The other region is the world of ideas, about which we can have true knowledge by using our reason. This world of ideas cannot be perceived by the senses, but the ideas (or forms) are eternal and immutable.
According to Plato, man is a dual creature. We have a body that "flows," is inseparably bound to the world of the senses, and is subject to the same fate as everything else in this world--a soap bubble, for example. All our senses are based in the body and are consequently unreliable. But we also have an immortal soul--and this soul is the realm of reason. And not being physical, the soul can survey the world of ideas.
But that's not all, Sophie. IT'S NOT ALL!
Plato also believed that the soul existed before it inhabited the body, (it was lying on a shelf in the closet with all the cookie molds.) But as soon as the soul wakes up in a human body, it has forgotten all the perfect ideas. Then something starts to happen. In fact, a wondrous process begins. As the human being discovers the various forms in the natural world, a vague recollection stirs his soul. He sees a horse--but an imperfect horse. (A gingerbread horse!) The sight of it is sufficient to awaken in the soul a faint recollection of the perfect "horse," which the soul once saw in the world of ideas, and this stirs the soul with a yearning to return to its true realm. Plato calls this yearning eras--which means love. The soul, then, expe-riences a "longing to return to its true origin." From now on, the body and the whole sensory world is experienced as imperfect and insignificant. The soul yearns to fly home on the wings of love to the world of ideas. It longs to be freed from the chains of the body.
Let me quickly emphasize that Plato is describing an ideal course of life, since by no means all humans set the soul free to begin its journey back to the world of ideas. Most people cling to the sensory world's "reflections" of ideas. They see a horse--and another horse. But they never see that of which every horse is only a feeble imitation. (They rush into the kitchen and stuff themselves with gingerbread cookies without so much as a thought as to where they came from.) What Plato describes is the philosophers'way. His philosophy can be read as a description of philosophic practice.
When you see a shadow, Sophie, you will assume that there must be something casting the shadow. You see the shadow of an animal. You think it may be a horse, but you are not quite sure. So you turn around and see the horse itself--which of course is infinitely more beautiful and sharper in outline than the blurred "horse-shadow." Plato believed similarly that all natural phenomena are merely shadows of the eternal forms or ideas. But most people are content with a life among shadows. They give no thought to what is casting the shadows. They think shadows are all there are, never realizing even that they are, in fact, shadows. And thus they pay no heed to the immortality of their own soul.
Out of the Darkness of the Cave
Plato relates a myth which illustrates this. We call it the Myth of the Cave. I'll retell it in my own words.
Imagine some people living in an underground cave. They sit with their backs to the mouth of the cave with their hands and feet bound in such a way that they can only look at the back wall of the cave. Behind them is a high wall, and behind that wall pass human-like creatures, holding up various figures above the top of the wall. Because there is a fire behind these figures, they cast flickering shadows on the back wall of the cave. So the only thing the cave dwellers can see is this shadow play. They have been sitting in this position since they were born, so they think these shadows are all there are.
Imagine now that one of the cave dwellers manages to free himself from his bonds. The first thing he asks himself is where all these shadows on the cave wall come from. What do you think happens when he turns around and sees the figures being held up above the wall? To begin with he is dazzled by the sharp sunlight. He is also dazzled by the clarity of the figures because until now he has only seen their shadow. If he manages to climb over the wall and get past the fire into the world outside, he will be even more dazzled. But after rubbing his eyes he will be struck by the beauty of everything. For the first time he will see colors and clear shapes. He will see the real animals and flowers that the cave shadows were only poor reflections of. But even now he will ask himself where all the animals and flowers come from. Then he will see the sun in the sky, and realize that this is what gives life to these flowers and animals, just as the fire made the shadows visible.
The joyful cave dweller could now have gone skipping away into the countryside, delighting in his new-found freedom. But instead he thinks of all the others who are still down in the cave. He goes back. Once there, he tries to convince the cave dwellers that the shadows on the cave wall are but flickering reflections of "real" things. But they don't believe him. They point to the cave wall and say that what they see is all there is. Finally they kill him.
What Plato was illustrating in the Myth of the Cave is the philosopher's road from shadowy images to the true ideas behind all natural phenomena. He was probably also thinking of Socrates, whom the "cave dwellers" killed because he disturbed their conventional ideas and tried to light the way to true insight. The Myth of the Cave illustrates Socrates' courage and his sense of pedagogic responsibility.
