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.

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.

Dialogue on The Parmenides, Session 2: If the One is Not, then Nothing Is

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 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.”

Dialogue on The Parmenides, Session 1: The One and the Many

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?

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?

Dialogue on The Statesman, Session 3: Harmony in Time

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.

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.

Dialogue on The Statesman, Session 2: The Mean and The Extremes

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.

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.

Dialogue on The Statesman, Session 1: Ripple of Hope

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.

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.

Dialogue On The Sophist, Session 3: The Forms In A Harmony Of Difference

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.

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.

Dialogue On The Sophist, Session 2: The Forms Whole And One

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”.

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”.

Dialogue On The Sophist, Session 1: Continuous Division

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.

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.

Dialogue On Phaedo, Session 3: Form And Cause

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?

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?

Dialogue On Phaedo, Session 2: Infinite Potential

Welcome to Plato's Pod, a bi-weekly podcast of a group discussion on the dialogues of Plato.  The discussion is held through Meetup.com by the Toronto Philosophy and Calgary Philosophy groups and anyone interested in participating, whether to learn about Plato or to contribute to the dialogue, is welcome to join with no experience required!  The podcast is hosted by amateur philosopher James Myers and inquiries can be e-mailed to dialoguesonplato@outlook.com.  Wherever we go in our discussions we gain knowledge from each other’s perspectives, and for the increase in knowledge we invite everyone to add their voice to the dialogue.  Plato, without a doubt, would have imagined no better way than in dialogue for knowledge – the account of the reasons why – to find its home.

In our first of three episodes on Plato’s Phaedo, on January 23, 2022 members of the Toronto Philosophy and Calgary Philosophy Meetup groups considered the properties of the soul that Socrates presents to his friends hours before his execution. Socrates says the body, in its constant state of change in the present, confuses the soul and so the soul’s path to pure knowledge is to separate itself as much as possible from the body in life. Does the soul interpret the varying inputs of the body’s senses with reference to opposites, in which Socrates says all physical objects come to be and because of which the soul is endowed with knowledge of The Equal? We discussed the Uncertainty Principle that limits knowledge of the physical universe, and The Equal as the balance that allows the soul to establish the difference between what is and what is not. One participant asked whether the number of souls is finite and if there is a point at which all souls connect, questions we might address in our next episode when we examine the properties of the invisible realm to which souls belong. Another posed the idea of the soul as “information”, which we began to explore in the context of the universal law of conservation of information and our recollection of departed souls. We ended our dialogue at 77(c), the point at which Socrates’ friends agree that the soul exists before birth but remain unconvinced that it does not disintegrate on death. Socrates defines death as separation of the soul from the body, and in our next episode we will explore his arguments that the soul remains intact, in itself, after death, and capable of recollection of equals and opposites in its thought processes.

In our first of three episodes on Plato’s Phaedo, on January 23, 2022 members of the Toronto Philosophy and Calgary Philosophy Meetup groups considered the properties of the soul that Socrates presents to his friends hours before his execution. Socrates says the body, in its constant state of change in the present, confuses the soul and so the soul’s path to pure knowledge is to separate itself as much as possible from the body in life. Does the soul interpret the varying inputs of the body’s senses with reference to opposites, in which Socrates says all physical objects come to be and because of which the soul is endowed with knowledge of The Equal? We discussed the Uncertainty Principle that limits knowledge of the physical universe, and The Equal as the balance that allows the soul to establish the difference between what is and what is not. One participant asked whether the number of souls is finite and if there is a point at which all souls connect, questions we might address in our next episode when we examine the properties of the invisible realm to which souls belong. Another posed the idea of the soul as “information”, which we began to explore in the context of the universal law of conservation of information and our recollection of departed souls. We ended our dialogue at 77(c), the point at which Socrates’ friends agree that the soul exists before birth but remain unconvinced that it does not disintegrate on death. Socrates defines death as separation of the soul from the body, and in our next episode we will explore his arguments that the soul remains intact, in itself, after death, and capable of recollection of equals and opposites in its thought processes.

