Brief Notes on Various Topics -- 49

2 June 2025

Brief Notes on Various Topics -- 49

1. “Sophia, wisdom: non-hypothetical knowledge; knowledge of what always exists; knowledge which contemplates the cause of beings.”

(Plato, Definitions, translated by D. S. Hutchinson, Plato: Complete Works, edited by John M. Cooper, Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis, 1997, page 1682, 414b, ISBN: 0872203492)

This is the definition given in a work called Definitions.  Most collections of Plato’s works do not include it.  According to Wikipedia the only English translation currently available is by Hutchinson in the Complete Works published by Hackett.  Definitions was previously translated by George Burgess in his multi-volume Works of Plato which might be available through reprint houses.  I have not found any commentaries on this work, though there might be one tucked away somewhere in some library

Definitions purports to contain the definitions used by Plato in his Academy, as well as by subsequent generations.  There is a view that was held by Ficino and others that Definitions was written, or collected, by Speusipus who was Plato’s nephew and the second head of the Academy.    I just recently read it and found it interesting.

I particularly like the ‘knowledge of what always exists’ definition, though the word ‘exists’ might give rise to misunderstanding if we take ‘exist’ to mean the same thing as when we say a table exists.  I don’t think it is wrong to say that the transcendental exists if that is meant in the sense of causation; meaning that the transcendental is constantly generating, or emanating, material things.

A good definition resembles an axiom in mathematics; I mean that a good definition can lead to further knowledge.  For this reason, I can understand why Plato’s Academy would want to put energy into a list of definitions.

2.  Plato walks into a university class.  It is a graduate level seminar on transfinite numbers.  At a crucial moment in the class Plato makes a comment that resonates with everyone and leads them into new directions of thought.  After the class is over several students want to talk to Plato, but he is nowhere to be found.

3.  One of the ongoing puzzles in life is how to evaluate people who have done something negative, something morally reprehensible.  In the arts this question appears in contexts where some artist, poet, composer, and so forth, produces attractive aesthetic objects, but their life includes examples of negative and harmful behavior.  There is a feeling among many people involved in the arts that in some way the arts reform persons involved in the arts, that such involvement leads to, or springs from, a personality more advanced than the average; but that does not seem to be the case.  Someone might compose beautiful music, or write beautiful poetry, yet at the same lead an unadmirable life.

We can apply this kind of discrepancy to many different fields, including philosophy.  There are famous examples of 20^th century philosophers who were involved in damaging political movements, yet at the same time many people think that they wrote insightful works.  How is it possible that someone could have insight in one area of philosophy and yet be completely blind to a nefarious political context?

In my opinion, it is asceticism that creates a context so that this kind of discrepancy is less likely to arise.  I wouldn’t say it is impossible that this kind of discrepancy would arise in the context of ascetic practice, but I do think it is less likely.  I say this because asceticism is a withdrawal from involvement in the world and a movement towards the transcendental.  The transcendental is the source of great peace.  Great peace soothes the mind and cools desires.  And it is this that creates a context where such discrepancies are more unlikely to materialize.

4.  “Chaerephon:  You (Socrates) are right; today does seem to be a halcyon day, and yesterday was much like it.  But by the gods, Socrates!  How can we actually believe those ancient tales, that once upon a time birds turned into women or women into birds?  All that sort of thing seems utterly impossible.

“Socrates: Ah, my dear Chaerephon, we seem to be utterly short-sighted judges of what is possible or impossible – we make our assessment according to the best of our human ability, which is unknowing, unreliable, and blind.  Many things which are feasible seem, to us, not feasible, and many things which are attainable seem unattainable – often because of our inexperience, and often because of the childish folly in our minds.  For in fact all human beings, even very old men, really do seem to be as foolish as children, since the span of our lives is small indeed, no longer than childhood when compared with all eternity.  My good friend, how could people who know nothing about the powers of the gods and divinities, or of nature as a whole, possibly tell whether something like this is possible or impossible?”

(Plato, Halcyon, translated by Brad Inwood, Plato: Complete Works, Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis, 1997, page 1715, (no Stephanus Numbers), ISBN: 9780872203495)

Ancient sources attribute Halcyon to Plato, but others say the attribution is incorrect.  Some sources attribute Halcyon to Lucian, but that might not fit in with other attributions and it seems the connection to Lucian has been abandoned by most scholars though it is also sometimes included in collections of the works of Lucian.  It seems that Halcyon was not included with the works that Stephanus used to number and organize the dialogues and for this reason Halcyon lacks such numbers.

Nevertheless, the Hackett edition of Plato’s complete works includes it with this background information; I believe that decision is based on early inclusions of Halcyon in lists of Plato’s Dialogues, but I’m not completely sure of that.

Personally, I’m glad it was included.  It is a very short dialogues; a little over two pages.  For such a short dialogue it has excellent literary qualities that make it attractive.  And it covers, from a different perspective, a question raised in other dialogues, such as how can we take seriously fantastic tales and myths; that is to say how are we to read them?  (See, for example, Phaedrus.) 

I see Halcyon as a kind of meditation, or reminder, of the limits of human knowledge.  The dialogue argues for a sense of humility and that many things we think of as fantastic might be true, or partially true.

5.  I love having discussions.  I dislike having debates; I avoid debates.  The primary difficulty with debates is that they are structured in such a way that the winner is simply the person who is better at debating.  But this has no relationship to whether or not they are pursuing truth or the truth or falsity of what they have affirmed.

When I say I love having discussions I mean that I am just as fond of having a discussion with someone who disagrees with me as I am with someone who agrees with me.  What is the difference between a discussion and a debate?  One difference, I think, is that in a discussion the two, or more, parties have regard for each other and, in a sense, no one is trying to win; instead it is more like making an attempt to inform.  People may change their minds in a discussion, but whether they do or don’t is really beside the point; the point is about cultivating a relationship of openness and trust.

I don’t think it is possible to have a philosophical debate because the structure of a debate excludes dialectic.  But it is possible to have a discussion that is based on dialectic.

6.  Every day we interact with non-sensory realities.  They are very common.  For example, every day we interact with numbers.  And many days we encounter beauty. 

I think of these encounters with non-sensory realities as encounters with the Messengers of the Divine, or Messengers whose job it is to give ordinary people, and living beings, an opportunity to experience, or intuit, the transcendental. 

Thales is famous for saying, as quoted in Aristotle, that ‘all things are full of gods.’  I think the Messengers, meaning numbers, the presence of beauty, and other embodiments of transcendence, are an example of Platonic Grace.  They come to us from the One not as a planned act of benevolence, but because it is the nature of the One to offer all living beings a way of accessing the Good, the One, and the Beautiful; to access that which is eternal.