WI: No Plato?

Let us say that Plato dies as a child, perhaps of an illness or accident, and thus his massive contribution to Western philosophy is lost. How does early metaphysics develop? Do Socratic ideals still become widely promulgated?

I know it's a huge question, so feel free to be as expansive as you want.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
I made a thread like this a while back, and got no response to it. I even came up with a scenario where Plato's work was lost (and his Academy destroyed) soon after his death, to ensure Aristotle was still around and keep things at least a bit 'recognisable'. (I also made a second thread about the same happening to Aristotle instead.) But common consensus on the Board seems to be that the world would be too different to speculate upon. I find that a bit weird, since there have been long threads about scenarios where, say, the Indo-European expansion does not occur. By comparison, this should be easy.

Anyway, I do admit that killing Plato in the cradle is truly drastic. You also kill off Aristotelianism, since Aristotle was Plato's student in the first place. That removes the two giants of classical Western philosophy. Socrates is still around, of course, and Xenophon (and other students of his, one imagines) continue to propagate his work. But we should note that it's pretty widely believed that Plato increasingly wrote down his own ideas and presented them as those of Socrates. So in this ATL, what we know (or think we know) about Socrates and his ideas may be quite different.

Some thoughts:

-- The Socratic refutations of sophistry will probably still be picked up.

-- Cynicism is already around, and if something like stoicism arises from it, its early development will be pretty much the same as in OTL. Later stoicism, however, increasingly became influenced by the thinking of other schools, which - you guessed it - included the ones we've just erased from reality. So alt-stoicism may remain a lot more like an offshoot of cynicism.

-- No Plato means no theory of forms and all that stuff, which inspired a lot of mysticism in OTL. There is always mysticism, but it will be very different in this ATL.

-- No Aristotle means no Aristotelian logic, among other things. The formalisation of philosophy is going to be different in this ATL, and may well end up being retarded compared to its OTL development.

-- On the other hand, various hedonist schools were already around, and these were also making inquiries into the nature of reality. An Epicurus-like figure could do interesting things in such a world, whereas in OTL he was always relegated to the background a bit.
 
You can't butterfly away Aristotle. Though Aristotle studied under Plato, he disagreed with Plato on just about everything. Without the Academy, he would have just studied under some other teacher. There would have been some hard to ascertain effect on Aristotle's own philosophy, but it couldn't have been very big. Even his empirical method was hugely different.

Thinking out it, I think Plato's importance and stature is probably over-rated. He has a classic first mover advantage, he was pretty much the first philosopher to get his work published in written form and more than fragments survived. That means that every philosophy course starts with Plato, or Socrates as presented by Plato. So everyone thinks he was hugely important and his work gets often cited as an influence.

However, its Aristotle that invents or discovers logic, and pretty much everything you can find in Plato's writings you can find in the pre-Socratics or the Hellenistic philosophers, though granted the latter were influenced by Plato. You can get the mysticism from the pre-Socratics, particularly Pythagorus.

Assuming none of Aristotle's own dialogues survive as IOTL, the first Greek or Latin speaking philosopher to have written works of high literary quality survive takes Plato's place. This might have come as late as Cicero, but there would be other candidates. The less logical half of western philosophy may develop in a less idealistic, more zen-like direction.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
You can't butterfly away Aristotle. Though Aristotle studied under Plato, he disagreed with Plato on just about everything. Without the Academy, he would have just studied under some other teacher. There would have been some hard to ascertain effect on Aristotle's own philosophy, but it couldn't have been very big. Even his empirical method was hugely different.

Thinking out it, I think Plato's importance and stature is probably over-rated. He has a classic first mover advantage, he was pretty much the first philosopher to get his work published in written form and more than fragments survived. That means that every philosophy course starts with Plato, or Socrates as presented by Plato. So everyone thinks he was hugely important and his work gets often cited as an influence.

However, its Aristotle that invents or discovers logic, and pretty much everything you can find in Plato's writings you can find in the pre-Socratics or the Hellenistic philosophers, though granted the latter were influenced by Plato. You can get the mysticism from the pre-Socratics, particularly Pythagorus.

Assuming none of Aristotle's own dialogues survive as IOTL, the first Greek or Latin speaking philosopher to have written works of high literary quality survive takes Plato's place. This might have come as late as Cicero, but there would be other candidates. The less logical half of western philosophy may develop in a less idealistic, more zen-like direction.

I'm a big fan of Aristotle, and not at all a fan of Plato, but I do think that Plato was actually fundamental to shaping Aristotle's ideas. Yes, they disagreed on everything... and Aristotle wrote in reaction to Plato. It's a kind of Blackstone and Bentham scenario: the student works out his philosophy in opposition to the teacher he disagrees with. Without the teacher to oppose, the reaction to his teaching never emerges.
 
