Philosophy and Abstraction: The Platonic Tradition

The discipline that studies abstraction is philosophy. To begin our discussion we must define what is an abstraction. An abstraction is a sublated image-trigger. We find image-triggers through the continuum of life. An image-trigger is when an image triggers or causes a scenario, either mental or physical. Let us look at an example from the vegetable kingdom. When the weather drops to a certain temperature; trees drop their leaves. the image is the cold temperature; the scenario is dropping the leaves. Images are one dimensional; images can be audio, visual, tactile,etc. The scenario that is triggered by the drop in temperature is that the tree drops its leaves. In the example of the trees, the image trigger is not sublated. By being sublated, means that the image-trigger is conscious. When the image-trigger is sublated or conscious; the image-trigger does not have to be acted upon, and can be lifted out of its original scenario, or be experienced mentally. An example should help illustrate. When a dog is told to sit, it sits. When a human is told to sit, she may or may not sit physically, the action may only be performed mentally. This mental scenario can be lifted out of its original scenario and be combined in with other scenarios. This is called thinking. A work of fiction is another example of sublated image-triggers. So now let us examine how one school of philosophy has dealt with abstractions. That of the Platonic tradition. Plato was the first philosopher to deal with abstractions; so we shall begin with Plato. We shall examine the doctrines that are characteristic of the Platonic tradition, originating with Plato. The main doctrine that everyone associates with Plato is the Forms. The Forms are of course, abstractions. In Plato's philosophy the Forms are considered independently existing entities to human consciousness. The Forms are supposed to be eternal and immutable, and to reside in a divinized mental realm. This is the main contention of the top-down paradigm; that abstractions are more real than the material world, and that they have power over the material realm. We now know that abstractions are not immutable; that abstractions do change their content. Anyone who doubts this only needs to track the definitions of terms like: "substance" or "intuition" throughout history to understand that abstractions often gain, lose, or change their content over time. If abstractions did not change their content there would be no need to have a priestly caste to act as guardians of tradition. In Plato the Forms(abstractions) are eternal and immutable, and logically connected. This point must be stressed, that the Forms are in a relation of dependence on each other; they are not independent of each other. The divinized mental realm of the Forms can be accessed only through the use of reason. This is why contemplation is considered superior to action in the Platonic tradition. The realm of the Forms is the real world for Plato and those that follow in the Platonic tradition. The human mind directly grasps the Forms, thus is in touch with the real world; the material world is the realm of illusion. This teaching that the human mind can directly access the real or spiritual world is called ontologism. So through the use of reason the human mind can directly grasp the real world; along with this assertion usually goes the doctrine of recollection. The doctrine of recollection is that humans know everything, but in a confused way. The knowledge needs to be brought out, Socrates demonstrates this in Plato's dialogue the "Meno." Plato explains the doctrine of recollection is also needed to connect our knowledge. If this was not so, we would not be able to connect the Forms in the material realm. Unlike the divinized realm of the Forms, the material realm is one of illusion, so we can not directly observe the logical connections of the Forms. As I have written elsewhere, that information is carried on the emotions. The doctrine of recollection is a groping towards this insight. The last issue we must address with Plato is the doctrine of the microcosm and macrocosm. The doctrine of the microcosm and the macrocosm is that everything in the cosmos has a correspondence in human beings. This is the doctrine that holds all the other Platonic doctrines together. So now let us move to Plato's successor Aristotle. Aristotle gets rid of the divinized mental realm, but keeps the Forms. Instead of residing in a separate realm the Forms are " enmattered" to use a word lifted from G.R.G. Mure. We must examine Aristotle's doctrine of matter and Form. Matter is the stuff something is made of, Form is that which gives an entity its function or special nature. To use an example from Aristotle of a brass bell. The brass would be the matter, the shape would be the Form. There is also a series of matter and Form; something can be matter for one entity, and Form for another entity. Example: brass is the Form for the constituent parts that make up brass. There is also a hierarchy of Forms. The more a Form approximates to mind the higher in the hierarchy is its place. Again it is the Form that the mind grasps, that allows for an objective world. Instead of a logical connection between Forms, Aristotle posits a casual connection. The higher Forms exert power over the lower Forms. Aristotle divides the cosmos of that above and below the orbit of the Moon: the celestial and the terrestrial. The orbit of the planetary intelligences causes the movements on Earth. When we finally reach the highest Form: Aristotle's God, there is