Plato's point was that the relationship between the darkness of the cave and the world beyond corresponds to the relationship between the forms of the natural world and the world of ideas. Not that he meant that the natural world is dark and dreary, but that it is dark and dreary in comparison with the clarity of ideas. A picture of a beautiful landscape is not dark and dreary either. But it is only a picture.
The Philosophic State
The Myth of the Cave is found in Plato's dialogue the Republic. In this dialogue Plato also presents a picture of the "ideal state," that is to say an imaginary, ideal, or what we would call a Utopian, state. Briefly, we could say that Plato believed the state should be governed by philosophers. He bases his explanation of this on the construction of the human body.
According to Plato, the human body is composed of three parts: the head, the chest, and the abdomen. For each of these three parts there is a corresponding faculty of the soul. Reason belongs to the head, will belongs to the chest, and appetite belongs to the abdomen. Each of these soul faculties also has an ideal, or "virtue." Reason aspires to wisdom, Will aspires to courage, and Appetite must be curbed so that temperance can be exercised. Only when the three parts of the body function together as a unity do we get a harmonious or "virtuous" individual. At school, a child must first learn to curb its appetites, then it must develop courage, and finally reason leads to wisdom.
Plato now imagines a state built up exactly like the tripartite human body. Where the body has head, chest, and abdomen, the State has rulers, auxiliaries, and fa-borers (farmers, for example). Here Plato clearly uses Greek medical science as his model. Just as a healthy and harmonious man exercises balance and temperance, so a "virtuous" state is characterized by everyone knowing their place in the overall picture.
Like every aspect of Plato's philosophy, his political philosophy is characterized by rationalism. The creation of a good state depends on its being governed with reason. Just as the head governs the body, so philosophers must rule society.
Let us attempt a simple illustration of the relationship between the three parts of man and the state:
BODY SOUL VIRTUE STATE
head reason wisdom rulers
chest will courage auxiliaries
abdomen appetite temperance laborers
Plato's ideal state is not unlike the old Hindu caste system, in .which each and every person has his or her particular function for the good of the whole. Even before Plato's time the Hindu caste system had the same tripartite division between the auxiliary caste (or priest caste), the warrior caste, and the laborer caste. Nowadays we would perhaps call Plato's state totalitarian. But it is worth noting that he believed women could govern just as effectively as men for the simple reason that the rulers govern by virtue of their reason. Women, he asserted, have exactly the same powers of reasoning as men, provided they get the same training and are exempt from child rearing and housekeeping. In Plato's ideal state, rulers and warriors are not allowed family life or private property. The rearing of children is considered too important to be left to the individual and should be the responsibility of the state. (Plato was the first philosopher to advocate state-organized nursery schools and full-time education.)
After a number of significant political setbacks, Plato wrote the tows, in which he described the "constitutional state" as the next-best state. He now reintroduced both private property and family ties. Women's freedom thus became more restricted. However, he did say that a state that does not educate and train women is like a man who only trains his right arm.
All in all, we can say that Plato had a positive view of women--considering the time he lived in. In the dialogue Symposium, he gives a woman, the legendary priestess Diotima, the honor of having given Socrates his philosophic insight.
So that was Plato, Sophie. His astonishing theories have been discussed--and criticized--for more than two thousand years. The first man to do so was one of the pupils from his own Academy. His name was Aristotle, and he was the third great philosopher from Athens.
I'll say no more!
While Sophie had been reading about Plato, the sun had risen over the woods to the east. It was peeping over the horizon just as she was reading how one man clambered out of the cave and blinked in the dazzling light outside.
It was almost as if she had herself emerged from an underground cave. Sophie felt that she saw nature in a completely different way after reading about Plato. It was rather like having been color-blind. She had seen some shadows but had not seen the clear ideas.
She was not sure Plato was right in everything he had said about the eternal patterns, but it was a beautiful thought that all living things were imperfect copies of the eternal forms in the world of ideas. Because wasn't it true that all flowers, trees, human beings, and animals were "imperfect"?
Everything she saw around her was so beautiful and so alive that Sophie had to rub her eyes to really believe it. But nothing she was looking at now would last. And yet--in a hundred years the same flowers and the same animals would be here again. Even if every single flower and every single animal should fade away and be forgotten, there would be something that "recollected" how it all looked.
Sophie gazed out at the world. Suddenly a squirrel ran up the trunk of a pine tree. It circled the trunk a few times and disappeared into the branches.
"I've seen you before!" thought Sophie. She realized that maybe it was not the same squirrel that she had seen previously, but she had seen the same "form." For all she knew, Plato could have been right. Maybe she really had seen the eternal "squirrel" before--in the world of ideas, before her soul had taken residence in a human body.
