With the progression of new ideas through the Presocratics, the Sophists and Soc

rates, many things were apparent in Plato’s mind as he attempted to answer every
day questions. The previous established philosophies laid the foundation of many
questions that later philosophers were relied on to answer. The trial and death
of Socrates created ideas and then more questions that only Plato was left to a
nswer as Socrates was put to death. Plato taught (he would prefer the word facil
itated or directed) his students to live harmoniously and wisely. His ideas and
philosophies answered questions created by Heraclitus, Parmenides, Protagoras an
d Socrates. Plato led many to understand the processes and ideas to live a knowl
edgeable, wise and harmonious life.
The philosophy of the Sophists was highly questioned as Plato came up with answe
rs. Presocratic and Sophistic ideas were disproved as Plato revealed his ideas o
f epistemology and metaphysics. Plato’s ideas of what knowledge and opinion were
answered the many questions. Melchert uses an example describing the belief of
a blind person and one who could see. The blind person believed (had an opinion)
that she should turn a certain way just because that was her opinion. The perso
n who had sight believed that he should not because he would fall off the cliff.
He did not turn that way because he knew the outcome (knowledge). The blind per
son’s opinion is not knowledge but the result of that person’s perception. Plato
stated the difference between opinion and knowledge. He laid out the spectrum o
f knowledge, opinion and invincible ignorance. Plato defined knowledge to be wh
at teachers teach or facilitate or direct their pupils toward. Specifically, kn
owledge is the result of instruction. Instructing material to minds that have th
e capacity is what gives one knowledge. Plato explains the basis of knowledge as
reason. The facts behind knowledge can always be explained by reason. Knowledge
also never stops being true. Knowledge is not in flux like opinions can be. Kno
wledge, being ‘what is’ cannot become ‘what is not’. Along with always being tru
e, knowledge is explained by Melchert as always enduring. Knowledge always remai
ns once established. The other side of the spectrum being invincible ignorance i
s just the opposite of knowledge. It can be described as Parmenides’ definition
of ‘what is not’. If there is nothing there, one cannot learn it or know it so t
he lack of knowledge is invincible. Plato’s midway between knowledge and invinci
ble ignorance is opinion. As stated by the Sophistic rhetoricians, opinion can
be swayed towards any side of any issue. Plato states that opinion is the result
of persuasion. Rhetoricians persuaded people to have different opinions. Differ
ent from knowledge where it is the result of instruction, persuasion can cause a
ny opinion to arise. Plato also defines opinion as possibly being true or false.
Everyone has their own opinion swayed by other influences or enculturation and
opinion is only classified as fact upon the individual. Rhetoricians’ jobs were
to change opinions so clearly opinion is changeable unlike knowledge is. Plato l
astly defines opinion as not being backed by reason. Those keeping their opinion
s may feel that they have reason behind what they believe as does Melchert’s exa
mple of the blind woman does for walking off of a cliff. Plato would obviously s
tate that there is no reason behind walking off a cliff to one’s death.
Another interesting thing about knowledge was when Socrates was teaching the sla
ve boy and he drew the cubes and triangles in the sand. Socrates drew a large cu
be with four cubes inside it but then a diagonal cube also inside it creating a
plethora of triangles. The concept that one of the smaller cubes inside the larg
e cube can be doubled by slicing the cube in half and adding three more triangle
s of the same size to the sides. This doubles the cube. This leads to Plato’s ex
planation of objects of knowledge. Melchert explains that when Socrates drew the
geometric shapes in the sand and possibly stated the areas of the cubes, he cou
ld only have been representing the cubes as the stated areas. Plato creates the
idea of the objects of knowledge from the fact that Socrates could not have poss
ibly drawn perfect cubes of perfectly round areas. They might have been close by
a certain number of decimal points but he could not have made them perfect geom
etric shapes of perfect areas. Plato presents the concept of error to show that
everything cannot be perfect values but they are all close within a certain rang
e. With this idea Plato presents the idea of forms. Forms are specifically defin
ed as objects of knowledge. The not perfectly round numbered geometric shape is
described as the form of whatever shape it is. It is the Form of for example a 7
cm area square. A square Socrates drew in the sand might not perfectly have a 7
cm area but it represents a 7cm area square. A form of one thing includes everyt
hing that is similar or equal to what the form is classified as. Forms are not
perceived by the sense. Today one might define a form as a generality. Lots of t
hings within a form may be slightly different due to a possible margin of error
by measurement (not that all forms are measured as a square would be). In the be
ginning of Plato’s philosophy, he answers some questions asked after the Presocr
atics and Sophists. Protagoras’ ideas of relativism and skepticism state that hu
mans do not know enough to understand what goes on beyond earth and that we do n
ot have sufficient knowledge. Plato disproves the Sophist idea that the senses m
ean nothing. Plato stated that senses are the way we see reality. Only knowledge
is what lacks use of senses. Skepticism is disproved by our knowledge about oth
er worlds. Relativism is no longer necessary to explain things because our knowl
edge replaces this ignorance. Some would be happy that Plato disproved the ignor
ance established by the Sophists in skepticism and relativism. Skepticism and re
lativism are only excuses. Plato’s explanation of opinion through senses and his
explanation of knowledge through forms is what allowed Plato’s elaboration on t
he spectrum of knowledge and opinion.