You can't butterfly away Aristotle. Though Aristotle studied under Plato, he disagreed with Plato on just about everything. Without the Academy, he would have just studied under some other teacher. There would have been some hard to ascertain effect on Aristotle's own philosophy, but it couldn't have been very big. Even his empirical method was hugely different.

Thinking out it, I think Plato's importance and stature is probably over-rated. He has a classic first mover advantage, he was pretty much the first philosopher to get his work published in written form and more than fragments survived. That means that every philosophy course starts with Plato, or Socrates as presented by Plato. So everyone thinks he was hugely important and his work gets often cited as an influence.

However, its Aristotle that invents or discovers logic, and pretty much everything you can find in Plato's writings you can find in the pre-Socratics or the Hellenistic philosophers, though granted the latter were influenced by Plato. You can get the mysticism from the pre-Socratics, particularly Pythagorus.

Assuming none of Aristotle's own dialogues survive as IOTL, the first Greek or Latin speaking philosopher to have written works of high literary quality survive takes Plato's place. This might have come as late as Cicero, but there would be other candidates. The less logical half of western philosophy may develop in a less idealistic, more zen-like direction.

I don't think Plato is popular simply because his work survived in more than fragments; rather, the reason so much of his work survived is that he was popular, so people made lots of copies of his books.
 
Some years back, I asked what would happen had Socrates not been convicted and executed; AIR, Plato focusing on politics and/or not being near as big a deal was among the consensus.

Another thing to bear in mind -- if Aristotle is sufficiently butterflied, that will affect the education of the boy who OTL became Alexander the Great; so potentially some pretty massive short term butterflies.
 
Other people certainly know more about classical Greek philosophy than I do, but I would ask myself why was Plato was popular, as has already been stated?
The simple explanation is that he was just genial, a highly convincing thinker, excellent teacher, good writer etc. That may be part of it, but I don`t think it explains everything.
The other type of explanation would point at the social environment. Ideas fall on fertile or infertile ground because of what is potentially popular in a given culture / society.
In this domain, I think Plato played exceedingly well to an audience which sought to distinguish itself as an elite from the general democratic mob, but which considered both materialist showings-off and religious roles as not viable. Plato`s political theory, his anti-empiricism, the whole Socratic aversion against (the highly pragmatic / useful) sophists, those were things some people were bound to like.
Now, without Plato, it`s likely that we don`t end up with exactly the same philosophy, but it`s also unlikely that we end up with totally unrecognisable systems of thought. What the divergences and the similarities would be, now that`s up to rather free speculation by those who are more knowledegable than me.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
I don't think Plato is popular simply because his work survived in more than fragments; rather, the reason so much of his work survived is that he was popular, so people made lots of copies of his books.

The other type of explanation would point at the social environment. Ideas fall on fertile or infertile ground because of what is potentially popular in a given culture / society.

In this domain, I think Plato played exceedingly well to an audience which sought to distinguish itself as an elite from the general democratic mob, but which considered both materialist showings-off and religious roles as not viable. Plato`s political theory, his anti-empiricism, the whole Socratic aversion against (the highly pragmatic / useful) sophists, those were things some people were bound to like.

Plato certainly had an audience from the start. Keep in mind that he was part of a tradition that defended elitist rule; that gave him popularity among a certain contingent by definition. But also note that his whole theory of forms was hardly what attracted his main audience initially. Platonism was popular, then declined in popularity (and stoicism became a big hit), and then became popular again with the rise of Neoplatonism and its more mystical elements-- a rise that largely coincided, not coincidentally, with the rise of Christianity. Gnosticism and such things happily borrowed from Plato. But the thing to note is that Plato was essentially 'rediscovered' in that second period. In between, he was hardly forgotten, but not wildly popular, either.

Compare this to Aristotle, who was somewhat 'neglected' much sooner (his school hardly lasted, while Plato's thrived for quite some time), and was 'rediscovered' much later as well. (Scholastics, borrowing from islamic sources.) In modern times, Aristotle is seen as just as much of a giant as Plato, but in the first ten centuries AD, I doubt many people would see it that way. This sort of implies that in order to be remembered, one doesn't have to be universally and lastingly popular.

