Plato's whole philosophy grows from his Theory of Forms. explained in his Myth of the Cave: For Plato, human existence is about moving upward, as if on a ladder to perfection. We must master the body and our emotions to allow our Reason to reach the Perfect Forms in thinking: A "perfect" example of a Platonic Idealist is Jay Gatsby, who pursues his vision of perfect Love: Your assignment is to comment on whether Plato's philosophy makes any sense for living well. Many see him as too focused on his belief in a heavenly realm, or too fixated on permanence and perfection to deal with real-world problems. But Plato felt only someone in touch with the true Forms could be considered wise enough to lead others through life. This is why he despised democracy and called for Philosopher-Kings to rule the city. Do you think Plato is right, or do you think that a philosophy like Buddhism that embraces change and gives up perfection is better? And what do you think that means in terms of how we should live ethically and politically
39 Comments
Dahlia Mozino
9/20/2016 04:48:17 pm
Plato's idea of having leaders be in touch with their "true forms" is a bunch of garbage. In an ideal world, that would be great, but a lot of people who have those specific qualifications do not fit other characteristics of political leaders. Say we've got a guy named Mr. Bojangles, and he has surpassed all expectations of being in touch with his "true form". The only problem with that, is that the guy is known to dance in jail cells. That's all he's known for, being in jail and pulling some really sweet moves while in jail. This does not a good leader make. He has no leadership skills, no political knowledge, and no past experience in the field. However, he can pull a mean cabbage patch. Just because he is in touch with his "true form" does not make him a good leader, and by the way Plato is putting it, people who are in touch with their "true form" are hard to come by, making perfect leaders hard to come by.
Reply
Gabriella Lopez
9/21/2016 08:01:24 am
I believe that Plato is too focused on his beliefs of the heavenly realm. I feel that he did not fit into society, as other did, and tried to justify his part in the world. Our lives should not be concerned with trying to reach our "true form" but rather embrace and accept the change that we are put through. If there even is such a "true form" then why do we have to strive for it? Shouldn't we already be in our "true form"? Why aren't we and why is it so hard to achieve it? My unanswered questions lend me to think that Plato had created this idea to comfort himself. Since he did not fit in well, he could just claim that he wasn't in his "true form" yet. Even so, he believed that kings and queens should be in touch with his philosophy. Plato hated the idea of voting. He knew that someone with his background would never make it as far as a nomination. I ultimately believe that Plato created this idea so that maybe one day, people like him would fit into this world and hopefully become a king/queen! I think ethically, we must follow our gut feelings and accept that we will never be perfect. We are forever changing. Politically, I think the people should vote for/nominate candidates that have the best understanding of the change that affect our lives. Overall, I disagree with Plato's viewpoints as I feel they were only created to justify his being.
Reply
Biggs
9/21/2016 01:06:19 pm
Plato's response would be: well, we're not looking for a person who participates in the form of Dance (or jail-dance). We're looking for a person who's in touch with the form of Goodness itself! So it has to be the person who is knowledgable about what REALLY matters. Of course, this begs the question because it assumes that something objectively matters, when the whole debate (even in Plato's time) is whether there really IS an objective Form of Goodness, or "goodness" is just subjective!
Reply
Corey Van Huff
9/21/2016 08:00:04 am
Plato is only right to a point. Those who know their true essence of themselves are more fit to rule as they are less likely to stray away from their beliefs. But as far as living that way and being obsessed with the concept of perfection and torturing yourself in the meantime is another thing. Why obsess for an idea when the idea is different to everyone. It just doesn't make sense. Besides he wants there to be no emotion and emotion is what makes us human. He takes the humanity of being human. So I feel like he is slightly right, but it's mostly rubbish.
Reply
Biggs
9/21/2016 01:02:48 pm
The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche will much later (1800s) argue that Plato was motivated by fear of death and change. His philosophy is an attempt to comfort himself with the idea of something timeless, deathless . But to do that, he has to reject the here-and-now as unimportant, a "mere illusion." And yes, this leads him to treat emotions as dangerous. He even suggests that in a perfect country, certain musical instruments that create too much emotion be banned!
