Plato's Pod: Dialogues on the works of Plato

The second half of our discussion on Plato's Seventh Letter begins with a reading of Plato's famous statement that he never published any statement of his opinions. That's both the beauty and, for some, the frustration of Plato to his readers. The reason, as Michael Fitzpatrick states in our dialogue, is that Plato didn't want to give us the answer key: “The only way your soul benefits is if these thoughts are born afresh in your soul, and you see the truth for yourself.” Plato weaves into his Seventh Letter much of the philosophy that he presented in his many dialogues, in particular that of the Republic, and one of the central questions of the Seventh Letter is “Can virtue be taught?” It's a question that Plato also asked in the Meno, and we can see an answer from the Seventh Letter's extraordinary account of his experience with the tyrannical rule of Syracuse by the tyrant Dionysius. Written to the supporters of the tyrant's victim, Dion, and recounting his practical imprisonment by Dionysius on his third visit to the city, Plato admits that his attempts to teach virtue to Dionysius had failed. Is Plato saying virtue can never be taught? We don't know his opinion on the matter, and that's why he leaves the question hanging for us to consider.

In our first discussion on Plato's letters, we look at his best-known Seventh Letter. In the letter, Plato relates his experience with Dionysius, the tyrannical ruler of Syracuse, and the philosophically minded Dion was was persecuted by Dionysius. Plato's extraordinary recounting of his time teaching both Dionysius and Dion demonstrates his success with the latter, and failure with the former. There are many intriguing parallels between the situation in Syracuse 2,400 years ago, when Plato wrote, and the political and social environment in which we find ourselves today. Plato's account highlights the ills that befall a society whose rulers don't practise philosophy, and we see such rulers now, in the 21st century. The philosophical principles and observations about human nature that Plato expressed over two millennia ago remain relevant today, and in our next episode on the Seventh Letter we'll explore the age-old question "Can virtue be taught?"

What relevance do the principles and ideas of Plato's dialogues have for the modern, technologically-powered world of 8 billion people? In a wide-ranging discussion, James Myers and Michael Fitzpatrick address current social and political issues around the globe, relating them to the themes presented in a number of Plato's dialogues that include The Republic, The Laws, the Statesman, and the Meno, Questions of leadership, education, wealth, and social cohesion are raised, with some interesting suggestions for a path forward to the common good that was an abiding concern of Plato.Those interested in Michael's writing on Plato and related subjects can visit "Plato for the Masses" at https://platoforthemasses.substack.com/.

Our final meeting on Plato's longest dialogue, The Laws, concluded with readings from Book XII, where the Athenian expounds on the operation of a special Nocturnal Council that will act as the head and intellect for Crete's new colony, Magnesia. On August 4, 2024, members of the Toronto, Calgary, and Chicago Philosophy Meetup groups considered many of the key themes of The Laws, in discussing how the Nocturnal Council would guard the virtue of the colony, its leaders, and its citizens. The unique aim of Magnesia's constitution to be a virtuous and peaceful community, unlike constitutional goals many modern readers would be familiar with, requires a unity of principles, harmony, and laws based on reason, which will be the task of the Nocturnal Council to ensure. This led to a recollection of our first two meetings on The Laws, where we began with Book X and its justification that Reason itself is in the very centre of the universe, and is something far older than the physical matter that surrounds our immaterial souls. In concluding the dialogue, are we left with reason to think that Magnesia will be successful? The answer may depend on the meaning of virtue: is virtue, as the Athenian earlier stated, “the general concord of reason and emotion” and, as Socrates stated in the Meno, the account of the reasons why? Perhaps with today's increasing global discord, some solutions might be found in Plato's final dialogue, The Laws.

Book XII is the final chapter of Plato's longest and last dialogue, The Laws, and addresses the challenge of how a community can thrive when its leaders act against the collective interest. Having set out a novel constitution that promotes the virtue of citizens and leaders in Crete's new colony, Magnesia, the three characters in the dialogue turn their attention to protecting the colony from vice that sometimes arises from the greed and self-interest of rulers. On July 21, 2024, members of the Toronto, Calgary, and Chicago Philosophy Meetup groups met to consider the proposal discussed by the Athenian, Clinias from Crete, and Megillus from Sparta to implement an office of scrutineers to oversee Magnesia's Guardians of the Laws. The proposed solution avoids an infinite regress of leaders overseeing other leaders by giving the independent scrutineers the power to review but not to legislate, and it further strengthens the colony's virtue and peace with provisions governing ambassadors and guarding against foreign influence. Will their provisions be sufficient? In our next and final episode on The Laws, we'll discuss the Nocturnal Council, which is an additional pillar the three characters will add to Magnesia's constitutional framework to guard the Guardians.

Book XI of Plato's last and longest dialogue represents a dramatic shift in tone from Book X, where we began our series on The Laws eleven episodes ago. On July 7, 2024, members of the Toronto, Calgary, and Chicago Philosophy Meetup groups convened to consider the thirty-three laws that the Athenian proposes to Clinias and Megillus for the regulation of trade and property in Crete's new colony, Magnesia. Some of the Athenian's laws are exceptionally harsh, including one that would allow a passer-by over the age of thirty to administer a beating with impunity to any seller in the market who quotes two different prices in a day for his goods. In this book, the Athenian is dramatically different from Book X and the previous books. Does Clinias, who is to be among Magnesia's first rulers, see any contradictions in what the Athenian proposes in Book XI? Has the Athenian been faithful to his previous assertion that all laws must be prefaced by a lengthy, reasoned preamble, or do his thirty-three laws on the distribution of wealth rely more on tradition and less on reason in the resolution of often extremely contentious disputes over property? Participants engaged in a spirited discussion on these and other questions, as we set the stage to complete The Laws in our next two episodes.