I'm trying to say: we shouldn't overestimate Plato's initial popularity. He only became the big hit we know him to be when he was rediscovered later on, and Neoplatonism emerged. Plato's absence would have certain major implications early on, but once we get to the point where Neoplatonism emerged in OTL, the changes will get truly vast. Plato's influence was huge. The way Christianity puts such extra focus on the fall from paradise and orginal sin? Reflect Plato's idea of an ideal world, and this world only being a pale shadow. The influences on Gnosticism are even more evident. Hermeticism. Manichaeism. Mandeism. All the way to the Cathars. Later semi-mystical groups, like the Rosicrucians.

No, I'm not going all conspiracy theory here. I'm not saying there's a direct line between all of these, some kind of secret 'Platonic underground' of mystics (that conspiracy theory exists, by the way). But these movements did influence each other, and they were all influenced, at their base, by Plato. His absence fundamentally changes the way people are going to look at mysticism. There were earlier mystics, of course, but the whole theory of forms was a very powerful influence.

So I dont think...

Now, without Plato, it`s likely that we don`t end up with exactly the same philosophy, but it`s also unlikely that we end up with totally unrecognisable systems of thought.

...that this is true. I think that especially later on, the absence of Plato is going to have enormous consequences. Besides the mystical elements, there are political consequences. As I mentioned, Plato was part of a tradition that defended elitist rule. That's the same tradition that idolised Sparta, and the idea that the state should be the supreme good. Again, there is no direct link, but Plato's political ideas were brought up again and again in later ages, and rarely to good ends. Because politically speaking, Plato was a scary totalitarian.

Inasfar as that is concerned, I'd say we'd be better off if his works had been forgotten. But then, I do maintain that without Plato, we'd have no Aristotle (at least not as we know him), so that's pretty terrible, from my Aristotle-loving perspective.


Another thing to bear in mind -- if Aristotle is sufficiently butterflied, that will affect the education of the boy who OTL became Alexander the Great; so potentially some pretty massive short term butterflies.

At the very least, the absence of Plato would alter Aristotle's life to such an extent that his tenure as Alexander's tutor is almost certain to be butterflied.

I think I prefer to suffer the existence of Plato's more horrid ideas, rather than face a world where neither Aristotle nor Alexander exist as I know and love them.
 
Not that impressed with Western Philosophy! :p three examples of what I'm talking about

1) Ethics is presented as all about 'dilemmas' and the contrast between the Kantian approach and the utilitarian approach. Whereas a book by a seasoned baseball manager who talks about how to work with people moving generally in the same direction by not entirely is light years ahead of all of this.

2) Look how slowly medicine developed when it was all about the four humors and deduction from first principles? And compared to the more loosey-goosey modern approach which kind of gets going interplay between theory and practice (although a long way still to go!).

3) I've read that Derek Parfit did not form visual memories and did not spend a lot of time thinking about his past. That is, his brain was wired up quite a bit differently from average. And he decided based on philosophical reasoning that a lot of our ideas about personal identity were mistaken. Additionally, he presented some reasons why we shouldn't worry about death as much as we usually do.

And he really did try with Reasons and Persons. It's written somewhat more freely than average philosophy writing. But the bar's set so high as to stiff, formal writing, it's nowhere near good enough. We would have been far better served if Derek had combined messy autobiographical writing with quick snippets of philosophy. But to the best of my knowledge, he never did this.
 
Last edited:

Skallagrim

Banned
Not that impressed with Western Philosophy! :p three examples of what I'm talking about

1) Ethics is presented all about 'dilemmas' and the contrast between the Kantian approach and the utilitarian approach. Whereas a book by a seasoned baseball manager who talks about how to work with people moving generally in the same direction by not entirely is just light years ahead of all of this.

2) Look how slowly medicine developed when it was all about the four humours and deduction from first principles? And compared to the more loosey-goosey modern approach which kind of, sort of gets interplay between theory and practice going.

3) I've read that Derek Parfit did not form visual memories and did not spend a lot of time thinking about his past. That is, his brain was wired up quite a bit different from average. And he genuinely thought a lot of our ideas about personal identity, and he had presented some reasons why we shouldn't worry about death as much as we usually do.

And he really did try with Reasons and Persons. It's written somewhat more freely than average philosophy writing. But the bar's set so high as to stiff, formal writing, it's nowhere near good enough. We would have been far better served if Derek had combined messy autobiographical writing with quick snippets of philosophy. But to the best of my knowledge, he never did this.

What on earth are you on about? Unless you are making same kind of very clever joke that I don't get, it seems to me that what you're talking about has next to nothing to do with the subject of this thread. You're going on about a man who was born literally thousands of years after the POD, who therefore has no business existing in this scenario, and who is thus fully irrelevant here.
 