Dialogue On Phaedo, Session 1: Logic Of The Equal

Can an algorithm care about its outcomes, and a computer observe itself? These were among the fascinating questions raised in our dialogue on the first part of The Philebus, when members of the Toronto Philosophy and Calgary Philosophy Meetup groups met on January 9, 2022. We began with the importance of distinguishing the one from the many, or the same and different, which is a key theme at the outset of Plato’s dialogue and the significant problem of categorization in today’s machine learning. Humans still excel in categorization and pattern-recognition, which Socrates points out is the way we derive meaning from speech and musical sound. Socrates raised the matter of the one and the many in his discussion with Protarchus when, in concluding the best life is a mixture of knowledge and pleasure, they investigate the difficulty of combining a function of limits and the unlimited. What is the appropriate ratio of the limits of knowledge and unlimited pleasures, in the mixture of the two for the good life? How do we attain a “limited understanding of the unlimited,” as one participant asked? Socrates emphasizes the philosopher’s knowledge of number and calculation to define equals, opposites, and intermediates in determining the proportions of the unlimited and the limited before understanding the cause of the resulting actions. Also highlighted is the ordering of empirical data in the rational process of deriving, and then recalling, knowledge through the application of reason. And so how do we distinguish between the one and the many? Many questions were raised, but perhaps one participant summarized it most clearly as a unification of dualities in our experience of time as a linear sequence: “You can’t wrap your mind around reality, because reality is wrapped around your mind.”

Can an algorithm care about its outcomes, and a computer observe itself? These were among the fascinating questions raised in our dialogue on the first part of The Philebus, when members of the Toronto Philosophy and Calgary Philosophy Meetup groups met on January 9, 2022. We began with the importance of distinguishing the one from the many, or the same and different, which is a key theme at the outset of Plato’s dialogue and the significant problem of categorization in today’s machine learning. Humans still excel in categorization and pattern-recognition, which Socrates points out is the way we derive meaning from speech and musical sound. Socrates raised the matter of the one and the many in his discussion with Protarchus when, in concluding the best life is a mixture of knowledge and pleasure, they investigate the difficulty of combining a function of limits and the unlimited. What is the appropriate ratio of the limits of knowledge and unlimited pleasures, in the mixture of the two for the good life? How do we attain a “limited understanding of the unlimited,” as one participant asked? Socrates emphasizes the philosopher’s knowledge of number and calculation to define equals, opposites, and intermediates in determining the proportions of the unlimited and the limited before understanding the cause of the resulting actions. Also highlighted is the ordering of empirical data in the rational process of deriving, and then recalling, knowledge through the application of reason. And so how do we distinguish between the one and the many? Many questions were raised, but perhaps one participant summarized it most clearly as a unification of dualities in our experience of time as a linear sequence: “You can’t wrap your mind around reality, because reality is wrapped around your mind.”

Dialogue On Philebus: The One And The Many

What is justice? This is the question that began The Republic, when Socrates and friends set out to find justice in the city in order to locate it in the citizens. In our final session on The Republic, on December 12, 2021, members of the Toronto Philosophy and Calgary Philosophy Meetup groups met to reach some conclusions. How does the soul reconcile its combination of rational limits and unlimited irrationality, to apply reason in the changing state of the present? It seems, to Socrates, that the soul requires harmony so that it is true and just to itself in following the mean that is the path between extremes. If the soul is immortal and incapable of its own destruction, as Socrates states, then does justice originate in the soul before it can be found in the city of mortals? We examined Socrates’ proof of the soul’s immortality, and the soul’s imitation of the eternal forms of being in the present, when the soul itself cannot be imitated and is its own derivative. What is the purpose of the curious myth of Er and its numbers and calculations, with which The Republic ends, and what does it tell us about the construction of the soul? Is time cyclic? Do the rewards for justice and penalties for injustice endure from one life to the next? We may consider these questions when we resume season 2 on January 9 when we will begin reading Plato’s Philebus.

What is justice? This is the question that began The Republic, when Socrates and friends set out to find justice in the city in order to locate it in the citizens. In our final session on The Republic, on December 12, 2021, members of the Toronto Philosophy and Calgary Philosophy Meetup groups met to reach some conclusions. How does the soul reconcile its combination of rational limits and unlimited irrationality, to apply reason in the changing state of the present? It seems, to Socrates, that the soul requires harmony so that it is true and just to itself in following the mean that is the path between extremes. If the soul is immortal and incapable of its own destruction, as Socrates states, then does justice originate in the soul before it can be found in the city of mortals? We examined Socrates’ proof of the soul’s immortality, and the soul’s imitation of the eternal forms of being in the present, when the soul itself cannot be imitated and is its own derivative. What is the purpose of the curious myth of Er and its numbers and calculations, with which The Republic ends, and what does it tell us about the construction of the soul? Is time cyclic? Do the rewards for justice and penalties for injustice endure from one life to the next? We may consider these questions when we resume season 2 on January 9 when we will begin reading Plato’s Philebus.