Reply
Marissa Seely
9/21/2016 01:05:49 pm
I am very doubtful that such a thing as perfection, in anything, exists. In fact, I'm certain it doesn't. I agree with Plato in the sense that people caught up in lust and desire are not fit to rule, however, I disagree with him in the sense that there is a perfect form and perfect way of everything. I would like to think that Plato only proposed this ridiculous idea to encourage others to strive towards that "perfection," that ultimately does not even exist. I think it's crucial that people accept an acknowledge change in order to move forward in their life and find happiness, as Buddhism proposes, rather than seek something impossible. Everyone has a different way of living their life. It wouldn't be right to say that someone's life is meaningless if they are content where they are, opposed to striving and climbing the ladder to success. I was, however, compelled by Plato's cave story, and it made a lot of sense to me. There is a lot more out there than we are aware of, because we haven't seen it with our own eyes. More knowledge, more experience, more knowing is always better, and that is, what I believe, to be the most important point Plato makes.
Reply
Jack McNally
9/21/2016 01:59:39 pm
Personally, I don’t think that Plato’s philosophy of forms is an actuality. I don’t believe that there is some sort of perfect form of every object or a perfect form for each individual to try and emulate. I would definitely align my views closer to those of Diogenes, who believed that we should focus on what is directly around us and observable rather than what we can not perceive. However, I do think that if someone were to believe in the platonic philosophy, they would live a good life. As a believer in the platonic philosophy, one would always have a goal to strive for. They would always be looking to improve themselves, as well as the other people and objects around them. This is because they would believe that there is way things should be that would make everything perfect, and that they should strive to create things as closely as possible to that perfect form. Another part of Plato’s philosophy that I strongly agree with is his stance on democracy. I too believe that people who are not trained in a specific field should not have a say as to what should be done in that field. Instead, decisions should be made by people who have expertise in specific fields.
Reply
Parizaad Mohammadi
9/21/2016 02:44:22 pm
I agree with Plato on some parts of his theroy and disagree with him on others. On one hand I believe that we should not be completely controlled by our greed and desires. That instinct is more of the savage, uncivilized part of human nature and that we should be moving away from that and try to become "philosophers". On the other hand, I do not think we should only think rational and not have some emotions or desires. Then we would all be emotionless 'robots'. Plato believed that only those who think rationally should be allowed to vote, and in today's world, we can't really go by that because that's leaving our future for someone else to decide.
Reply
Jennifer Spinelli
9/21/2016 02:48:21 pm
I disagree with Plato. He's way too focused on his philosophy and life is flashin' on by. He needs to live in the moment more, so he can actually enjoy life. Why spend your whole life trying to live up to/obtain the impossible? And as for his ideas on democracy, I completely disagree. I think he was just an elitist, that's what it comes down to. Buddhism is better because it embraces change and change is good!
Reply
Michelle Mazzucca
9/21/2016 03:15:17 pm
I personally agree with Plato up to a point. I agree with the fact that sometimes things can be, and should be better. For example, getting an 85 on a test is great, but getting a grade higher than 85 would be the next goal. Getting a grade higher than 85 would be better. There is always a way to be a better version of yourself, but that better version of yourself is not a perfect version. Nobody is perfect, but a person can work towards being the best person that they could possibly be.
Reply
Corbin Nielsen
9/21/2016 03:25:44 pm
I believe that Plato's argument of a set beauty we must transcend higher to achieve is correct, yet I also think that it is incorrect. Beauty, in itself, is a subjective term - there's at least one person who thinks beautiful stands for something other than what the majority believes. Therefore, Plato's reasoning of having perfect templates makes no sense, unless the template itself is a mish-mash of everything that anyone has ever deemed beautiful. To connect it to the pizza example, the perfect form of pizza would have to have everything on it - including certain things off of it as well - and even then it would not be considered perfect by any, as it does not fit their preference. To advocate for Plato, however, I distinctly agree that perfection is something we all hope to strive to get, yet can never reach. I believe perfection to be a basis for what we do - something to compare our products and actions to see how well we did in comparison.