In our eleventh meeting on Plato's longest and final dialogue, we set aside Book VIII and moved from Book VII to read selections from Book IX. In Book IX, the Athenian, Clinias from Crete, and Megillus from Sparta address the practical questions of administering justice for those in Crete's new colony who might commit evil acts. On June 23, members of the Toronto, Calgary, and Chicago Philosophy Meetup groups contributed thoughts to the approaches suggested by the Athenian, the first being that the laws should have preambles to persuade with reason those who might consider unjust acts. The analogy of a doctor having greater success treating a patient not just by prescription but also with education drew comments, as did the Athenian's conclusion that in certain cases the death penalty is warranted. The Athenian's philosophy that no one acts unjustly except against his will - that no one willingly does injustice - was another focus of the discussion. We began our series on the Laws with Book X, which presents Reason as central to the universe and the first cause of all physical things, and in Book IX the Athenian demonstrates the application of reason in confronting injustice.

In our series on Plato's longest and last dialogue, The Laws, on June 9, 2024 members of the Toronto, Calgary, and Chicago Philosophy Meetup groups turned to Book VII. There, the three characters – the Athenian, Clinias from Crete, and Megillus from Sparta – discuss the raising of children in Crete's new colony, Magnesia. They begin by exploring the harmony of the colony's laws with the customs and habits of its citizens, then they discuss the instruction of children. The Athenian ends by explaining that appreciating the relationships of numbers and shapes can deliver understanding of our individual limitations and collective potential in the universe. Some intriguing ideas emerge with respect to motion: that a harmony of the immaterial soul and material body in the motions of dance and song dispel the disharmony of fear, that the gods love us as a child loves playing with its toys, that idleness leads to corruption, and that there is fundamental incommensurability in the motions of the universe centred on Reason, whose role is to moderate the frequent conflicts between needs and pleasures.

In Book VI of his last dialogue, The Laws, Plato has the Athenian, Clinias from Crete, and Megillus from Sparta discuss the governing structure for Crete's new colony, to be called Magnesia. It's a mixed system involving elements of democracy and monarchy, and one that places responsibility on every citizen to perform duty for the community and to choose the Guardians of the Laws through a rigorous system of vetting. On May 26, 2024, members of the Toronto, Calgary, and Chicago Philosophy Meetup groups discussed the Athenian's proposals for the government of the colony with a view to securing peace and instilling virtue in the citizens and rulers. Many intriguing questions were raised about the unique project of establishing a colony with no prior history, and Crete's role was cast as that of a parent whose responsibility is to deliver its child, Magnesia, into the world while preparing to free the colony of its oversight so the community can flourish on its own.

In Book V of Plato's Laws, only the unnamed Athenian speaks while the other two characters, Clinias from Crete and Megillus from Sparta, listen to his presentation on the power of the soul, harmony in human behaviour, and the just division of property for Crete's new colony to be called Magnesia. On May 12, 2024, Plato's Pod held its eighth meeting on Plato's longest and last dialogue, with members of the Toronto, Calgary, and Chicago Philosophy Meetup groups participating. We began by listening to the Athenian's compelling exposition on the nature of the soul as the master in us, with the body as its slave. The Athenian continues by explaining how the virtuous soul gains happiness by moderating pains and pleasures, and his proposition that the new community should be “purged” of those who cause disharmony provoked a discussion among the participants on questions of ethics and the distinction between religious and secular ethics and laws. Book V ends with the Athenian's famous and curious proposal that 5,040 is the ideal population of a community. What did Plato, who sprinkled mathematics and geometry throughout his dialogues, intend to convey with this number?

Book IV of Plato's longest dialogue, The Laws, places the spotlight on the qualities of virtuous leadership as the three characters - the unnamed Athenian, Clinias from Crete, and Megillus from Sparta - discuss the establishment of Crete's new colony. The skill of the leader, says the Athenian, must help guide the colony through the risks and rewards of chance and opportunity. These, he says, reign supreme in the universe where God, not man, is the measure of all things. A spirited discussion ensued when members of the Toronto, Calgary, and Chicago Philosophy Meetup groups convened on April 28, 2024. We brought the themes of The Laws squarely into the 21st century, as participants raised similarities between the discussion written 2,400 years ago and the current global political situation. One member recalled that God, as defined in Book X, is Reason, and Reason is both the origin and middle of the universe. We discussed the possible benefits of the lengthy justifications of laws that the Athenian introduces. We also noted that at several points Book IV reminds us that the colony will embody a mixture of political styles, partially democratic and partially monarchical, like the constitutions of Crete and Sparta which are the homes of two of the three characters.

Our discussion on Book III of Plato's longest dialogue, The Laws, began by considering the consequences of natural cataclysms that invariably befall humanity. Plato opens the book with the emergence of early human communities that begin with goodwill when people are few and resources are relatively abundant, and many fascinating observations emerged when members of the Toronto, Calgary, and Chicago Philosophy Meetup groups convened on April 14, 2024 to consider this and the other themes of Book III. One participant asked whether humans are inherently bad, and others highlighted Plato's understanding of human behaviour in the context of political economy, a modern field of study, and that the rough edges of reason are best tempered by drink and music as we age. Book III focuses on the social benefits of concord between the extremes of pain and pleasure, on the one hand, and on the other hand reason – which Plato wrote in Book X is in the very middle of the universe. Book III stresses the importance of education, appreciation for proportion, and inculcation of a common sense of virtue among members of a community, which are topics that yielded some deep insights in our discussion.

Our coverage of Plato's longest dialogue, The Laws, continues with a discussion on Book II, building on the connection of virtue and happiness that was emphasized in Book I. As the Athenian, Cretan, and Spartan proceed in considering the ideal framework for a constitution, the theme of harmony in the soul and in the community is central to Book II. How are children to be educated, to instill in them a sense of virtue and to find happiness in its pursuit? When members of the Toronto, Calgary, and Chicago Philosophy Meetup groups convened on March 24, 2024, questions were raised about a perceived elitism in Plato and whether his educational approach is a form of indoctrination, any more than modern education might be considered as such. In any event, some form of understanding is required to find virtue in the “general concord of reason and emotion,” and Book II focuses on learning to judge the consequences of pleasure and pain that motivate human behaviour. We'll follow in our next episode with Book III, beginning where Book II ends highlighting the importance of correctly determining proportions and fidelity in representations.