What I'm saying is that western philosophy has not reached any kind of pinnacle. :)

That if Plato had been a farmer, or sailor, or artisan, we might have gone at it a different way and gotten luckier.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
What I'm saying is that western philosophy has not reached any kind of pinnacle. :)

That if Plato had been a farmer, or sailor, or artisan, we might have gone at it a different way and gotten luckier.

That last bit is certainly true, but do note that there is no reason at all to expect that the result would resemble the ideas of a man who, as I said, was born thousands of years later. It's more practical to look at pre-Platonic (and, as such, pre-Socratic) Greek philosophy, and at what we know of Socrates outside of Plato, and finally at the non-Platonist (and non-Aristotelian) philosophies (such as cynicism, stoicism and hedonism) that were emerging around the time period in question. That gives you something of an idea of what the ATL philosophical development is initially going to be based on.
 
Not that impressed with Western Philosophy! :p three examples of what I'm talking about

1) Ethics is presented as all about 'dilemmas' and the contrast between the Kantian approach and the utilitarian approach. Whereas a book by a seasoned baseball manager who talks about how to work with people moving generally in the same direction by not entirely is light years ahead of all of this.

2) Look how slowly medicine developed when it was all about the four humors and deduction from first principles? And compared to the more loosey-goosey modern approach which kind of gets going interplay between theory and practice (although a long way still to go!).

3) I've read that Derek Parfit did not form visual memories and did not spend a lot of time thinking about his past. That is, his brain was wired up quite a bit differently from average. And he decided based on philosophical reasoning that a lot of our ideas about personal identity were mistaken. Additionally, he presented some reasons why we shouldn't worry about death as much as we usually do.

And he really did try with Reasons and Persons. It's written somewhat more freely than average philosophy writing. But the bar's set so high as to stiff, formal writing, it's nowhere near good enough. We would have been far better served if Derek had combined messy autobiographical writing with quick snippets of philosophy. But to the best of my knowledge, he never did this.

Points (1) and (3) refer to people born thousands of years after Plato's time who rejected the classical philosophical tradition of Plato and his contemporaries, so blaming them on Plato seems a bit unjustifiable. Point (2) also seems a bit weird; the modern approach is based on the scientific method, which in turn is based on philosophical ideas, so using it as an argument against philosophy is... rather odd.
 
What I'm saying is that if western philosophy had been a little more free-wheeling, we may have gotten something like Derek Parfit's Reasons and Persons far earlier. (or rather what people say about his writings, I have a little trouble finding the good parts myself)

1) philosophy is too top-heavy with tedious proofs for things we're probably pretty sure are true anyway, and not enough branching out in new directions, and

2) "The formality of the writing will save us all!" Like a lot of fields, philosophy has a big dose of this. And yes, I know, if you want academic success, you'll probably need to be bilingual. Do what you have to do for the journal articles, the classes, the papers. But please try to save some time for the rest of us where you communicate for real. :)

--------------

and yes, even though philosophy has spun off astronomy, physics, biology, psychology, and probably more, I still say, only a medium high trajectory. I mean, for starters, how often have you gotten really enthused about an idea in philosophy in the last 5 years, compared to how often you've been enthused about a movie, a song, or a book?
 
Last edited:
"Extreme and Restricted Utilitarianism," The Philosophical Quarterly, J.J.C. Smart, Oct. 1956.

http://personal.lse.ac.uk/ROBERT49/teaching/mm/articles/Smart_1956Utilitarianism.pdf

" . . . I wish to repudiate at the outset that milk and water approach which describes itself sometimes as ‘investigating what is implicit in the common moral consciousness’ and sometimes as ‘investigating how people ordinarily talk about morality’. We have only to read the newspaper correspondence about capital punishment or about what should be done with Formosa to realise that the common moral consciousness is in part made up of superstitious elements, of morally bad elements, and of logically confused elements. I address myself to good hearted and benevolent people and so I hope that if we rid ourselves of the logical confusion, the superstitious and morally bad elements will largely fall away. . . "
This is inspired writing, and if only the rest of the essay was as good as this part. But it's kind of not.

And if another one of Socrates' students had really gotten on a roll, maybe he or she could have potentially written this all the way back then and to have continued to develop these ideas.
 
Last edited:
. . . the modern approach is based on the scientific method, which in turn is based on philosophical ideas, . . .
I'm not that impressed with Greek science. It's too much trying to get it "perfect" and too much focused on first principles. As far as a really healthy exchange between theory and practice, that kind of had to wait till either Galileo or Francis Bacon.

Of course with sailing, we had it all along. Maybe if we had someone really passionate about writing it down, that might have started a tradition where writing, at least about sailing, acknowledges this healthy exchange and the whole subject of improvements all along the way.
 
Last edited:
Top