Dialogue on The Republic, Session 6: The Immortal Soul

To today’s reader it may seem unusual that the philosopher’s first order of knowledge is number and calculation, yet that is what Socrates prescribes.  On November 28, 2021 participants from the Toronto Philosophy and Calgary Philosophy Meetup groups discussed the reasons why, in our fifth session on Plato’s Republic.  We continued the dialogue on the nature of time that began in episode 4, and considered the differences, uncertainties, and probabilities that exist in the changing present – the state of “coming to be” that never “is”, in contrast to the eternal being of the past and future.  In the present, the philosopher is able to navigate the physical world of differences and distinguish truth from falsehood, when equipped first with knowledge of number and calculation, then plane and solid geometry, and finally astronomy.  Unlike the Guardians and the prisoner in the cave whose knowledge is restricted by their teachers to the visible, the philosopher can summon reason and apply dialectic to understand invisible first principles.  Is knowledge derived solely from sensory perception?  How does our technology change perception, and how do we train the mind?  These were among the questions raised that will help bring us to a conclusion on the nature of justice when we finish our six-part series on The Republic in two weeks.

To today’s reader it may seem unusual that the philosopher’s first order of knowledge is number and calculation, yet that is what Socrates prescribes. On November 28, 2021 participants from the Toronto Philosophy and Calgary Philosophy Meetup groups discussed the reasons why, in our fifth session on Plato’s Republic. We continued the dialogue on the nature of time that began in episode 4, and considered the differences, uncertainties, and probabilities that exist in the changing present – the state of “coming to be” that never “is”, in contrast to the eternal being of the past and future. In the present, the philosopher is able to navigate the physical world of differences and distinguish truth from falsehood, when equipped first with knowledge of number and calculation, then plane and solid geometry, and finally astronomy. Unlike the Guardians and the prisoner in the cave whose knowledge is restricted by their teachers to the visible, the philosopher can summon reason and apply dialectic to understand invisible first principles. Is knowledge derived solely from sensory perception? How does our technology change perception, and how do we train the mind? These were among the questions raised that will help bring us to a conclusion on the nature of justice when we finish our six-part series on The Republic in two weeks.

Dialogue on The Republic, Session 5: Knowledge of Philosophers

When Socrates declared that cities will have no rest from evils until philosophers rule, was he referring to a class of rulers different from the guardians?  Examination of The Republic resumed with the question of a philosopher’s nature when members of the Toronto Philosophy and Calgary Philosophy Meetup groups met on November 14, 2021.  Do all societies require a founding myth (or ‘noble lie’) as was provided to the guardians, and how would philosophers rule when they love the truth and hate falsehood?  We considered the soul’s search for truth, guided by reason, from among the images of the constantly changing physical world that the soul receives from the five senses.  How does the soul achieve knowledge of the eternal, continuous form of a thing, such as beauty, from the thing’s many varied depictions in the physical world?  The challenges of finding knowledge in the present state of “coming to be”, when physical things are in motion and change, led to a fascinating dialogue on our perception of time.  We will continue in two weeks by considering the knowledge required by the philosopher to locate truth, from one time to another.

When Socrates declared that cities will have no rest from evils until philosophers rule, was he referring to a class of rulers different from the guardians? Examination of The Republic resumed with the question of a philosopher’s nature when members of the Toronto Philosophy and Calgary Philosophy Meetup groups met on November 14, 2021. Do all societies require a founding myth (or ‘noble lie’) as was provided to the guardians, and how would philosophers rule when they love the truth and hate falsehood? We considered the soul’s search for truth, guided by reason, from among the images of the constantly changing physical world that the soul receives from the five senses. How does the soul achieve knowledge of the eternal, continuous form of a thing, such as beauty, from the thing’s many varied depictions in the physical world? The challenges of finding knowledge in the present state of “coming to be”, when physical things are in motion and change, led to a fascinating dialogue on our perception of time. We will continue in two weeks by considering the knowledge required by the philosopher to locate truth, from one time to another.