If the constitution for Crete's new colony, Magnesia, is to succeed in setting the conditions for virtue among its citizens, self control and courage will be required to conquer the pains but equally the pleasures that visit every human life. This is the conclusion of the Athenian, Clinias, and Megillus in the second part of Book I of Plato's dialogue The Laws, which highlights the benefits of harmony to a society that equips citizens both to govern and to be governed. Members of the Toronto, Calgary, and Chicago Philosophy Meetup groups met on March 3, 2024 to explore these themes and consider parallels to modern social issues, when virtue is now seldom equated with happiness as it was when the U.S. Constitution was framed some 2,100 years after Plato's writing. And what of the Athenian's encouragement for citizens to engage in drinking parties as a test of virtue and self control? It's both a curious and amusing feature of Book I that we'll pursue when we read Book II of The Laws in our next meeting, rescheduled to March 24.

Plato's Pod began discussing Book I of Plato's longest dialogue, the Laws, which advances the argument for the constitution of Crete's new colony to cultivate the virtue of its citizens. It's unlike the war-focussed constitution of Crete itself, represented in the discussion by the character Clinias, and the laws of Sparta whose spokesman is Megillus, but together with the unnamed Athenian they agree that a society of virtuous citizens will be peaceful and enduring.On February 18, 2024, members of the Toronto, Calgary, and Chicago Philosophy Meetup groups turned to the dialogue's beginning armed with knowledge of Book X, which opened our extended series on the Laws by exploring Plato's presentation of the universe as having a soul and, at its core, the supremacy of Reason. Everything comes to be from a cause and Reason and, in Book I, virtue is presented as the reason for a peaceful and just society.Is there a lesson for the world now, 2,400 years after Plato wrote the Laws, in the pursuit of collective virtue as a higher good than the quest for individual freedom? Would a focus on virtue replace the present discord with harmony? Our discussion covered many of the practical considerations including security and protection of material possessions, the problems of measuring cause and effect over time, and the benefit of citizens who (in the words of the Athenian) know both “how to rule and be ruled as justice demands.” Such skill requires self control, a subject we'll discuss in our next episode when we will cover the second half of Book I of the Laws.

Plato's Pod continues its series on Plato's longest work, The Laws, picking up where we left off two weeks ago with the second part of Book X, near the end of the dialogue. In Book X, the three characters - an unnamed Athenian speaking with Clinias (from Crete) and Megillus (from Sparta) - set out the logic for reason as the primary cause of the universe, and reason's central function in the soul's moderation of need and desire. But have the three gone too far in prescribing the death penalty for any citizen of Crete's new colony, Magnesia, who refuses after every attempt at explanation and reconciliation to acknowledge reason as a god? On February 4, 2024, members of the Toronto, Calgary, and Chicago Philosophy Meetup groups met to consider the arguments. Is it just to impose reason in the form of a "state religion," one participant asked, or have the Athenian, Clinias, and Megillus adequately established that reason is no longer a matter of belief but a matter of fact? How do they define "impiety," for which death is the ultimate penalty, and is it fair to see it as a disease and demand that non-believers justify themselves? Some fascinating perspectives were offered in our discussion on the very different view of the universe and soul that is presented in Book X, which we will revisit when we turn to the beginning of The Laws in our next episode.

On January 21, 2024, Plato's Pod began its extended series on Plato's longest and perhaps most enigmatic and impenetrable dialogue, The Laws, which is said to have been his final work. Members of the Toronto, Calgary, and Chicago Philosophy Meetup groups began by discussing Book X, near the end of the dialogue, which features Plato's cosmology. The immaterial soul, says the unnamed Athenian speaking with a Cretan and Spartan, is the oldest thing in the universe, older than material physical matter and therefore the primary cause of all motion. Our discussion ranged from Plato's definition of "god" and the soul's power of persuasion, to the basis of the soul's laws. Are the laws rooted in universal nature, or in the time-bound variability of convention? Many fascinating points were raised, setting the stage for the second half of Book X in our next episode.

Plato brought the legend of Atlantis to the world in the Timaeus, and in the Critias provided many details of the fabulously wealthy and technologically advanced society that fell into disharmony and disappeared in a great earthquake 9,000 years earlier. As the character Critias relates the story, over time the Atlanteans gradually forgot their divine origin from the god Poseidon and began to pursue material wealth, losing their harmony and bringing upon themselves the punishment of Zeus. On December 3, 2023, members of the Toronto, Calgary, and Chicago Philosophy Meetup groups addressed the curious ending of the tale told by the character Critias, just as he was about to quote the words of Zeus. Was this cliff-hanger, “and he said …” a theatrical device of Plato, or a case of lost writing, or was Plato telling us that no human can know the mind of a god? The theme of memory plays throughout the dialogue, and Critias says that memory is particularly difficult when opinion applies in representing human actions over time. Was the ancient story that Critias relates a warning to the Athenians of his time about social constitutions like those of Atlantis that become too rigidly rooted in the past, and are there warnings in it for our time? The mystery of Atlantis has endured for 2,400 years since Plato's writing, and in our discussion we may have found some clues to understanding the lessons of Atlantean history.

Plato's Pod concluded its revisiting of Plato's Timaeus, covering from 53(a) to 72(d) with a focus on sensory perception in relation to triangles and what have come to be known as the five Platonic solids because of this dialogue. It was 2,400 years ago, when Plato wrote Timaeus, that he revealed to the world knowledge of the only five regular solids in the universe. Why did Plato, who was a geometer as well as a philosopher, go to great lengths to make the character Timaeus discuss triangles and the five regular solids in such detail? A fascinating discussion ensued on November 18, 2023 when members of the Toronto, Calgary, and Chicago Philosophy Meetup groups brought forth ideas on our souls' capacity for measurement of the “necessities” in the surrounding realm of Becoming, and the ethical implications of our measurements. The exceptional properties of the five Platonic solids were discussed, and perhaps most intriguing was one member's question about the spherical universe that Timaeus presents: “Is there a triangle in the very center of the sphere?”