Reply
Allie Talavera
9/21/2016 03:50:00 pm
I agree with Plato to an extent, I personally believe that it is good to have a goal to strive for and improve yourself, but Plato takes it to a whole other level. I think he was way too obsessed with trying to achieve as close to perfection as possible rather then living in the moment. However, I do agree with Plato's belief that nothing is perfect, but the idea of it is. For example, every couple strives to meet the expectation of "true love" in which there is no fighting and they are always happy, but this is not a realistic goal. Yes, everyone wants to achieve this thought of perfection, but only the idea will be perfect and it is nearly impossible to meet this level of perfection. Although I do agree with that concept, I do not think it is okay to spend your whole life trying to meet these expectations. A perfect example would be Jay Gatsby, who spent his whole life trying to perfect the idea of love between him and his lover, Daisy. Overall, I do believe in the idea of perfection , but I do not believe in spending too much time trying to reach the ideal dream.
Reply
Izzy Halloran
9/21/2016 03:56:20 pm
If we had a Philosopher King or Queen to rule over us, how can we be sure that every citizen would agree with their "higher" knowledge? Society would not be able to function without democracy. People want their opinions to be heard, and if they do not feel like their ideas are valued, they are not going to comply with the ideas of others. Additionally, perfection is not possible because every day is another 24 hours of unpredictability. It seems as though Plato created this perfect world to comfort his own fear of confronting suffering like Buddha does. If we live our lives comparing ourselves to this perfect world, we will never truly be content with ourselves. We should not go through our lives believing that there is another world in which perfection exists, because we will just end up driving ourselves insane.
Reply
Max Lowrey
9/21/2016 04:11:46 pm
While I think that change is constant and we should be constantly questioning everything, Plato is going about it the wrong way. I mean, if you accept there's something better somewhere, great. Good for you, y'know? However, I think Buddha is more accurate here- we should know that change happens, and there's no perfect version of anything. Everything is flawed. And we just have to accept that
Reply
Paige Whittle
9/21/2016 04:18:30 pm
I agree with some of Plato's philosophy, but some of it goes too far. I believe Plato is too focused on climbing the "ladder" to perfection, as I believe people should focus on the life on earth that they have. This means that they should feel they are allowed to get caught up in their emotions, as emotions are simply part of living. Plato would say that emotions only get in the way of climbing this ladder to ultimate perfection, but many people, including myself, feel it is important to live the present to the fullest. People may feel they can do this by indulging in the emotions they possess. I understand why Plato thinks it is best to only let Philosophers rule because they are the only ones in touch with true perfection; however, since everyone has a different idea of perfection, how would people be content with only the ruling philosopher's idea of perfection? This is why democracy has been so successful: people can vote for the people who they think will lead their country to the closest form of perfection possible. Ethically, humans should feel free to indulge in their emotions, and not feel like they always have to be climbing to perfection in an alternate dimension. Politically, democracy has worked well so far, so the vote should remain in the hands of the people.
Reply
Will Weaver
9/21/2016 04:38:11 pm
I argree that eryone should be able to harness there emotion and learn how to control there inner self. However what i dont agree with is that you need to master that before anything else. Me personally i believe that evryone needs to move at there own pace and achieve what they want when they want. Plato seems like he is to focused on what gonna happen then whats happening around him. Also i dont agree that he believes theres always something better the what you have. You need to apreciate what you have and not always be focused on something better. However nothing is perfect so you still should strive for the best.
