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1976), xiii.
[3] Frederick Copleston, S.J., A History of philosophy: Vol. 1, Greece and Rome (Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1946), 149.
[4] Augustine, Confessions 7.26.
[5] Ibid., 10.15, emphasis mine.
[6] Copleston, A History of Philosophy, 143
[7] Plato, “Phaedo,” in The Trial and Death of Socrates, Benjamin Jowett, trans. (New York: Dover Publications), 62-63.
[8] See Copleston, A History of Philosophy.
[9] White, Plato on Knowledge and Reality, xii, 217
[10] Copleston, A History of Philosophy, 151-55.
[11] White, Plato on Knowledge and Reality, 217f.
[12] See Copleston, A History of Philosophy.
[13] G. M. A. Grube, Plato’s Thought (Boston: Beacon Press, 1958), 16.
[14] White, Plato on Knowledge and Reality, 223-24.
[15] Plato, Trial, 79.
[16] I. M. Crombie, An Examination of Plato’s Doctrines (New York: Humanities Press, 1962), 1:100.
[17] Plato, Trial, 79.
[18] Ibid., 62.
[19] E.g. Gorgias in the question of what is true art and what is the happiest state of the soul.
[20] John Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Phillpsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1987), 178-190.
[21] White, Plato on Knowledge and Reality, 225-28.
[22] Plato, Trial, 80.
[23] Ibid., 80.
[24] Plato, Walter Hamilton, trans., Gorgias (New York: Penguin, 1960), 39. See also footnote at page 39.
[25] Sir David Ross, Plato’s Theory of Ideas (London: Oxford University Press,1951), 12.
[26] Romans 1:20
[27] See Frame, Knowledge of God
[28] John 14:6.
[29] John 14:9.
[30] 1 John 1:1.
[31] Romans 1:19.
[32] E.g. see Romans 1:21-2:18.
[33] I Corinthians 1:21
[34] Augustine, Confessions, 7.14
[35] Ibid., 7.27

Bibliography:

Augustine
1991 Confessions. Henry Chadwick, trans. New York: Oxford University Press.

Copleston, Fredrick S.J.
1946 A History of Philosophy: Vol. 1, Greece and Rome. Westminster, MD: Newman Press.

Crombie, I. M.
1962 An Examination of Plato’s Doctrines: Vol. 1, Plato on Man and Society. New York: Humanities Press.

Frame, John M.
1987 The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God. Phillpsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed.

Grube, G. M. A
1958 Plato’s Thought. Boston: Beacon Press.

Hirsch, E. D.
1967 Validity in Interpretation. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Lewis, C. S.
1944 The Abolition of Man. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

—
1952 Mere Christianity. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

Plato
1960 Gorgias. Walter Hamilton, trans. New York: Penguin.

—
1956 Protagoras and Meno. W. K. C. Guthrie, trans. New York: Penguin.

—
1992 The Trial and Death of Socrates. Benjamin Jowett, trans. New York: Dover Publications.

Piper, John
1998 God’s Passion for His Glory. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.

Ross, Sir David
1951 Plato’s Theory of Ideas. London: Oxford University Press.

White, Nicholas

1976 Plato on Knowledge and Reality. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.