How does perception of shape relate to our understanding of time, when everything we see, touch, taste, smell, and hear is in a constant state of motion and change? The question occupied members of the Toronto, Calgary, and Chicago Philosophy Meetup groups on November 5, 2023 in reading the assertions of the astronomer Timaeus on the interplay of proportions and probabilities in a spherical universe with a soul circling around its middle. Beginning at 48(a) in the dialogue, Timaeus introduces the concepts of Necessity, a container for the limits of things in the process of Becoming, and the four fundamental physical elements of earth, fire, water, and air – the latter two of which intermediate the first two. What does all of this mean? And what came first in the universe: physical objects, or intelligence? We will pick up in our next episode where we left off in this, with triangles and the five Platonic solids.

Plato's Pod continues its coverage of Plato's Timaeus, from 30(d)-47(e) where the astronomer Timaeus explains the construction of the universe centered on the soul. On October 22, 2023, members of the Toronto, Calgary, and Chicago Philosophy Meetup groups discussed the soul's vantage in the timeless realm of Being relative to motions in the universe's physical realm of Becoming, and our capacity for reason to differentiate and integrate information received from the physical senses. Timaeus claims that knowledge of proportion is essential to reason, which is one of the questions that the group considered. Participants brought forward many fascinating observations, including a comparison of today's atomic model to the way Timaeus depicts the universe as spherical. The session ended with Timaeus' unique description of the nature of time, which we will revisit at the beginning of the next meeting.

Why does Plato's Timaeus, on the creation of the universe, begin with Socrates disavowing the imagined city of The Republic? As Socrates and the astronomer Timaeus review their discussion of the previous day, which was the basis of Plato's epic on justice and political organization, Socrates declares that he can't picture the idealized city in motion. It's a question discussed by members of the Toronto, Calgary, and Chicago Philosophy Meetup groups on October 8, 2023, when Plato's Pod revisited the first part of the Timaeus, covering to 30(d). Why does Plato's dialogue then go on to discuss the legend of Atlantis, before Timaeus describes the fundamental division of the universe between Being – which is the realm of the observer – and Becoming, which is the part of the universe that consists of physical limits? Many fascinating points were raised by participants, touching on the scientific method, determinism and probability, the nature of time as linear or circular, and much more.

Plato's Pod introduces its 4th season by demonstrating the relevance of ancient philosophy to modern technology with the question, “What Would Socrates Say About ChatGPT?” We take Socrates to the offices of OpenAI to meet the company's CEO, Sam Altman, and imagine the questions that Socrates would have after the technology is explained to him. In the course of the imagined meeting, we bring a number of Plato's dialogues previously featured in the podcast into consideration, including the Cratylus, The Republic, the Phaedo, the Phaedrus, the Meno, the Statesman, the Theaetetus, the Critias, and the Philebus. What do you think - are there some timeless and fundamentally questions about our relationship with technology?

What is our relationship with the laws of the society of which we are a part, and what should we do when the laws are misapplied by a misguided majority? For Socrates, in Plato's Crito, the answer was clear: to endure the consequences, since he benefited from Athenian society and its constitution for seventy years. Wrongly convicted, and faced with his execution in two days, Socrates tells his friend Crito that it is not right for an individual to take the laws into his own hands, even if the laws have been corrupted by their custodians. On June 26, 2023, members of the Toronto, Calgary, and Chicago Philosophy Meetup groups convened to consider Crito's reasoning for Socrates' escape, and the conversation with the laws that Socrates stages at the end of the dialogue. One participant observed there is a family metaphor with Athens throughout the dialogue. Another participant asked, is it philosophy itself that Socrates was defending? And indeed, if Socrates had followed Crito's advice and bribed his way out of prison, would we be discussing Socrates now, 2,400 years after Plato wrote about him?

“We are all Ions,” one participant observed, and maybe that's truly the case if each one of us is a link in a storytelling chain. In Plato's dialogue the Ion, Socrates reminds the title character, who is a proponent of the poet Homer, that since Homer represented an idea, Ion is representing Homer's representation. With each successive representation, some of the original idea is altered to suit the memory and external influences acting on the storyteller. Is each one of us acting as a representative of a representative of one, or many, original idea(s)? Plato's short dialogue was the subject of a great discussion and originality of ideas among members of the Toronto, Calgary, and Chicago Philosophy Meetup groups on June 11, 2023. We concluded that while, like Ion, we all need inspiration, care must be taken to avoid the wrong path because every one of us learns from our failures. In Socrates' analogy, of the divine power as a magnetic stone that moves surrounding souls as if they were iron rings, where do we stand in relation to each other? What if, as one participant observed, Socrates intended to represent philosophy itself – the original idea – in the magnetic stone, as the timeless presence always in our midst?

In the opening of the last third of Plato's Symposium, the very drunken Alcibiades erupts in a comic and dramatic demonstration of his love for Socrates. When members of the Toronto, Calgary, and Chicago Philosophy Meetup groups met on May 28, 2023, we noted that whereas the previous six speeches were about love in the abstract, Plato chose to end the dialogue with the practical. In our discussion, Alcibiades was compared to the prisoner in the cave of Plato's Republic, caught in between, and pained by, the contrast of the light of love's beauty and the shadowy images on the cave wall. One observed that Alcibiades was trying to leave the cave, but without the right reasons. And at the end of our discussion, we came to see that Alcibiades' inability to escape his love from Socrates is a metaphor for Athens' inability to escape Socrates, and that Socrates' own fate may be an example of the dangers when the enlightened reveal the truth, of which the prisoner in the cave was warned. It was a fabulous conclusion to three amazing meetings on Plato's Symposium.

Speeches on love, first by Aristophanes, then Agathon, followed by Socrates who relates the wisdom of Diotima, lead us to wonder whether love is, as Diotima says, the mortal human's search for the immortality of the universe. On May 14, 2023, members of the Toronto, Calgary, and Chicago Philosophy Meetup groups gathered to piece together the grains of truth from the first six speakers in the symposium, or drinking party, attended by hungover Athenians. In our discussion, we agreed that love is expressed not only between humans, but by philosophers who are, by definition, lovers of wisdom. Some fascinating perspectives on love, and love's purpose, emerged. Our dialogue spoke to themes that touch on an eternal equality of division between one soul and another, and the fluid motion of all souls among the one. Perhaps, as Diotima observed, we are all pregnant and looking to give birth in beauty - whether the birth is that of another human, or the inception of an enduring memory of a great human craft. As one member observed, the childless da Vinci gave birth to a beautiful memory that grows stronger in time - and in this great discussion, some memorable observations were made on love, the thing we all want more of.