Dialogue on The Republic, Session 4: Philosopher Rulers

Our examination of The Republic continued on October 31, 2021 as members of the Toronto Philosophy and Calgary Philosophy Meetup groups discussed parts of Books III and IV.  In the passages from 412(b)-445(e), Socrates, Adeimantus, and Glaucon consider the features of the guardians and auxiliaries who will protect the city from external enemies and internal divisions.  Next, they proceed to look for the four virtues first in the city and then in the individual soul.  We began with Socrates’ definition of health at 445(d)-(e) as a state of self-regulation or balance in nature, a theme that is applied to the ruling class, the city’s virtues, and the soul’s unity.  Is the guardian class necessitated by nature or is it unnatural?  Is the imposition of a creation myth, sometimes now called the “noble lie”, that the guardians are born of the earth and contain metals, an illusion and is this an appropriate system to maintain in a healthy city?  References were made to the allegory of the cave that featured in our first session on The Republic: are the guardians like the prisoner staring at images thinking them to be reality without knowing the source?  If as Socrates suggests the city is a metaphor for the soul, in which justice consists of a community of three parts, how can one know harmony from disorder when there are many differing perspectives across the world?  These and more fascinating questions and ideas were exchanged during our discussion that will lead, in our next episode, to consideration of the character of the philosopher ruler.

Our examination of The Republic continued on October 31, 2021 as members of the Toronto Philosophy and Calgary Philosophy Meetup groups discussed parts of Books III and IV. In the passages from 412(b)-445(e), Socrates, Adeimantus, and Glaucon consider the features of the guardians and auxiliaries who will protect the city from external enemies and internal divisions. Next, they proceed to look for the four virtues first in the city and then in the individual soul. We began with Socrates’ definition of health at 445(d)-(e) as a state of self-regulation or balance in nature, a theme that is applied to the ruling class, the city’s virtues, and the soul’s unity. Is the guardian class necessitated by nature or is it unnatural? Is the imposition of a creation myth, sometimes now called the “noble lie”, that the guardians are born of the earth and contain metals, an illusion and is this an appropriate system to maintain in a healthy city? References were made to the allegory of the cave that featured in our first session on The Republic: are the guardians like the prisoner staring at images thinking them to be reality without knowing the source? If as Socrates suggests the city is a metaphor for the soul, in which justice consists of a community of three parts, how can one know harmony from disorder when there are many differing perspectives across the world? These and more fascinating questions and ideas were exchanged during our discussion that will lead, in our next episode, to consideration of the character of the philosopher ruler.

Dialogue on The Republic, Session 3: The Guardians, The Virtues, and The Soul

Continuing our discussion on The Republic, on October 17, 2021 participants from the Toronto Philosophy and Calgary Philosophy Meetup groups examined part of Book II in which Glaucon challenges his friends to seek the definition of justice in itself, without reference to outcomes. When Socrates proposes they look for justice first in a city and then in the individual, to observe the ways in which the smaller is similar to the larger, they proceed to create a theoretical society to examine its operation for evidence of justice. Our dialogue touched on many interesting points and raised some fascinating ideas and questions. We related some aspects of the theoretical city, which Socrates describes as unhealthy and feverish, to the allegory of the cave that was featured in our previous episode. One participant described the city of luxuries as a materialist civilization, and others asked whether shame or the desire for social acceptance drives us to justice. Is it in our nature to be unjust and labor to a state of justice? If we possessed the power of the Ring of Gyges, to make ourselves invisible, would we naturally be inclined to do injustice knowing that we could escape punishment – or would we find that justice itself is the reward for being just? Are we each suited to one skill in life and is justice to mind our own business? Do our guardians protect us from a sense of loyalty, or with a view to justice? We will resume our dialogue on The Republic in the next episode, with more on the guardians and then the four virtues and the nature of the soul.

Continuing our discussion on The Republic, on October 17, 2021 participants from the Toronto Philosophy and Calgary Philosophy Meetup groups examined part of Book II in which Glaucon challenges his friends to seek the definition of justice in itself, without reference to outcomes. When Socrates proposes they look for justice first in a city and then in the individual, to observe the ways in which the smaller is similar to the larger, they proceed to create a theoretical society to examine its operation for evidence of justice. Our dialogue touched on many interesting points and raised some fascinating ideas and questions. We related some aspects of the theoretical city, which Socrates describes as unhealthy and feverish, to the allegory of the cave that was featured in our previous episode. One participant described the city of luxuries as a materialist civilization, and others asked whether shame or the desire for social acceptance drives us to justice. Is it in our nature to be unjust and labor to a state of justice? If we possessed the power of the Ring of Gyges, to make ourselves invisible, would we naturally be inclined to do injustice knowing that we could escape punishment – or would we find that justice itself is the reward for being just? Are we each suited to one skill in life and is justice to mind our own business? Do our guardians protect us from a sense of loyalty, or with a view to justice? We will resume our dialogue on The Republic in the next episode, with more on the guardians and then the four virtues and the nature of the soul.

