Socratic and Platonic philosophies

I'm new to this forum. I have always had a general interest in philosophy and just recently I read more in depth, specifically, the lives of Socrates and Plato. Everything I found out about them was fascinating, just the Athens culture was fascinating. If anyone else shares an interest in these two philosophical legends, I would love to hear your takes on their theories. I am no expert in this feild, yet more of an aspiring philosopher. Also any suggestions on readings would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Well, I'm really interested in Plato's Theory of the Forms. I could tell you alot about my thoughts on his theory, but that would take a long time. But I am writing this paper for a philosophy class that is pretty much a system of logic related to this theory. It's something I've been working on since I was only 16 years old! I recently decided to actually put it together as concisely as I could for use in my thesis. I posted a rough draft of it online as a pretty crude web document for some friends to look at and comment on for me at:

http://www.angelfire.com/magic/wizardslogic/

It doesn't have any referential material included and it's bare bones content, and I put it in small book format and gave it a catchy name (my online name, as a matter-of-fact) and alluded to his theory' possible connection to anything supernatural. It's was really alot of fun trying to make sense out of my crazy thoughts, and I've gotten fairly close at making it coherent. If you wanna' look at it and give me some feedback, that would be cool. I really need someone to tell me if I'm communicating my ideas effectively enough anyway. I haven't actually posted the whole paper, though. Chapter Six is only half complete and Chapter Seven needs to be reviewed and edited before I'd even consider posting it anywhere, but most I've my thoughts on the subject are pretty much there. Hope it helps in your search. Any feedback from you would certainly help mine. Just let me know if you've gotten a look at it and digested somewhat. Thanx.

Oh, yeah..I've told these few warnings to a few others who have graciously offered to give me some feedback on my paper...Chapter One could be considered pretty boring--material that's aready been pretty well covered by lots of people--and Chapter Two is pretty abstract, but a psychological primer for the rest. Chapter Three is pretty basic and probably needs alot of work. Chapter Four might be the most interesting of the whole paper. Chapters Five is OK the way it is. Chapter Six, as I said, is incomplete, and Chapter Seven is still under wraps. Hope that helps. It's all pretty much my freaky take on Plato's philosophy. Good luck figurting it all out. Lol! Thanx.

ya its pretty nice as far as I have read, will give you feedback after a while

Yeah, well, like I said, I think it's pretty boring until you get through Lesson Three and into Lesson Four. The thing I worry about for my thesis is what I call the "diagram of the infinities." It's an abstract symbolic psychological representation of the limits of human comprehension of the external world in terms of three-dimensional space and linear time--the crux of my whole thesis. If anyone can understand that then the whole system of thought might fall into place. It's pretty hard to grasp, but I'm hoping my instructor, who is a mathematician as well as a philosopher, will get it. But I want it to come across to anyone who hears it becauase that's one of the requested and desired qualities of the thesis--universal comprehension by both teacher and student. It'll be read by everyone in the class and commented on by everyone. That's the scary part. Anyway, thanks for even reading it, and commenting on it as well. I appreciate it.

I was a little hazy on the definition of Plato's 'Forms'. Is a form just a perfect concept to shoot for? This is what I got out of it, please inform me if I'm wrong.

Actually. Plato believed the "real world," beyond our perception of it, transcended both space and time, and that the physical material world of diversity and change was illusion. Individual material objects, such as tree, for example, was nothing more than a "shadow" or imperfect image of some great transcendent and metaphysical entities he called Forms which, for us, would be understood to be manifest in our minds as mental concepts, like the concept Tree, for example. He believed that the human was, in a sense, a "sensory organ" capable of "touching" these transcendent and metaphysical forms which constitute the true nature of reality. Pretty far-fetched idea, huh?

This is why Athens Greece back then is so fascinating. Everyone was so open to new ideas and eager to take them in. I wish today could be like Athens back then. I think we'd be a lot more progressive. And yes, a very far fetched concept, but very interesting!

ChrisD: there are many resources I could give you, however if you want the best information, you should look at academic papers, articles, etc... This means most things from a university that have been written and researched by academics. Anyways have a read of the following link (it will become your philosophical friend....no doubt). These provide very detailed notes on Plato and Socrates. A lot of reliable information. http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html. Use the search bar for 'plato' and 'socrates' and get busy reading! enjoy

thanks.

Actually wizard it's not such a crazy idea, infact I have experianced the 'formless' to quite a large extent. At its base is mediattion and spirituality, and this state cannot be reached through logical analysis. Still havn't read all of your material though, but dun worry it didn't sound mechanical

Or maybe the world really isn't made up things composed of matter or substance, maybe only a synthesis of forms accessible only by the mind. That's the secret of Plato's Theory of the Forms, I think. Not only does it insinuate that the external world is really essentially mental in substance, form and function, but also that the external world is a reflection of our minds, or vice versa. In other words, the universe exists within us as well as outside of us. We are the microcosm, and the macrocosm if we learn to master or minds. I like that idea. Dont' worry about it too much, Angel; if you can get through Lesson Four I'll be pleasantly surprised.

Actually, now that I think of it, Angel, read Lesson Four first. Lesson Four is really the core of the entire paper. If you can absorb that then the rest will certainly be easy to digest. Maybe I should rewrite the whole thing so that the content of Lesson Four starts the whole thing...Hmmm. Anyway, yeah, read Lesson Four first and tell me what you think. It deals with our experience of time and uses geometric analogies to determine its true nature as a spacial concept, that is, as a Fourth Dimension of space "psychologically speaking." It's not really that complicated to understand. Anyway, thanks again for atleast attempting to read my strange philosophy of reality.

hey wizard, I just got done reading lesson four and I am very impressed at the way you teach your concept. Your diagrams were a great help. I don't think I would have been able to grasp it without them. This lesson definately expanded my thinking of time (like a dialating eye ). I am eager to read other lessons now (not like I was when I started on lesson 1), so I suggest maybe putting lesson four first? I don't know. Either way, great read!

Cool!...I was looking at the whole thing myself and realized how difficult it might be to trudge through the preliminary stuff before getting to the heart of the matter...I thought it should be a gradual thing, but I think most people lose interest before ever getting to the meat of the subject in Lesson Four...Anyway, maybe I should figure out a way to put the content of Lesson Four at the beginning...Thanks for letting me know the thoughts get through somewhat in Lesson Four...If you get through Lesson Five and, especially, into Lesson Six where I get to the subject of Plato's Forms (which you seem to be interested in), hopefully I won't lose you...It's a pretty wild theory...Anyway, thanks again for your feedback.