In our first of three sessions on Plato's Symposium, the dialogue on love that occurs among a group of hungover Athenians, participants from the Toronto, Calgary, and Philosophy Meetup groups pointed to grains of truth in the poetry of love presented by three speakers at the symposium. On April 30, 2023 we met to read parts of the three speeches, each of which examines love from a different perspective, to look for a common thread. Is love a god that rules over us, or is love ours to fashion? Love, several members reminded us, is not just between people, but also between people and knowledge - thus the word philosophy, which means "love of wisdom." The path to wisdom is paved with knowledge, and there were some uniquely powerful expressions of knowledge that harmonized in our dialogue on the theme of love.

What is the truth? In our previous discussion, we heard the conclusion of Socrates that measurement is the greatest skill that we can exercise. The title character of Plato's Lesser Hippias, or Hippias Minor, is unable to separate cause and effect in the motions of time, and the dialogue challenges not only Hippias but the reader to measure the difference that separates truth and lie – not just in objective physical outcomes but also in subjective value judgments. It's a matter of special importance now, 2,400 years later, as technology is used to generate and broadcast value judgments globally, often anonymously and of questionable intent. As one participant pointed out, truth and lie can both be present at the same time and, as the observer, it's the soul's job to measure its own relative perspective in distinguishing the difference. Recalling the division of the line of knowledge that Socrates describes in The Republic, gauging differences in perspective may be our guide to the path of truth that connects our hypotheses to the first principles of things – especially with predictive technologies like ChatGPT that we discussed in the conclusion.

In concluding our 3-part series on Plato's Protagoras, a consensus may have emerged that virtue is not a universal form – but if it has no consistent definition, what is virtue, and can it be taught? Members of the Toronto, Calgary, and Chicago Philosophy Meetup groups convened on March 26, 2023 to consider the teachability of virtue, which is the subject of Plato's dialogue. If virtue is really a form of knowledge, as Socrates concludes, then it can be taught, but that would contradict Socrates' initial view that virtue is not teachable. Meanwhile, the position of the sophist Protagoras appears to have changed to the point where he argues that virtue is not a matter of knowledge, and so as Socrates points out, the upshot of the discussion is “topsy-turvy.” Maybe the real question, as one participant observed, “"What is the motivation of these people teaching virtue, what is the advantage...?"

Is there a first principle of virtue? If virtue is knowledge that can be taught, does the teacher need to know the limits of virtue as a single thing - or does virtue consist of a range of attributes, each with different limits that are somehow connected? These and more questions on the nature of virtue were the subject of discussion on March 12, 2023 among members of the Toronto, Calgary, and Chicago Philosophy Meetup groups. In considering the dialogue between Socrates and Protagoras, the former holding that virtue is unteachable and the latter claiming qualifications as its teacher, some felt that Socrates established unfair advantage over the sophist with words and leading questions. Is virtue a matter of social conventions, and has Socrates met his match? At one point even Socrates questions his own abilities, as he attempts to demonstrate flaws in the knowledge claimed by Protagoras. Or, is virtue knowable only through a process of dialectic, if all knowledge is recollection as Socrates stated in the Meno? We will attempt to reach some conclusions, and maybe even define the thing that we call virtue, in two weeks' time in our final session on Plato's Protagoras.

Plato's dialogue Protagoras revolves around the question of whether virtue can be taught. If it can, then how do we define virtue? Is there a universal form for virtue, one thing alone that defines virtue regardless of our cultural, religious, or family circumstances? If virtue is not taught, how would anyone acquire the essential attributes that are needed to govern societies such as ours? Whether the sophist Protagoras has a valid justification for his selling of knowledge or not, Socrates' position that virtue cannot be taught came under fire during the discussion of members of the Toronto, Calgary, and Chicago Philosophy Meetup groups on February 26, 2023. We will reconvene on March 12 for the second part of the Protagoras, where the title character and Socrates continue their battle of words, each with a fierce dedication to his differing views. Socrates is on the ropes more than once, and we begin to wonder if he has met his match in a roomful of sophists.

In our exercise of reason to judge the harmonious mixture of pleasure and knowledge in the good life, Socrates ranks first the skill of measurement. In the conclusion of Plato's Philebus, we learn that measuring the combination of limits in becoming and the unlimitedness of being requires a special type of ability. On February 12, 2023, members of the Toronto, Calgary, and Chicago Philosophy Meetup groups met to consider the distinction that Socrates makes between the “Philosopher's arithmetic” and the everyday mathematics taught in school. Acknowledging that limits in the present state of becoming are unknowable, the philosopher continuously divides combinations of things to find their unities. In a wide-ranging and fascinating discussion, we touched on the two key values of zero and one-half in the soul's recollection of unity, and the possible application of the philosopher's arithmetic in understanding quantum mechanics.

Where does the human soul come from, if not the universe of which we are part? The question that Socrates poses relates to his assertion that everything comes to be from a cause, as he and Protarchus search for the causes of the soul's pleasure in things that in time neither are, nor ever were, nor ever will, be. In the second of three meetings on Plato's Philebus, members of the Toronto, Calgary, and Chicago Philosophy Meetup groups met on January 29, 2023 to consider the unlimited nature of pleasure within the limits of becoming, and the role of reason in bringing harmony to the good life. We explored the distinction between memory, which is what the soul experiences together with the body, and recollection which the soul later experiences on its own, and the importance of the soul's capacity to divide a thing's general form into its many unities until it finds the “common element”. Where does reason find the common element – perhaps in the middle of every thing?

What is the good? Why do we each measure the good differently, and what calculation do we apply to know the more from the less? Can we really know the good unless we fall in love with the good? These and other questions echoed many of Plato's other dialogues throughout the first of three discussions on the Philebus, when members of the Toronto, Calgary, and Chicago Philosophy Meetup groups met on January 15, 2023. In Plato's dialogue, Socrates and Protarchus quickly reach a conclusion that the good life consists of a mixture of knowledge and pleasure, not a life that is purely one or the other. The question then becomes the ratio of knowledge and pleasure in the ideal mixture, a matter in which the soul applies calculation, reason and memory to determine probabilities in time to come.

