This is a good question. To answer it, we must examine Plato's "Theory
of Forms." For Plato, attributes like the Good, Beauty, Justice, and
so on are not abstract ideals, but in fact are real objects that exist
outside the world. Beauty, for example, is not in the eye of the
beholder, but in fact is a real attribute that has a universal form.
This is the same for the Good. For Plato, there is no relativism-that
is to say, values are independent of human existence, and are
determined by these forms of goodness or whatever.
The Forms don't exist in the world as themselves, but rather as
imperfect copies that are called "simulacra", meaning "likeness." In
the cave metaphor in the Republic, the shadows on the cave wall are
versions of these simulacra. Truth for Plato could be considered to be
the full realization of the Forms in their pure state. But in the
embodied condition, most people can only see the imperfect simulacra.
The simulacra are imperfect copies, just like when you make a copy of
an original it is not always as clear. The purpose of a philosopher is
to think about the Forms and to realize their fundamental nature.
Evil comes because people forget the true nature of the forms, and
even of their own true natures. When people are embodied, they lose
sight of the true forms, and can only see the simulacra. There is a
"veil of forgetfulness" that clouds vision and makes people lose sight
of the Good, the True, the Beautiful, and so on. This is apparent in
the dialogue called "Meno". In this dialogue Socrates has a slave
demonstrate a proof of the Pythagorean Theorem. The question fo the
dialogue becomes-" How could an uneducated slave boy know any
geometry?" The answer given is that teh slave boy learned this in a
previous existence, and did not remember it because of the veil of
forgetfulness.
Similarly, for Plato, people act in evil ways because they do not
remember the true form of the Good, or of Justice. Only through
philosophy can people look beyond the imperfect copies of the forms
and see the forms exactly as they are. Thus, the world is an imperfect
place where imperfect simulacra hint at the greater glory of the
forms, but which also obscure these forms from the ignorant.
One critique of this view comes from postmodern thinkers like Jacques
Derrida and Jean Baudrillard. Derrida gives the most concise critique-
that in Plato the problem of opposites is that one of the set of
opposites is superior to the other. Good is superior to Evil, Beauty
is superior to Ugliness, Justice is superior to Injustice. Ultimately,
the problem revolves around the fundamental set of opposites- Presence
vs Absence. The Good is something that is present, while evil is
something that is absent, i.e, evil is exactly what is not good. Evil
is not defined on its own terms, but is always related to a lack of
goodness, just like ugliness is a lack of beauty. Similarly, ignorance
is the lack of Truth. So, just as ignorance is the lack of truth, so
evil is the lack of goodness.
Obviously, for Plato the guardians or philospher-kings will be those
people who reflect on the forms and on goodness, and thus get out of
the cave and see the forms as they are. This group of people will be
good insofar as they are also wise- or to put it another way, they
will not be evil to the degree that they are not ingnorant.
I know this is not the most concise explanation, but I hope it serves
your purposes. If you have any other questions, let me know. |
