A History of Western Philosophy

Russell claims that understanding Sparta, an ancient city in southern Greece, is important to understanding Plato and many later philosophers. This is because the way Sparta was socially organized influenced many thinkers over the centuries, right down to the architects of German National Socialism (i.e. the Nazis).

Sparta was dominated by the Spartans, who after conquering the territory reduced the inhabitants to serfs, or “helots.” Sparta was organized under a strict military framework, with male citizens “trained from birth” for war. The education of Spartan boys aimed to make them “hardy, indifferent to pain, and submissive to discipline” (95). Spartan society was communistic, without private property or extremes of rich or poor. Remarkably, girls received an education and training similar to that of the boys. All the energies and loyalty of the people of Sparta were to be devoted wholeheartedly to the State. Sparta was closed to outside influences, with travel to and from the city prohibited.

Sparta was greatly admired by other Greeks, who considered the Spartans “braver, better and simpler, unspoiled by wealth, undisturbed by ideas” (98). While Aristotle was “hostile” to Sparta, Plato admired it, considering it close to his Ideal State as described in the Republic. Russell argues that the myth of Sparta differed somewhat from the reality and it has influenced centuries of thinkers for ill with its “union of idealism and love of power” (100).

Russell states that Plato and Aristotle are the two most influential Western philosophers, but that Plato has the slight edge in influence. This is because Aristotle’s thought is itself derived from Plato’s to some extent and because, at least until the High Middle Ages, the Christian world was more influenced by Plato than Aristotle. Because of their decisive influence in the world of philosophy, Russell has decided to give Plato and Aristotle a fuller treatment than any of the other philosophers in the book.

Russell argues that Plato (428-348 BCE) has been widely misunderstood and falsely idealized. He will, therefore, treat him without “reverence” and try to divest him of illusions and myths.

The sources of Plato’s opinions were his teacher Socrates and several of the pre-Socratic philosophers. In particular, he picked up Pythagoras’s mystical tone and emphasis on the eternal nature of reality. In the debate between Heraclitus and Parmenides on change, Plato sided with Parmenides in the belief that “all change must be illusory” (105), but also believed with Heraclitus that “there is nothing permanent in the sensible world” (105). As a consequence, Plato concluded that “knowledge is not to be derived from the senses, but is only to be achieved by the intellect” (106).

Russell argues that Platonic idealism contributed to totalitarianism in politics by insisting that this world should copy the “static perfection” of the eternal reality as closely as possible. Plato believed that only philosophers understand the truth; therefore, society should be run by “philosopher kings” who have the leisure to pursue philosophy and who will, in theory, govern in accordance with wisdom. Plato’s ideal system removes power from the general populace, allowing the philosophers to mold society as they see fit.

Plato outlined his “utopia,” or ideal state, in the Republic, which Russell considers “his most important dialogue” (108). Plato, speaking through the character of Socrates, divides the citizens of his ideal republic into three classes: the common people, the soldiers, and the guardians. The latter group, consisting of philosophers, is responsible for governing the republic and is “a class set apart” (109). Plato’s conception is heavily influenced by his admiration for Sparta. For example, boys are to be taught to overcome fear of death and be willing to die in battle, and their education should reflect this. The rulers may tell a “royal lie” in order to keep people in their place. Everything is meant to contribute to minimizing private emotions and maximizing “public spirit.” For this reason, private property is outlawed and children are raised by the state instead of by their families. Plato believes that his proposals reflect a concern for justice. Plato uses the dialogue to embody his concept of the Good, a concept he believes to be objective and which everyone who is using his reason properly can ascertain.

Although the Republic is mainly a political work, it also contains discussions of “pure philosophy” that have been highly influential on subsequent thought. This is especially true of Plato’s theory of ideas, expounded in Books V-VII. According to Russell, the theory—and Plato’s philosophy in general—“rests on the distinction between reality and appearance” (119). Plato bases his argument on his conceptions of philosophy and the philosopher. Whereas most people admire beautiful things, for example, the philosopher admires “beauty in itself.” Only the latter is true knowledge, according to Plato, because it is of “the absolute and eternal and immutable” rather than of particular and ephemeral things grasped through the senses.

This leads to the theory of “ideas” or “forms.” Plato postulates that the existence of individual things points to an eternal and unchanging prototype of each thing, created by God, which gives the thing its definition and essence. For instance, there is a universal Cat nature that informs the nature of individual cats. Only the universal is truly real, according to Plato; individual things are only apparently real.

Plato illustrates this theory by means of the famous parable of the cave. Those who lack the light of philosophy are like people sitting in a cave looking at shadows cast on the wall by a fire behind them. They regard these shadows as reality when in fact they are only reflections of real things. The philosopher is like a man who finally escapes from the cave and goes outside into the sunshine, where he sees the real things which created the shadows in the cave. For Plato, the individual things we know in this life are mere shadows of the real, eternal Ideas or Forms that exist eternally in the mind of God. It is the task of the philosopher to make humanity aware of these eternal ideas.

The theory of ideas is significant because it emphasizes the problem of universals versus particulars, which would inform philosophical debate for subsequent eras.

Plato’s dialogue Phaedo depicts Socrates’s last hours before he drinks the hemlock that will end his life. In the dialogue, Socrates conducts an extended discussion with his friends on immortality. This dialogue has been highly influential, including upon later Christian thought, and Socrates’s behavior as he faces death has been interpreted as having ethical significance. Socrates argues that he who has “the spirit of philosophy will not fear death” (134); on the contrary, he will welcome it as a loosening of the chains that bind him to earth, which is an imperfect copy of the real, eternal world.

According to Russell, Socrates’s attitude toward death exemplifies his “dualism: between reality and appearance, ideas and sensible objects, reason and sense-perception, soul and body” (134), with the first term in each pair being superior to the second. Since the things represented by these terms are immaterial and eternal, they are not subject to decay and death. Plato’s doctrine that the soul is separate from the body and can exist without it influenced later theories about the relationship between mind and matter. Russell sees Plato’s dualism as ultimately leading to a rejection of empirical knowledge and, thus, science. Nevertheless, he sees the figure of Socrates as depicted by Plato as “a pattern to subsequent philosophers for many ages” (142).

Plato’s cosmogony is set forth in his dialogue Timaeus. In dialogue with Socrates, an astronomer named Timaeus outlines his view of such issues as space, time, and the structure of the created world. All things were created by God out of goodness, bringing order out of disorder. The created world, which is made of the four elements, is perfect and not subject to decay. Humanity, with a union of body and soul, mirrors this larger order. All things that happen are governed by a “mixture of necessity and purpose” (148). Plato introduces fantastical elements and discussions into the dialogue which Russell says were probably not meant to be taken seriously but rather “as play of fancy” (148). The Timaeus had great influence on later philosophy because it was the only one of Plato’s dialogues available in Western Europe during the Middle Ages.

In contrast to most modern philosophy, which tends to be empirical, Plato holds that “there is nothing worthy to be called ‘knowledge’ to be derived from the senses, and that the only real knowledge has to do with concepts” (149). Thus, Plato rejects the view that knowledge is the same as perception. He outlines this view in his dialogue Theaetetus, framing the discussion as a reply to the earlier views of Protagoras and Heraclitus.