Reply
Olivia Smelas
9/21/2016 04:45:54 pm
In all honesty, Plato's philosophy to me is depressing, inapplicable to modern society, and has very little relevance to human nature. I don't mean to trash Plato, but this philosophy of his just literally can't apply to the human race because of the nature of our egos, our inability to control them, and difference of opinion. There's seven billion people on Earth I believe, and with that comes seven billion different opinions on how things should be run. The concept that the whole purpose of our lives is to imitate a higher form is depressing, and also nerve-wracking. What happens if we don't conform to imitation? Will the world end? Will I not be living out my days to their fullest potential? There's a million different questions to ask. How is anyone possibly supposed to be happy and live well if all they know is imitation, and can't express their true selves? Living in constant anxiety of conformation, where is the limit? Where is the line drawn? According to Plato, there is no line. Plato says there's no such thing as love, only a striving to realize the true meaning of Beauty. Platonic love is one of the most depressing things to me. Call me crazy but I believe in true love. Not an intellectual bond with the occasional kiss. And even the physical part of relationships can be altered according to Plato's tradition. How can anyone live in satisfaction when there is something or even someone better that they will never achieve? I couldn't live in a world like that. People would be going mentally insane left and right, who knows if even Plato himself was even stable? Someone does one thing to express themselves and provide their own happiness, and suddenly their neighbor is imitating the superior Form better, is it a never ending race? Racing towards an unachievable standard of living, loving, playing? I know I for one would live a very unhappy life according to Plato's standards. At first, philosopher kings sounded like not such a bad idea... Someone who understands more complicated philosophical questions instead of how to scam people and let them down. You know where I stand in terms of being in touch with a higher Form, but philosopher kings might not be such a bad idea. Until an extremist group forms that opposes the philosopher king, overthrows him and the whole system is plunged into inevitable anarchy until the next blockhead who thinks he knows what he's doing comes about. Maybe that's a cynical way of looking at it. But there are so many different viewpoints... It would definitely be better to keep government and religion/philosophy separate. Early Americans (the Puritans) discovered this first, and let's not have a repeat of that, shall we? A philosophy like Buddha's is a much more relevant, and applicable one for our society. We need to throw perfection to the wind, it's impossible, and live our own lives according to our own happiness. Forget about a higher Form.
Reply
Ryan munzlinger
9/21/2016 04:50:25 pm
So Plato's philosophy thoughts and ideas. Would be perfect in a non idealistic society that we live in today. Not saying that his ideas and beliefs are bad to live by. They allow people to try and live better lives to reach there nirvana, hevean, or whatever goal there trying to reach. So I believe that his ideas help people want to live better lives. For Plato to say that a politician should be in touch with the most pure inner-self he can be. Is the exact opposite of how politicians actually are today. Some lie cheat and do what they have to do to get on top. Now every politicians main goal is to protect the people. Weather it's the president mayor or governor. There main goal is to help the people. Weather there right or wrong in how they do it. Now morraly is it right to lie steal and cheat no but then again many criminals can argue that there stealing because there trying to get a little bit of an advantage above everyone because of how corrupt the world is already today. Now ethically. To lie cheat and steal to get to the top is a good thing. Many people don't care about how they get to the top. People just want to be at the top and live that life. This is how Plato's beliefs come in handy. Now because some people might believe in his ideas. They might not do the bad things that other people would do because they would not be able to reach there heveanly realm. Now which philosophy is better Plato's or Buddha's. Platos is to reach absolute perfection Budda is to absolutely not care and let everything pass bye. My opinion is that both of these go to far to the extreme on there side. I feel like no one should not care and no one should care to much. There should be a compromise in the middle and if 2 come together to work together is better then one. Is my own opinion
Reply
Paige Davis
9/21/2016 05:15:07 pm
I think that Plato had some good ideas but its just the fact that he was too consumed with the idea of being perfect that took it too far. I think Plato was right that we can always improve on something and that we should be striving to be the certain type of person we want to be but the extent that Plato takes it to doesn't make any sense for living well. i think Buddhism is a better way to live about embracing change and giving up this idea of perfection but Buddha also takes it to a certain extent where its a little extreme. This means that our purpose of living shouldn't be striving to reach this false idea of perfection when you should be living to do things that make you happy and just be the best person you can be.
Reply
Adam F.
9/21/2016 05:15:15 pm
I think that there could be a perfect answer or a perfect version/copy of something above. Do we actually know that/can we prove that? No, so I have to agree partially with Plato. Are somethings a little far fetched? They most definitely are but Buddha's beliefs are also on the right path. In our modern day politics there are definitely not perfect answers. If there were and they were clear there wouldn't be multiple political parties in the U.S. because everyone would agree with the perfect way of doing things. So in politics, is the right answers there and are they perfect? The answer to that one is no unfortunately but hey that's what I think.
Reply
Emily Fitzgerald
9/21/2016 05:28:24 pm
I do not agree with Plato's philosophy, because I don't believe in perfection. It seems as though he could never enjoy anything in life because he was so infatuated with the idea that there was something better. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that there is a better version of anything that we are given. I lean more towards a Buddhism philosophy because I am one to embrace the change in life. We aren't guaranteed tomorrow or a better version of anything we already have. I think that its best to embrace what you are given because you can lose it at anytime. The idea of something better shouldn't interfere with opportunities you get each day.