Plato’s idea of forms allowed him create another spectrum of knowledge. The idea
s of relativism and skepticism are explained to not be correct when Plato presen
ted his Divided Line. The inability of humans to physically show everything that
they explain creates the need for forms. Forms make up all of the spectrum crea
ted by the Divided Line. First, the Divided Line is explained as A, B, C and D.
Each letter representation has a certain amount of space unequal to the other. P
lato does this because each form that each letter represents may be bigger than
the one next to it so he decided to make the areas for each letter different siz
es. A and B together make one form called the visible. Plato explains that every
thing the senses perceive may not always be reality or knowledge. Humans acciden
tally see things that are not real. Plato does not totally discount the senses b
ut he does state that everything the senses perceive has to be clarified further
to be classified in C and D. The visible form includes A and B and the visible
is divided that way. A is classified as the form of likenesses as Plato explains
. A likeness is defined in most cases as a resemblance, sight or picture. A like
ness seen by a human could either be an actual picture, entity or a hallucinatio
n. Due to the possibility that the human mind at any time could produce a sight
or likeness without something real actually being seen, he explains a likeness t
o be at the bottom of the spectrum of knowledge. Imagination is how Plato descri
bes a likeness. Hallucinations are in no way a contribution to the explanation
of any question. In the B side of the visible form, Plato uses ‘things’. All of
the things that make up the visible world are what causes people to have questio
ns and causes philosophers to have to explain them. Plato states that this part
of the visible form is what causes opinion. Everyone has one and they all change
on a daily basis so they stay in the visible form and stay on the bottom part o
f the Divided Line or the spectrum of knowledge.
The C and D spot is the higher level of thinking that gives some explanation tha
t the visible form cannot give. Plato describes C and D as the intelligible form
. This higher part of the spectrum has less changes involved and answers the que
stions from the visible form. Again the intelligible form is divided into two pa
rts. C is described by Plato as the lower forms. Lower forms are described by Pl
ato as science. In science, many things are discovered and much more progress is
made as some questions are answered but the things that science has difficulty
answering are ‘taken for granted’ as Melchert explains. The science is the lower
form because of these things taken for granted that are not explained such as t
he origin of the earth. The D side of the intelligible form solves the question
s created by the things that science ‘takes for granted’. The higher form is des
cribed by Plato as the dialectic. The higher form in the intelligible form inclu
des dialectic and the Form of the Good. Plato created the Divided Line to clear
up everything that causes everyone to worry and question everything. At the end
of the line, dialectic allows everyone to not worry anymore because their questi
ons and worries have been solved. Dialectic solves everyone’s questions because
it allows explanation of a Starting Point. With dialectic, people can have knowl
edge. Plato explains another form that allows dialectic to exist and allow peopl
e to have knowledge and not worry about unanswered questions. The Form of the Go
od is described as being at the very end of the intelligible form and being the
most intelligent. The Form of the Good is described as what allows certain pheno
mena to occur to cause questions along with having the answer by presenting dial
ectic to answer the questions and allow knowledge. Melchert describes the Form o
f the Good to include knowledge and dialectic because knowledge and dialectic ar
e good and yield a better society. Dialectic is a great thing for anyone to be e
xposed to so it must be a part of the Form of the Good. The Starting Point along
with the ability to explain most of everything only gives good things. If every
one does not strife because they do not know certain things, they will rest beca
use they have knowledge. Plato says that this result must be from the Form of th
e Good. The Form of the Good is basically what creates the phenomenon that goes
along with the Divided Line. The Form of the Good creates the visible form creat
ing questions and it creates the answers to the visible form that it exposes. Th
e reality increases as you go to the right on the Divided Line. Going to the lef
t creates the things that cause question and going to the right creates the answ
ers. Being a very complicated subject, once understood most would agree with wha
t Plato was saying once paired with their own opinions and ideas but really pair
ing Plato’s Divided Line with one’s own opinions and ideas brings you back to th
e visible form.