no matter, no potential. God is completely actualized, and transcendent. God is the unmoved mover, the ultimate cause of all movement. The top of the casual chain. As in Plato, Aristotle also puts contemplation above action. The highest realization of human nature is to imitate God, and contemplate the universal reason of the cosmos. So Aristotle can get rid of the doctrine of recollection, because he does not need it. Everything is connected by a casual hierarchy; therefore there is no need for the logical dependence of Plato's Forms. Before moving on let us sum up Aristotle's teaching on abstractions. Aristotle, like Plato is a top down thinker; abstractions are more real than matter. The Forms are of course abstractions. Abstractions are closer to mind than particulars for Aristotle. This can be seen in Aristotle's conception of God; there is no matter in God, because there is no potential. It is again the Forms that the mind grasps, the universals, that create the real world. In many ways Aristotle's philosophy is an enmattered Platonism. For Aristotle like Plato it is abstractions that make up the real world. Aristotle's system is one of continuum from complete actuality (God) to complete potentiality (prime-matter) with causal efficacy flowing down from God. We shall now move to some of the minor innovators of the Platonic tradition. We shall start with Philo of Alexandria. Philo was a contemporary of Jesus of Nazareth. Philo was a Hellenized jew; he had totally absorbed classical Greek philosophy, which he combined with Jewish religion. Unlike Islam, Judaism turned toward the West instead of the East. Philo is the first person that we know of who made the realm of the Forms into the mind of God. An innovation that would be followed by everyone else, and become part of the Christian doctrine. We shall skip ahead to neoplatonism. Plotinus and Iamblichus are not minor thinkers; both have make major contributions to philosophy. The reason I am not going into great detail is that I have written on the extensively elsewhere. So we shall just go into their innovations to the Platonic tradition. Plotinus systematized the top-down paradigm, with his three divine emanations: the One, the realm of the Forms, and the realm of souls. Plotinus also locked in the neoplatonist project of trying to reconcile Plato and Aristotle. His template of the three divine emanations, and matter would be followed by almost everyone that followed. The contribution of Iamblichus is that of exemplarism. That humans cannot reach the divine mind without divine help. That our conception of the Forms is an analogy to the Forms in God's mind. I have argued elsewhere that this is what led Western Civilization to the quantitative model to thinking, because everyone now becomes a unit. Everyone has an individual mind, thus is a unit, or quanta.The Christian neoplatonists of the Medieval period followed Iamblichus in exemplarism. The one big innovation to exemplarism was made by Duns Scotus. Duns Scotus innovation was that instead of our ideas being only analogies to the Forms, they were the same, but less in intensity. They were of a lesser Quantity than the Forms in God's mind but did not vary in Quality. We shall now skip way ahead to G.W.F. Hegel. Hegel is the culmination of the Platonic tradition. Not that there would not be thinkers with Platonic elements like A.N. Whitehead and George Santayana. But, after Hegel the Platonic tradition was no longer living. It was being destroyed by the new bottom-up paradigm that emerged after Hegel; the Platonic tradition no longer resonated with people's experience of the cosmos. In Hegel we find all the elements of the Platonic tradition used in new and unique ways. Let us begin with Hegel's conception of God. For Hegel, God is logic. Remember Plato asserted that the Forms were connected logically. In Hegel God becomes logic. The terms of the logic act as Platonic Forms. The terms are intelligent and create the everyday world we live in. Hegel sometimes even refers to the terms as shades. For Hegel, God is completely knowable, he rejects exemplarism. That in using reason we energize the terms of the logic, Thus manifesting God in the human community. Humans are the apex of creation, thus manifesting the mink of God in reason. Talk about reconciling Plato and Aristotle; in having a vision of the Forms (the terms of the logic) we are God thinking himself. This is why Hegel's first important book titled "Phenomenology of Spirit" Phenomenology is the manifesting of God in human history. God is not more than creation (his parts), but is the parts. There is no divine ectoplasm holding God (the terms of the logic) together. It is the logical connections that hold Hegel's God together. Each individual is a microcosm of the macrocosm, which is God. So each individual contains all knowledge, but in a confused manner. When humans clarify the knowledge they manifest God; we become God thinking himself. To accomplish this Hegel also brings back the doctrine of recollection. As the alert reader has already surmised Hegel has to hold contemplation as superior to action. For it is in contemplation that the human community manifests God. Hegel is the culmination of the Platonic tradition never again would the Platonic tradition exhibit creativity. In other words, Hegel's system is the last time that regarding abstractions as real, independently existing entities that exert power over the material world was creative. After Hegel those who use Platonic elements would be fighting a defensive action the momentum had shifted to the new bottom-up paradigm. END