Could it be true that she had lived before? Had her soul existed before it got a body to move around in? And was it really true that she carried a little golden nugget inside her--a jewel that cannot be corroded by time, a soul that would live on when her own body grew old and died?
柏拉图
……回归灵魂世界的渴望……
第二天清早，苏菲猛然惊醒，看一看钟，才刚过五点，但她却已经没有一点睡意了，于是她便在床上坐起来。奇怪，自己为何仍然穿着白天的衣裳呢?然后，她想起了昨天发生的一切。
她爬到凳子上，检查一下柜子的上层。没错，带子还在那里。原来这真的不是一场梦。至少不完全是一场梦。
不过她一定不可能真的见到了柏拉图与苏格拉底……算了，真伤脑筋，她现在已经没有力气再去想它了。也许妈妈说得对，也许她这几天真的有些神经兮兮的。
不管怎样，她是再睡不着了。也许她应该到密洞去，看看那只狗是否曾留下任何信件。
苏菲溜下楼，穿上一双慢跑鞋便出门了。
花园中一切都清朗宁静美好。鸟儿们唱得如此起劲，使苏菲忍不住想笑。草叶上的朝露宛如水晶一般闪闪发光。
这世界如此美好，令人不可思议。苏菲再一次深深受到感动。
老树篱内非常潮湿。苏菲没有看到哲学家的来信，不过她还是掸了掸一截粗大的树根，坐了下来。
她想起录影带上的柏拉图曾经要她回答一些问题。第一个问 题是面包师傅如何做出五十个一模一样的饼干。
苏菲暗忖，她得仔细想一想才行，因为这个问题一定不简单。
妈妈偶尔也会做一些饼干，但从来没有一次饼干形状完全相同。不过话说回来，妈妈不是专业的面包师傅，有时厨房甚至乱得像被炸弹轰炸过一样。即使是店里卖的饼干也从来没有完全一样的，每一块饼干在制饼师傅手中都捏成不同的样子。
此时，苏菲脸上浮现满意的笑容。她记得有一回妈妈忙着烤圣诞节的饼干，因此她和爸爸一起去买东西。他们回到家后看到厨房的桌子上散放了许多姜饼人。这些姜饼人虽然不很完美，但就某一方面来说，却都是一模一样的。为什么会这样呢?显然是由于妈妈做这些姜饼人时用了同一个模子的缘故。
想到自己居然记得这件小事，苏菲很是得意。因此她想这第一个问题应该已经答完了。
如果一个饼干师傅做了五十个完全一模一样的饼干，他一定是用了同样一副饼干模子。很简单，就是这样。
录影带上的柏拉图问的第二个问题是：为何所有的马都一样?
可是，事实并非如此啊j相反的，苏菲认为没有两匹马是完全相同的，就像没有两个人是一模一样的。
苏菲正要放弃这个问题时，突然想到她刚才对饼干的看法。事
实上，也没有两块饼干是一模一样的，有些比较厚，有些比较薄，有些碎了。然而，每个人都可以看出这些饼干就某一方面来说是“一模一样”的。
也许柏拉图问的是为何马一直是马，而不会变成一种既像马又像猪的动物。因为，虽然有些马像熊一样是棕色的，有些则白得像绵羊，但所有的马都有一些共同点。举例来说，苏菲就从没有见过六条腿或八条腿的马。
但柏拉图不可能相信所有的马之所以相同，是因为他们是用同一个模子做成的吧?
然后柏拉图又问了她一个很深、很难的问题：人有没有不朽的灵魂?