Dialogue on The Republic, Session 2: Social Constitution

Members of the Toronto Philosophy and Calgary Philosophy Meetup groups convened on September 26, 2021 to launch season two of Plato’s Pod with a discussion on Plato’s Republic. Our focus was on the famous allegory of the cave, and the related simile of the sun, nature of the good, and divided line of reasoning (in passages 502(d)-521(b).Is the prisoner in the cave, unable to see the source of the images projected on the wall in front of him that he mistakes for reality, like us, as Socrates states? During our dialogue, participants weighed in with some fascinating thoughts. The restricted perspective of the cave was compared to being in a small town and not knowing its surroundings, while another raised the idea of the human capacity of differentiation in distinguishing that which is from that which is not.Our discussion included questions on our perception of ordering in sequences of cause and effect, and our ability to distinguish original cause and final effect. The nature of the good was compared to that which is without cause, and we explored the properties of the divided line that Socrates set out by which we weigh and measure degrees of reality. Is man, however, the measure of all things? That was the question raised in Plato’s Theaetetus, with which we ended season one, and in The Republic Socrates provides a method which as – as one member observed – allows for inductive logic to be reconciled with deductive logic at a single point of knowledge. One participant went so far as to claim knowledge that all we think exists is an illusion, and perhaps the question of how such knowledge could be obtained, in such a state, is a matter that we may continue to explore in future episodes when we return to discuss more of The Republic.

Members of the Toronto Philosophy and Calgary Philosophy Meetup groups convened on September 26, 2021 to launch season two of Plato’s Pod with a discussion on Plato’s Republic. Our focus was on the famous allegory of the cave, and the related simile of the sun, nature of the good, and divided line of reasoning (in passages 502(d)-521(b).Is the prisoner in the cave, unable to see the source of the images projected on the wall in front of him that he mistakes for reality, like us, as Socrates states? During our dialogue, participants weighed in with some fascinating thoughts. The restricted perspective of the cave was compared to being in a small town and not knowing its surroundings, while another raised the idea of the human capacity of differentiation in distinguishing that which is from that which is not.Our discussion included questions on our perception of ordering in sequences of cause and effect, and our ability to distinguish original cause and final effect. The nature of the good was compared to that which is without cause, and we explored the properties of the divided line that Socrates set out by which we weigh and measure degrees of reality. Is man, however, the measure of all things? That was the question raised in Plato’s Theaetetus, with which we ended season one, and in The Republic Socrates provides a method which as – as one member observed – allows for inductive logic to be reconciled with deductive logic at a single point of knowledge. One participant went so far as to claim knowledge that all we think exists is an illusion, and perhaps the question of how such knowledge could be obtained, in such a state, is a matter that we may continue to explore in future episodes when we return to discuss more of The Republic.

Dialogue on The Republic, Session 1: Allegory of the Cave, Simile of the Sun, Nature of Good, and the Divided Line

Welcome to Plato’s Pod – a podcast that brings you group discussions on the complete works of Plato, the great philosopher and geometer. I am your host, James Myers. I am an amateur philosopher with a passion for geometry, and it’s a privilege and honour to offer these free discussions for the increase in knowledge and sharing of new ideas and perspectives.Each episode features one of Plato’s dialogues with a few selected passages to begin the discussion, which can go anywhere the group wants. We have the chance to highlight key themes, explore and share knowledge, and provide our own thoughts on some of the most important works from Plato. We did this during the first season of the show as we covered seven of Plato’s dialogues in ten episodes – so if you are new to the show I invite you to listen to the fascinating connections and new ideas from the perspectives of those who participated in season one.We wrapped up season one in June, 2021 but season two is just around the corner! Starting in mid-September 2021, we will continue with Plato’s other dialogues and add a special focus on his longest work, The Republic, and also what is perhaps his most cryptic – Parmenides. Famous for never reaching conclusive endings, what are these and Plato’s other dialogues pointing us to?Joining us on the podcast are participants from the Toronto Philosophy and Calgary Philosophy groups on Meetup.com, which are open to anyone. No special background or qualifications are required, just an interest in learning and sharing ideas, and you too can join in the discussion. If you are not a Meetup.com user, just send an e-mail to dialoguesonplato@outlook.com and we will send you a link to our meetings every two weeks.Anyone is welcome to participate and add their voice to the timeless themes that Plato presents. I have no doubt that Plato would be delighted with our dialogues on his dialogues!So is there some new knowledge we can derive in our discussions? I think so! Plato, who was a one-time dramatist, has Socrates tell us many times that “knowledge is recollection” and he goes further in The Meno to say that knowledge is the “account of the reasons why”. Let’s see what we can make of that account in what I am sure will be a fascinating exploration of The Republic, Parmenides, and other dialogues in season two.Along the way, we will aim to add some one on one interviews with interesting people whose work reflects the themes that Plato presents. And with a bit of effort, good fortune, and good times with the strength of our own bonds we will add to the account of the reasons why with some intriguing new connections.