Time, and our understanding of sequences of cause and effect in the order of time, emerged as themes in our discussion of Plato's Greater Hippias. Members of the Toronto, Calgary, and Chicago Philosophy Meetup groups began their December 11, 2022 dialogue by considering the difference between intelligence – that the character Hippias claims to possess – and wisdom, which in Plato's Cratylus Socrates defined as “knowledge of motion”. Are the limits of motion the general parameters for intelligence of cause and effect, which are the products of motion? There are many fine dramatic elements in Plato's dialogue that lead us to wonder. If intelligence requires an ability to measure the order of cause and effect in time, the conceited, boastful sophist Hippias demonstrates the problem with the notion that man is the measure of things. Hippias demonstrates an inability to define the limits of “fine” and its opposite “foul”, but nonetheless applies assumptions of their extent to measure the qualities of a number of physical objects. The results, as Socrates illustrates, are illogical. It seems that while humans can certainly cause things, our knowledge of effect is always and necessarily uncertain.

We concluded our 3-part series on Plato's Cratylus with another deeply insightful discussion that emerged as we joined thoughts on the nature of things - things being objects of thoughts. We explored the frontiers of thoughts and the motion of their limits, with a fascinating discussion on whether man is the measure of things, the question of what number is, and some thoughts on a logic in the geometry of things, together with many other thought-provoking observations. It seems one conclusion which might be drawn from the group's three discussions on the Cratylus is the truth of Socrates' assertion. Socrates observed what our discussion demonstrated, that making a proper account of the meaning of the complex ideas exchanged by language requires both knowledge of the the nature of the thing and knowledge of the thing's uses in different times of human convention. After all, without language, as Socrates asked, how would we instruct each other?

How do we perceive a thing – defined as an “object of thought” – both with limits and without limits? Socrates begins the second part of Plato's Cratylus by examining our perception of being without limit in the names that we apply to the gods. Then he proceeds to consider differences when limits are applied to things in the continually changing state of becoming in the present. On November 13, 2022, members of the Toronto, Calgary, and Chicago Philosophy Meetup groups continued their discussion of the Cratylus and raised some fascinating ideas in relation to the universality of things. Does any thing have a permanent state of being, or are all things in a constant state of flux with no thing standing fast, as Heraclitus believed? One participant proposed that the becoming of a thing in the present is in an infinite state of difference between past and future. Another equated our perception of a thing to a synthesis of the thing's two limits of thesis and antithesis. We tested understanding, supervision, and transcendence of rules that apply to our naming of things by examining the varying definitions over time of the word “democracy”. In our next episode we will conclude our discussion of the Cratylus and look for a consensus on the question of whether man is the measure of things by convention, or if nature provides a permanent record of things.

The focus of Plato's dialogue the Cratylus is the origin and use of names applied to things, and our understanding of their meaning in complex ideas exchanged by language. On October 30, 2022 members of the Toronto, Calgary, and Chicago Philosophy Meetup groups began by examining the meaning of the word "thing" as an "object of thought", to establish the very broad and crucial scope of Plato's work in the context of our perception. We debated whether words originate in nature or by human convention, and whether rules are set and supervised in the establishment of names. The question may be of great importance now that our technology is gaining the power to simulate human language. At the end of our discussion we began to consider whether "man is the measure of things" and if that is the case how wisdom would be distinguished from foolishness, as Socrates asks. It's a question we will pick up on at the beginning of our second episode on the Cratylus.

In this introduction to Plato's Cratylus and season 3 of the podcast, James Myers reviews the highlights of the first two seasons and the relevance of Plato's Theory of Forms. What are the Forms? The question plays a central role in the origin and meaning of the words that we apply to things, which is the subject of the Cratylus and a matter of particular importance to today's technological world. As "objects of thought", things are the basis of human perception. With recent powerful advances in machine language technology, do we have the knowledge to distinguish between our own words and the words of the machines that are learning to simulate us? In the group discussion on the Cratylus that will follow in the next episode, we will explore the Forms of things, the evolving perception of things from past to present, and the future relationship of technology to the objects of our thoughts.

James Myers and Lantern Jack, host of the Ancient Greece Declassified podcast, discuss the relevance of ancient philosophy to modern technology. We explore technological mindsets, communication and the meaning crisis, the linearity or circularity of time, and the importance of memory. As humanity's technological power increases, is there a fundamental role for ancient philosophy in answering the "why" questions as we become more knowledgeable about the "how"? Is there a common language that can reconnect science and philosophy? In The Republic, Socrates states that number and calculation are the first order of knowledge for a philosopher; it's a connection that may seem unusual today but we consider the consequences if Socrates' ideal were to become modern reality.This episode is also featured on The Quantum Record, at https://thequantumrecord.com/.

Season two of group discussions on Plato's Pod concluded on June 19, 2022, when members of the Toronto Philosophy, Calgary Philosophy, and Chicago Philosophy Meetup groups met to discuss the second half of Plato's Parmenides and its conclusion that “if the one is not, nothing is.” In our minds, how do we distinguish one thing from another thing, and is it an absolute, universal truth that no thing in the universe would exist to us if the one is not?For that matter, what, exactly, is “the one” that is the subject of the various hypotheses tested in dialogue between Parmenides and young Aristotle, and why does Plato leave us with no definition of the one if nothing would be without it? A proposition was made for our discussion, that Plato's purpose in the Parmenides was that we consider our minds' system of perception in time. Only in time, in the changing state of becoming, are we able to perceive, when all perception is of differences that stand in contrast to the unity of one. It was proposed that without reference to the unity of one, itself beyond the constraints of time as Parmenides claims, our perceptions of a thing itself – such as the large – and of the character of the thing's parts, would always differ and lead to an infinite regress in thought. Early in our discussion we considered Parmenides' description of “the instant” of time when neither change nor rest exist but either is possible. Is “potential” another way of describing “the one”, in the instant in which either of two states is possible? We explored the relationship between this concept of the instant of time and current knowledge of quantum mechanics and the qubit, in particular the phenomenon of quantum superposition of states. Analogy was also used to consider the meaning of Plato's words, and one participant connected the analogy of the circle to a balloon as a way of understanding the limitless capacity of the one in three dimensions of either state of change or rest. Does time associate itself with number, as Plato wrote in the Timaeus, and if so what are the consequences? What are the unique properties of the one, among numbers, limits, and the differences in perception that arise from limits? We will consider these and other themes of Plato's works in September, when Plato's Pod will resume group discussions with an examination of the Cratylus. In the meantime, stay tuned to Plato's Pod over the summer months for some fascinating interviews and more perspectives on the works of Plato, the philosopher and geometer who wrote nearly 2,400 years ago.