Reply
Kelly Farley
9/21/2016 05:42:27 pm
As always, I am in the middle about this. When we read Gatsby last year, I did not like how he lived his life looking up to this ideal. I feel that that is very unrealistic in the way that he changed himself and his actions to achieve this goal. However, when I was taking notes on Plato I saw this idealism in a different way. Plato believes that everyone should have an ideal way of life in their head, I saw this as a goal to reach. He said that as you go through life you think about what you are doing and whether or not that is helping you achieve your goal. If it is not, then you change it to help you reach your ideal. On one hand, someone could see this as doing whatever it takes, even pushing other down to get to the top. I did not think about it this way when I was taking notes. I thought of it as more of just a way to keep you on track and make sure you are focusing on the big picture. I am not too sure which way Plato has in mind, but I see it as the second way I mentioned and if I were to live life as Plato sees it, then I would do it this way. Then again, if idealism is Jay Gatsby's version of it, I definitely do not agree with that. I also do really like philosophy like Buddha, who embraces change and gives up perfection. I do believe that you must embrace change, especially in the society we live in today. I believe that as human beings, our goals and ideals change along with ourselves and that is something we must deal with. For some people, lingering on an ideal might just make them feel like they are never good enough and always falling short of perfection their entire lives which is not how I believe people should go through life. Anyways, I would definitely have to lean towards Buddha's philosophy more.
Reply
Giulia Dostie
9/21/2016 06:36:18 pm
I personally do not believe that Plato’s want for perfection is realistic in our world today. I don't believe that there is a thing of perfection because “beauty is in the eyes of the beholder”. This means that everyone has their own idea of “perfection” which makes it impossible for you to ever reach that goal. People set these perfections on the world around them most likely because they have a certain fears and insecurities they wish they could change about themselves. I believe once we get people trying to reach perfection we start running into problems, for example eat disorders or corrupt leaders. I actually think that it's really rude of Plato to go around pointing out people's flaws because they are “low on the ladder”. To call someone worthless because they are far away from the top wouldn't work in our society because you would be viewed as cruel or ignorant. I agree with Buddha that everything is changing and change is good. Even if something changes for the worse, it is a learning experience and you'll grow as a person. If you give up perfection to focus on the changing world around you, you can grow and learn so much better that way.
Reply
Sofia Fernandes
9/21/2016 06:52:53 pm
At first glance and ponder, Plato’s philosophy seems to be the ideal way to look at life. If we are constantly striving to experience the perfect form of everything in our lives, we won’t risk missing out on any of the good stuff, right? After reading F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, I think I believe otherwise. Although while striving for perfection we will most certainly experience many versions of life that are always better than the last, but we will never reach satisfaction. With Plato’s mindset, we will constantly be grasping the open air for something more than what we have. In Gatsby’s case, what he could not reach was the green light; or utter content with the life he has created for himself. If we infinitely strive to see something more in what is right in front of us, we will miss out on life. We will never give ourselves the chance to pause and feel everything in the present moment. If the goal of calling everything imperfect is to reach a perfect form, what happens if that perfection is never reached? Our lives will have been wasted away. I think that a philosophy like Buddhism that embraces change and gives up perfection is better. If everyone accepts things how they are, they will be able to enjoy life in the present moment. Everyone should accept what they cannot change and change what needs to be fixed and leave it at that.
Reply
Michael Deitz
9/21/2016 06:53:42 pm
Plato was a man who focused a lot on what people could not see, rather what we think in our heads anyway. It's interesting. Hollywood Romcoms are always this super fictionalized and hyperbolic story, but who doesn't think the most romantic things are slow dancing with faint music in the background, just you and another person, or through a literal walk through memory lane. These platonic conceptions of ours lead our lives, we all strive to be the perfect us. Life would just coast along if we all got A's, always made everyone laugh, had no faults but the truth of the matter is we do, and imagining we don't can both hurt us and help us. With all of that in mind, I think Plato should be a constant discussion, but not someone who's words we heed directly. The wise man knows they know nothing, right? Socrates preached something similar. His student, Plato, is going around telling people we have to know everything in order to reach the best place we can, and get the most out of life that way. So no, his philosopher kings would also fail, not because an intelligent person shouldn't be in office, but because the world is learned through mistakes and being a know it all does not qualify one for tough and smart decisions. There must be a balance to everything, a balance to how much knowledge we seek and how much we choose to live in this fantasy our mind builds and the reality we are living. Our imagination lies groundwork for us to be motivated and build a better, and more impressive future for ourselves. It shows what can be done if we just do and try and I think that is where Plato misses what he means to say. While nothing is perfect in life, we can try and make it as close as it can be by just trying, by accepting what happens and still wanting, and trying, and doing, and coming out on top. We should live to the best of our abilities, we should be the best people we can be because how we live decides almost everything. We can't control life. But we have a real big say in how much we can get out of it.