苏菲觉得自己不太够资格回答这个问题。她只知道人死后，人体不是火葬就是土葬，因此实在没有未来可言。如果人有一个不朽的灵魂，那我们就必须相信一个人是由两个不同的部分组成的一个是用了多年之后就会老旧、损坏的躯体，还有一个是无论身体情况如何，仍然多少可以独立作业的灵魂。苏菲的奶奶曾经说过，她觉得变老的只是自己的身体而已，在内心她一直都还是一个年轻的女孩。
想到“年轻女孩”，苏菲就想到最后
有理性吗?对于这点，她可不敢确定。
“性”是什么。
—个问题：女人和男人一样
这要看柏拉图所谓的“理
哲学老师在谈论苏格拉底时所说的一些话突然浮现在苏菲的脑海中。苏格拉底曾经指出，每一个人只要运用自己的常识，都可以了解哲学的真理。他也曾说奴隶与贵族一样有常识。因此苏菲肯定他也会说女人和男人一样有常识。
当她正坐在那儿想着这些问题时，突然听到树篱里有沙沙的声音以及类似蒸汽引擎“噗!噗!”喷气的声音。下一秒钟，一条金色的狗已经钻进了密洞，嘴里衔着一个大信封。
“汉密士!”苏菲叫它，“丢下来，丢下来！”
狗儿把信放在苏菲的怀中。苏菲伸出手摸摸它的头“你真乖。”她说。
狗儿躺下来任由苏菲抚摸。但过了两三分钟，它就站了起来，钻过树篱由原路回去。苏菲手拿棕色的信封跟着它，爬过浓密的枝叶，不一会就出了花园。
汉密士已经开始向树林的边缘跑去了。苏菲在后头跟了几码路，狗儿两次转过身来对她吠叫，但苏菲一点也不害怕。
这次她决心要找到那个哲学家，即使必须一路跑到雅典也在所不惜。狗儿愈跑愈快，然后突然跑到一条窄的小路上。苏菲紧迫不舍，但几分钟后狗儿转过身来面对着她，像看门狗一样的吠叫。
苏菲仍然不肯放弃，趁机会拉近他们之间的距离。
汉密士一转身，向前飞奔。苏菲发现自己永远不可能迫得上。
于是她停下来，在那儿站了好久好久，听到它愈跑愈远，而后一切复归寂静。
她在林中空地旁的一截树木残桩上坐下，手里仍拿着那个棕色的信封。她把它拆开，拿出几页打着字的信纸，开始看信：
柏拉图学院
苏菲，谢谢你与我共度一段愉快的时光。我是指我们在雅典的时候。现在我至少已经算是做过自我介绍了。还有，既然我也向你介绍了柏拉图，因此我们还是开门见山地谈他吧。
苏格拉底服毒而死时，柏拉图(公元前四二七～公元前三四七年)才二十九岁。当时他受教于苏格拉底门下已经有一段时间。他密切注意苏格拉底受审的经过。当他看到雅典人民居然将他们当中最高贵的人判处死刑时，内心非常震动。这件事影响了他后来的哲学生涯。
对柏拉图而言，苏格拉底之死证明了当今社会与理想社会之间的冲突。柏拉图成为哲学家后所做的第一件事就是将苏格拉底对陪审团的陈情内容出版成《自辩》(Apo1ogy)一书。
你也许还记得，苏格拉底从未留下任何丈字。至于苏格拉底之前的哲学家虽然有许多人曾著书立说，但他们的文字到现在却几乎都荡然无存。至于柏拉图，我们相信他所有的重要著作应该都已经保存下来了。除了苏格拉底的《自辩》之外，柏拉图也写了好些书信与至少三十五篇哲学对话录。这些作品之所以能留存至今，一部分是因为柏拉图在距雅典不远之处的一个树林中创立了一个哲学学校，并以传奇中的希腊英雄阿卡戴慕士(ACademus)为名。因此这个学校被称为“学园”或“学院”(Academy)(从此以后全世界各 地成立了成千上万所学院，以后我们会谈到有关“学院”与“学科”的问题)。
柏拉图学园中教授的科目包括哲学、数学与体育。不过，说“教授”其实不太正确，因为柏拉图学园也是采取活泼的对话方式上课，因此柏拉图之所以采用对话录的形式来写作并非偶然。
永远的真善美
在这堂课的序言中，我曾经提到一个人可以不时问问自己某 一个哲学家研究什么课题。因此我现在要问：柏拉图关心的是哪些问题?
简单地说，我们可以断定柏拉图关心的是永恒不变的事物与“流动”事物之间的关系(就像苏格拉底之前的哲学家一样)。我们已经谈过诡辩论学派与苏格拉底如何将他们的注意力由有关自然哲学的问题转到与人和社会的问题。然而从某个角度来看，就连苏格拉底与诡辩学派也都关心永恒不变的事物与“流动”事物之间的关系。他们之所以对这个问题感兴趣，乃是由于它与人类道德与社会理想及美德之间的关系。简而言之，诡辩学家认为每一个城邦、每一个世代对于是非的观念各不相同。因此是非的观念是“流动”的。苏格拉底则完全不能接受这种说法，他认为世间有所谓永恒、绝对的是非观念存在。我们只要运用自己的常识便可以悟出这些不变的标准，因为人类的理智事实上是永恒不变的。