In the first of two sessions on the Parmenides, members of the Toronto Philosophy, Calgary Philosophy, and Chicago Philosophy Meetup groups met on June 5, 2022 to discuss the first part of Plato's most enigmatic dialogue. What, exactly, is “the One” as the revered philosopher Parmenides describes universal being, and is it different from “not many” which are the words that Xeno attributes to all of existence. Does it matter, if there is a difference or not?Numerous points of logic emerge as Parmenides and Xeno train the young Socrates in the art of dialectic, to identify the first principle of a thing. Parmenides advises Socrates to identify as distinct one thing, and then to test the distinction so made by hypothesizing the consequences of the many in relation to themselves and in relation to the one, and of the one in relation to itself and in relation to the many. Such is the only logical means to achieve a full view of the truth, Parmenides states, and in our discussion we explored the nature of logic itself in relation to being and non-being.Do we think that we are part of one universe, or of a multiverse? Is logic ultimately a single universal form or, as Parmenides asks Socrates by analogy, is it like a sail covering many people who obtain either a part of the whole or the whole of the sail itself? This led to a discussion of what has become famously known as the “third man argument” arising in Plato's Parmenides, referring the possibility of an infinite regress in logic as we attempt to identify the origin of a thing. Is there an absolute truth in the matter, as one participant asked, and can it ever be proven empirically? It's an important question, among others, that we will explore in our second session on the Parmenides, as we ponder the possible universality of its conclusion that “if the one is not, nothing is.”

In the conclusion of Plato's Statesman, the Visitor from Elea describes the role of time and the ruler who understands the consequences of time's causes and effects (as both one and many) to maintain the harmony of the social fabric. But should such an ideal leader, whose role is to orchestrate but not participate in the administration of the state, be constrained by laws established in an earlier time? And how should such a ruler, whose mission is to harmonize both courage and temperance among the office-holders, be chosen?Members of the Toronto Philosophy and Calgary Philosophy Meetup groups met on May 22, 2022 to consider these and other questions, in the third of three dialogues on The Statesman. We began by listening to a re-enactment of Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and discussed the conditions of the civil war era during which the emancipator's words were spoken. Given their times, was Lincoln in some ways a tyrant, and was Henry VIII foremost a tyrant? These and other questions were raised as we pursued the proposition that constitutions should not be fixed in time. Several current constitutional issues were brought into the discussion, and one participant suggested that we might consider the advantages of welcoming the Visitor's ideal ruler, constrained by laws, under judges elected by the citizens. Could this be a better form of democracy? And what does democracy mean, when it is so widely and variably applied?Perhaps then the key is to find the common ground in the mean of extremes, as we discussed in our previous episode, and to ensure the continuing harmony of the mean in its own derivative. Is this what the Visitor from Elea was trying to tell us, in so many words?

We often use the term “social fabric” by way of analogy to the complex economic and governing relationships woven into communities of people. In Plato's Statesman, the Visitor from Elea equates the art of fabric-weaving with ruling, and asserts that the ruler must measure the fabric not to its extremes but to its mean in order to promote harmony in its connections. What skills and knowledge does the leader require to locate the mean, which is like an average or common ground between extremes, and how is the mean relevant to us now, 2,400 years after Plato wrote about it? Members of the Toronto Philosophy and Calgary Philosophy Meetup groups discussed the questions on May 8, 2022 in the second of three dialogues on The Statesman. We began by listening to a current legislator speak about the division and discord in today's politics which she placed in the broader context of time as she vowed “We will not let hate win”. As we considered the present tendency toward extremes, we discussed the importance of language in finding a common definition of democracy. The challenge in locating the mean, as the Visitor in Plato's dialogue points out, is that there are two types of expertise in everything we do. One type is the only cause of an outcome without input from other people over time, and the other contributes – along with the expertise of many others – to a series of outcomes over time. The wise statesman is one who understands the separations and combinations of expertise over time because, as one participant observed, there are two focal points: one is the middle of the extremes and the other is to the standard of the mean.

Is the leader born with the skills of statesmanship, or else what is the source of the expertise and theoretical knowledge that the statesman puts into practice in ruling over people? In the opening part of The Statesman, Plato takes us back in time to the beginning of the universe to search for the leader class and asks if there is in fact any natural separation between the ruler and ruled. Members of the Toronto Philosophy and Calgary Philosophy Meetup groups considered the question on April 24, 2022 in the first of three meetings on Plato's Statesman. We began with own journey in time to listen to a statesman and found the words of Robert Kennedy's 1966 “Ripple of Hope” speech still have the power to stir the soul's spirit as much as they did half a century ago. In Plato's dialogue, the Visitor from Elea likens statesmen to herdsmen who apply the force of their minds to direct the souls of their followers and thereby shape the arc of history when confronted by multiple choices and probabilities. In our dialogue, we explored the problem in the division of differing perspectives as we navigate the course of time. That the challenge might not always be resolved by rational calculation is a foundational principle that we can consider in our next session on The Statesman, in which the Visitor holds the job of the statesman is to find the mean of extremes. In the polarized politics of our time, use of the imagination may be the key to finding the mean where human potential can exceed either of two extremes. The many fascinating thoughts raised in our discussion certainly demonstrated the potential of moving beyond the limits of “what is” to “what if”, as one participant stated most powerfully.