Reply
Phoebe carr
9/21/2016 07:09:43 pm
I think the idea of "philosophy kings" is hard to rationalize considering there are so many different philosophers with different theories about how life should be live. For example, Plato and Buddha have two very very different ways of thinking, though they are both philosophers. At the same time, a life lead by a submission to change (and presumably mediocrity in the way the question is phrased) is not one we should strive for. I think life should be lived aimed towards one's/society's best outcome and we as a society should strive to improve, but be able to accept that "old habits die hard" and if Plato is right about the Realm Of Being, we will never be perfect anyway.
Reply
Tyhler Harty
9/21/2016 07:30:54 pm
I believe that Plato's idealism can be very harmful to a person's health. The way it can be harmful to one person is by it could give a person a false sense of which they try to follow but ultimately fail. An example of this would be Gatsby when he is constantly trying to win back Daisy but constantly fails in doing so which has him die in the end. In addition to this I believe that Plato's philosopher kings is completely wrong due to the fact that they are kings and are not elected officials which means the people have no say in government. Also I believe that Buddhism's acceptance of change is better than always trying to be perfect in life.
Reply
Bella Glidden
9/21/2016 08:35:30 pm
I kind of agree with what Plato believed. I do believe that there is a perfect version of something out there but unlike Plato I think you can reach that level of perfection. Plato knew that there was a perfect thing but he did not think it can be reached. I believe it can because the idea of perfect is subjective. What someone finds horrible can be perfect to another person. For example someone might say the perfect day would be spent at the beach but others would say a perfect day is when it snows and you get off school. Neither of these are not perfect but it varies per person. I do think that something perfect is hard to achieve but I do not think its impossible.
Reply
Young Chen
9/21/2016 09:09:34 pm
I believe that Plato's philosophy makes sense to a certain degree. I understand how people believe in a near perfect being or realm because that's what all humans want in their life, perfection. Like Jack McNally said, people who believe and follow the platonic philosophy will always have a goal to strive for, but my question is if continue to strive and the question will they ever find happiness or the sense of success when they find something out? Because the platonic philsophy has you strive for something that is impossible to reach, the perfection of many things, which brings no joy or happiness into life and that can't be the living a good life. If the person were to find some success in finding a near perfect realm, but when they find that one flaw, then the successful feelings is lost. I believe that Buddism has the right mindset of embracing change and giving up perfection. My example to back this up would be programming and cybersecurity. In programming, there is never and never will be a bug-free program, one flaw fixed will cause a new flaw to appear, many programs today may seem near perfect, but we don't see the flaws until we push these programs to the very limits of its ability. The same goes for cybersecurity these days, there is not one locked down and impenetrable network. With these flaws, you must embrace them and change what you need to make it less of a problem.
Reply
Henry Ehlers
9/22/2016 03:18:06 am
To me, parts of his philosophy are reasonable but the rest is not. The ladder to perfection is a great idea, it's you becoming the best you possible. On the other hand, the idealist bit with the heaven and perfect ideas is a little too much out there for my taste. The ladder part can be taken as a metaphor, there isn't an actual ladder. The idealism however has to be taken literally, even though there's nothing to support it.
Reply
emily clarke
9/22/2016 04:02:40 am
I believe that Plato is perhaps too hung up on the idea of a heavenly realm. You can not go through life focusing on something so uncertain. I also think that a little lust is good for everyone and a truly platonic relationship is nearly impossible. Buddhism resonates more with me because I don't believe anything is truly perfect. Plato's idea that the idea of something is better than anything tangible is good, along with his "always moving upward" attitude. Other than that, I think he is really unreasonable. Limiting yourself from your natural desires your entire life to possibly get to a heavenly realm when you die is just really not feasible to me.