The Divided Line can be explained by Plato’s Analogy of the Cave. The Cave is pr
esented as an example of what occurs as one with capacity to gain information, g
ains knowledge and moves right across the Divided Line. The people in the cave o
nly able to stay in that lower area had no idea about anything around them or wh
at was outside the cave. All they saw were the shadows of what was going on abov
e them. This was only likenesses that they were able to see. They may have thoug
ht that the shadows they saw were real but really the shadows were only visibili
ties dependent on another being. Once released and were able to ascend the cave,
they saw the fire and the people along with the pathway to the top. These are n
ot just likenesses but things that the oblivious people knew nothing about and w
ere able to make opinions and assumptions. Once being able to ascend the pathway
to the top, lower forms can be explained. They knew nothing about what was ahea
d of them but ‘assumed’ that something fathomable was there. Once outside the ca
ve, they would have to take a few minutes to take in all that was before them an
d to take some time to understand it. This last stage can be described as dialec
tic because all of their questions about everything were slowly but surely answe
red. This is the preferred model that students were to take to gain knowledge to
wards dialectic. Along with this, Plato had other ideas regarding things other t
han knowledge.
Melchert somewhat explains Plato’s ideas of love with Socrates’ conversations wi
th Diotima. To Socrates and to Plato, love is a part of another spectrum. The s
pectrum begins with ugliness and ends with beauty. Love is in the middle just as
opinion is between knowledge and ignorance. Love exists because it wants beauty
. People have love because they desire beauty. Love is a type of desire that peo
ple have. Love would not exist if it had total beauty. One could also argue that
beauty is a part of the Form of the Good which is another reason why love chase
s beauty. It is also stated that immortality includes beauty and that is another
reason why love exists. This love that exists because of desire can exist for o
ne individual or even for a whole culture or society. Plato’s Ladder of Love is
his representation of how full beauty is reached. On the ladder, beauty begins o
n the outside (the beautiful body). The next step up the ladder is having all be
autiful bodies within a population. After this step it is realized that a beauti
ful body is not all of what matters to full beauty. The next step is having beau
ty on the inside (beautiful souls). The next step is beauty within a structural
society (beauty of laws and institutions). The next step up the ladder is when b
eauty and knowledge come together in beauty of knowledge. The next step up the l
adder is the Form of Beauty or Beauty Itself. The form of beauty existing upon a
population includes a wide range of beauty so obviously the Form of Beauty exis
ting in a population is a large achievement.
Not only is beauty and knowledge important to live harmonious lives among a popu
lation but the soul must take part upon individuals. Plato uses the Myth of the
Charioteer to explain the way the soul works. A chariot includes horses and a ma
n that pushes and guides the horses. The man guiding the horses represents the g
uide for the soul. The two horses include desire and spirit. The desire horse is
black and crooked because of the desire. If all of us lived just by desire we w
ould not have any friends and possibly be in prison. The other horse is white an
d straight. This horse prevents our desires from taking over and this horse in o
ur soul probably prevents most people from acting on desire and ending up in ter
rible situations. The guide prevents either horse from acting totally on what ea
ch wants. Without the guide, the soul might be anarchy. Plato also describes the
soul as being the self mover unlike the body. The soul can move form world to w
orld while the body itself cannot. He describes the body as being a sort of pris
on of the soul and the soul being released at death. The soul is immortal by its
elf. Along with the structural Myth of the Charioteer, the spirit horse takes a
big part in satisfying the soul. One might believe that one should act upon what
is best for the individual but Plato says that one should act morally to satisf
y one’s soul even if it does not directly satisfy one’s desires or wants. Today
one might think of the two horses as being the white angel and the devil on your
shoulders as they show in the movies debating on what to do. The only differenc
e from this is the guide that prevents total fighting and anarchy between the tw
o sides. Plato seems to state that the white straight horse wins most of the tim
e in order to satisfy what the soul really wants. Everyone feels two sides to ev
ery decision and issue. People would agree with Plato’s Myth of the Charioteer.
Most would appreciate this different look on what the soul really consists of.
The idea of the intelligible form might release everyone’s reliance on science t
o explain everything. The Christians (extremely large population) having an opin
ion might take them back to the visible form when really it could be a version o
f dialectic and the Form of the Good. Lots of people believe this version of dia
lectic. The agnostics and atheists rely on science to explain everything includi
ng the Starting Point when really Plato says that science is too much of a Lower
Form and takes too many things for granted to understand a possible Starting Po
int. Christians would agree with the Divided Line because Christians believe tha
t science has little ability to explain the Starting Point and for them, the rel
igion is their dialectic. Plato’s Divided Line would only enforce the beliefs of
Christians and it would not take Christians back to the visible form. Christian
s would have very little objection to Plato’s ideas. The Form of the Good would
also enforce the beliefs of Christians. To them, God gives the dialectic regardl
ess of how imaginational or opinionated it may sound.