Our dialogue on the Sophist concluded on April 3, 2022 when participants from the Toronto Philosophy and Calgary Philosophy Meetup groups considered the changing use of language in the communication of a shared reality, both in relation to Plato's theory of forms and the assertion of Parmenides that “that which is not”, on its own, is both unthinkable and unspeakable. In the conclusion of The Sophist, the Visitor from Elea asserts that “is not” simply means something “different” from “that which is” and therefore in reality there can be many differences but ultimately only one form of existence without negation. The Visitor asks how the sophist – who makes money by dispensing what he claims to be knowledge – can justify the separation of each thing that exists, together with its negation, without the necessity of combining all of Being in a logical harmony. It is the failure to bring existence into a reasoned unity that allows the sophist and his followers to believe that “everything is” and therefore falsity does not exist. But of course we know that there is falsity, and where there is falsity, the Visitor says, there is deception. One participant pointed out that when language is our only means to communicate knowledge, either in thought or in speech, uncertainty of meaning and therefore the potential of falsity arises when the words leave us with a wide range for interpretation. Other participants highlighted the benefit of expression in terms that are relevant to the listener, and the necessity for objects of speech to be both classified and related to each other. We considered the logical harmony of the five most important forms and their differing capacities in combination, that the Visitor sets out as our best defence against sophistry, and the host presented his definition of “the forms” for further consideration. We will continue to explore the nature of the forms and the other themes of The Sophist in our next meeting, in three weeks, when we begin to examine its sequel The Statesman and the sophistry that is practised by demagogues to maintain their rule over others. With the increasing prevalence of demagoguery in recent decades, and technological challenges to our understanding of reality, we may well find some very relevant and practical wisdom in the words that Plato wrote nearly 2,400 years ago.

Is there relevance today, 2,400 years after Plato raised it in The Sophist, to the question of what “that which is” is? Participants from the Toronto Philosophy and Calgary Philosophy Meetup groups began with this question when they met on March 20, 2022 to discuss the second part of The Sophist, from 235(e) to 254(b), and pointed to the confusion that can now arise when for example technology is used to create “deep fake” images of events that never occurred. In Plato's dialogue, the Visitor from Elea distinguishes “being” from “becoming” – the former is in an eternal, changeless realm accessible only to our minds' reasoning, while the latter is the continuously changing physical world that our bodies and senses occupy. The Visitor defines “that which is” as having “capacity” or potential, in the context of which we revisited Socrates' proposition in The Phaedo that all things come to be in opposites such that “that which is not” is an unspeakable, unthinkable logical contradiction to existence. We imagined the shape of opposites with reference to circles and triangles, and our dialogue proceeded to address the combination of the “Whole” containing parts with the “characteristic of being one” as a basis for reality according to Parmenides who was quoted by the Visitor. This led to a discussion of Plato's theory of Forms and “that which is” as a third thing that arises between opposites, being therefore neither and having the capacity of either. We will explore the Forms in more depth as we reach the conclusion of The Sophist in our next episode, keeping in mind the Visitor's presentation of the Forms as a harmony of their own mixture in which some Forms can exclude others, some are common to all, and some always cause division.

While the word “sophist” is no longer in general use, there are many examples today of sophistry which is the selling of expertise. How does the buyer know the expertise claimed is real, or whether the seller is an expert in name only? On March 6, 2022 members of the Toronto Philosophy and Calgary Philosophy Meetup groups began discussion of the first part of The Sophist (to 235(d)) with some modern examples of sophistry. This led to consideration of Plato's method of continuous division of expertise into successions of two opposites, to “chase a thing through both the particular and the general”. One participant compared the method to the exploration of a labyrinth while another described the divisions as options, but questions remained whether the choices of opposites were arbitrary or otherwise leading. These questions demonstrate Plato's point about the importance of reaching verbal agreement on the nature of a thing such as expertise beyond its name, amplified in The Sophist by the visitor from Elea who warns against the worst type of ignorance which is “Not knowing but thinking that you know. That's what probably causes all of the mistakes we make when we think.” Our discussion ended in considering the discord and disproportion in the soul that results from ignorance, where we will pick up in our next episode when we explore the nature of being and “that which is”.

Is the mind the cause of change and of differences in physical outcomes, as Socrates states in the conclusion of the Phaedo, or is it like software responding to the physical hardware of the body? The mind's role was featured as members of the Toronto Philosophy and Calgary Philosophy Meetup groups met on February 20, 2022 to finish reading Plato's dialogue that ends with the execution of Socrates. What does the evolving science of quantum mechanics have to say about the role of the mind as the observer and its effect on the physically observed? What is the cause of the mind itself, and which appeared first in the universe – mind or matter? Our discussion proceeded to address Plato's theory of Forms, based on the principle that things come to be in opposites which are indestructible and incapable of either increase or decrease. Socrates applies this principle in stating that the Form of life itself is the soul and, since the opposite of life is death, the soul as the cause of life is necessarily deathless and therefore eternal. The proposition of an immortal soul remains contentious, and we will explore it and the nature of the Forms further in our upcoming sessions on Plato's Sophist.

The nature of wisdom was a focus at the outset of our second session on Plato's Phaedo, when members of the Toronto Philosophy and Calgary Philosophy Meetup groups met on February 6, 2022, to cover passages 77(d)-98(b). Socrates states the soul experiences wisdom when it is free from the continual change and motion of the body and the physical world to which the body belongs, and in such freedom, the soul is able to investigate the unchanging, ever-existing nature of a thing. When the soul understands the limits of a thing – the two points that are the beginning and end of a thing – it can establish the common factor that is equal to both and therefore eternal and unlimited in its potential in the state of becoming in the present. We discussed the distinction that Socrates draws between composite and visible things, such as physical objects, and the soul which is noncomposite and invisible. This led to consideration of Plato's theory of forms, the things in themselves that require nothing other for their definition, and knowledge as information about different things that becomes wisdom when applied to the goal of happiness that all souls are equal. We ended with what might be a practical application of the wisdom in Socrates' question about the order in the generation of a thing. Does the logic of 96(b)-97(e), questioning the order of cause in the becoming of two from one, have relevance to what is now called superposition in quantum physics and quantum computing where two possible states exist simultaneously? Can mathematics correlate to wisdom, as one participant asked?