Reply
Emma Vollmuth
9/22/2016 04:07:12 am
I think that Plato's theory is terrible. I don't think that everyone has to be aspiring to know everything. Knowing all isn't always true happiness. I guess it really just depends on the person because it's really just up to them. If a person wants love and that's what makes them happy then that's it. If you are constantly looking for more and you feel like you you want something else, are you really happy?
Reply
Kyle Eber
9/22/2016 04:24:18 am
I agree and then also don't agree. For some people, having the idea of a better world with all the answers (modern religions -> heaven) can help them throughout life with the idea of its security and helps them be a better person while their alive. But ignoring your present life isn't a way to live. You should enjoy the present in whichever way you would choose to live. That's your own personal choice on how to live it. Me, personally, I'm probably a mix despite me not believing in Heaven. I like to have a bunch of things to live up to, ideals and dreams but I also don't want to focus too much or else it woukd distract me from living each moment by moment. (Which, I'll admit, I still need to work on.)
Reply
Max Portman
9/22/2016 01:42:24 pm
As a big supporter of the Taoism movement, I simply cannot agree with Plato's teachings from a fundamental standpoint. I can understand why an individual would support this idea, but quite frankly, the only individual who comes to mind when I hear about Dictators and an idea of "perfection" is Adolf Hitler. That may sound extreme, but it is all I can associate the idea with. Personally, it sounds like a waste of time to put forth all of your effort thinking about a better life rather than living and appreciating the current existence that you're in at this point in time. To live now is to live happy and by following Plato's belief, you are simply not living now.
Reply
Julia maier
9/26/2016 05:47:50 pm
Yes, there are things in life you should shrive to get better with, for example getting a better grade then last time but, at the same time you should live in the present because everythin happening is going to end and it will sleep right through you. So I believe in some ways Plato is right.
Reply
Holly Braverman
9/27/2016 07:07:34 pm
In my opinion, Plato’s philosophy does not appear to correlate to living well. Say Plato’s notion of a higher world exists (whereas the utterly perfect forms of everything exist), this would mean that everything in our world is consequently imperfect, at least to some degree. This “everything” would include human beings themselves. If humans are imperfect, then how can we possibly make something perfect, much less make everything perfect? Therefore, attempting to reach pure perfection is useless, as it is, through logically navigating through Plato’s theory, simply impossible. Furthermore, it is impossible for us to reach perfection as the actuality of perfection is currently undefined; each person has a different idea as to what it is and how we can achieve it. Even if there is a single, true form of perfection, we as humans are not able to identify what it is, at least in our current state of reality. As per my conclusion, I believe that a philosophy that gives up perfection and instead embraces change (such as that of Buddhism) is a better, less stressful way of living/thinking.
Reply
Kaitlyn Viola
9/28/2016 04:56:33 pm
Plato's strive for perfection has many flaws. Revisiting the topic of the last blog post, the idea of "perfection" is subjective. Whether or not something is perfect is opinionated, and simply cannot be factual. This being said, perfection is unachievable, and striving for it is an inefficient way to live a happy life. Personally. I believe Buddhism is a healthier way to live life because it invites change, and with change comes opportunity for improvement.
Reply
Edith
9/29/2016 04:21:22 am
I thinks that platos way of seeing things is way too extreme. Buddha does have a good way of seeing things too, but it is like the other side of the spectrum. If you mix them both you get consistent change and an ideal lifestyle. If you look at all the different things in the world they keep moving on and becoming something different. Just how different things end up, depends on how much of an effort you put into it. This i think is a better way to do things then being so extreme in ones convictions.
Reply
Tara Erving
11/8/2016 06:30:52 am
i think that plato was too focused on the heavenly realms and permanent perfection. The change that comes with Buddhism is a better philosophy because it stops you from getting stuck. I feel like with platanism its easy to get stuck, and being stuck can mess up a lot of things, and can prevent someone from growing and changing. i think as far as how we should live politicaly and ethically in contrast to platanism, we should live in a society where people can not only change their lives but change the issues that are occuring in withing their government. We should be able to live where we can change whatever is wrong in our society so we don't get stuck
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
January 2017
Categories |