Welcome to Plato’s Pod – a podcast that brings you group discussions on the complete works of Plato, the great philosopher and geometer. I am your host, James Myers. I am an amateur philosopher with a passion for geometry, and it’s a privilege and honour to offer these free discussions for the increase in knowledge and sharing of new ideas and perspectives.Each episode features one of Plato’s dialogues with a few selected passages to begin the discussion, which can go anywhere the group wants. We have the chance to highlight key themes, explore and share knowledge, and provide our own thoughts on some of the most important works from Plato. We did this during the first season of the show as we covered seven of Plato’s dialogues in ten episodes – so if you are new to the show I invite you to listen to the fascinating connections and new ideas from the perspectives of those who participated in season one.We wrapped up season one in June, 2021 but season two is just around the corner! Starting in mid-September 2021, we will continue with Plato’s other dialogues and add a special focus on his longest work, The Republic, and also what is perhaps his most cryptic – Parmenides. Famous for never reaching conclusive endings, what are these and Plato’s other dialogues pointing us to?Joining us on the podcast are participants from the Toronto Philosophy and Calgary Philosophy groups on <a href="http://Meetup.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Meetup.com</a>, which are open to anyone. No special background or qualifications are required, just an interest in learning and sharing ideas, and you too can join in the discussion. If you are not a <a href="http://Meetup.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Meetup.com</a> user, just send an e-mail to <a href="mailto:dialoguesonplato@outlook.com" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">dialoguesonplato@outlook.com</a> and we will send you a link to our meetings every two weeks.Anyone is welcome to participate and add their voice to the timeless themes that Plato presents. I have no doubt that Plato would be delighted with our dialogues on his dialogues!So is there some new knowledge we can derive in our discussions? I think so! Plato, who was a one-time dramatist, has Socrates tell us many times that “knowledge is recollection” and he goes further in The Meno to say that knowledge is the “account of the reasons why”. Let’s see what we can make of that account in what I am sure will be a fascinating exploration of The Republic, Parmenides, and other dialogues in season two.Along the way, we will aim to add some one on one interviews with interesting people whose work reflects the themes that Plato presents. And with a bit of effort, good fortune, and good times with the strength of our own bonds we will add to the account of the reasons why with some intriguing new connections.

Welcome to Plato's Pod! - Season 2 Trailer

Welcome to Plato's Pod, a bi-weekly podcast of a group discussion on the dialogues of Plato. The discussion is held through <a href="http://Meetup.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Meetup.com</a> by the Toronto Philosophy and Calgary Philosophy groups and anyone interested in participating, whether to learn about Plato or to contribute to the dialogue, is welcome to join with no experience required! The podcast is hosted by amateur philosopher James Myers and inquiries can be e-mailed to dialoguesonplato@outlook.com. Wherever we go in our discussions we gain knowledge from each other’s perspectives, and for the increase in knowledge we invite everyone to add their voice to the dialogue. Plato, without a doubt, would have imagined no better way than in dialogue for knowledge – the account of the reasons why – to find its home.

Plato's Pod: Dialogues on the works of Plato

What is this?
1 quote, 3 ideas & 1 question from a carefully curated podcast episode.
Every Monday & Wednesday.

Want a 3rd insight and episode every week? Email me at curation@owltail.com.

OwlTail

OwlTail 1-3-1

The best podcast episodes on global issues affecting everyone. Covering topics such as the #metoo movement, climate change, the impact of technology and some of the biggest global issues facing us right now. For anyone interested in learning more about the world, and some of the issues we're facing, pick an episode below and start listening! Add episodes you're interested into your queue below!