Plato's Pod: Dialogues on the works of Plato

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.

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.

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.

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”.

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.

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?

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 [email protected] 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.

Participants from the Toronto and Calgary Philosophy and Online Rebels Meetup groups met on June 13, 2021 to discuss themes in the second part of Theaetetus, Plato's dialogue on knowledge. We began by listening to part of a "Joy of x" podcast interview by mathematician Steven Strogatz of computer scientist Melanie Mitchell, addressing the challenges of generalizing the particulars of knowledge in computer algorithms when faced with an infinity of probabilities in everyday existence. We connected the discussion to the ideas in Plato's theory of forms, and to Socrates' challenge to the Protagorean belief that "man is the measure of all things".Is each one of us equipped to determine the extent of being and non-being and all that comes to be between these two extremes? As the transmission of knowledge has altered over time from the spoken word to the written word and, in recent decades to digital bits soon to be geometrically quantized in the qubit of the quantum computer, do we understand what knowledge is and how its limits are determined - either by one or in combination? Do we distinguish between two types of motion, as Socrates does, and recognize that alteration of state and perception is motion like change in spatial position? Is knowledge and our own existence in a constant and unknowable flux, as Socrates presents the argument of Heraclitus, or is the contrasting position of Parmenides correct that all limits are the derivative of one eternal, changeless state? How will we encode the "account of the reasons why", as Socrates described memory of knowledge in The Meno, together with individual bits of knowledge in order to provide context and understanding?While we did not reach definitive conclusions on these questions, our own dialogue raised so many interesting and thoughtful insights that shine a new light on the path of knowledge. We look forward to resuming regular meetings in September for the beginning of season 2 to consider The Republic and Parmenides, together with some of Plato's other dialogues not addressed in season 1. In between seasons we hope to podcast some interesting interviews and perspectives on themes discussed in our most fascinating first season, in the continual exchange and construction of knowledge.

In this live recorded discussion on May 30, 2021 we began by listening to an interview of physicist Richard Feynman recalling the paths that he and other explorers took to acquire and apply knowledge, the nature of which Plato explores in the dialogue Theaetetus. The way in which knowledge connects to memory was among the themes explored from individual and collective perspectives by participants from the Toronto and Calgary Philosophy and Online Rebels Meetup groups. In the present state of coming to be, becoming as we are in flux and motion, how do we tie down knowledge? When the known is the limit of the unknown, how do we distinguish between subject and predicate in our inquiries? In raising the geometry of the spiral of Theodorus, the geometer who together with the mathematician Theaetetus join in dialogue with Socrates, is Plato implying a relationship between geometry and knowledge? These and other questions were raised with a number of fascinating perspectives in the first part of our dialogue on Plato's Theaetetus, which we will continue on June 13 as we aim to form an account of knowledge and its "reasons why".

What does it mean to be pious, and how have changes in the meaning over time motivated those who have claimed to be acting piously and affected those accused of impiety? In this live recorded discussion on May 16, 2021 of the Toronto Philosophy, Calgary Philosophy, and Online Rebels Meetup groups we considered the case of Plato's Euthyphro who is about to prosecute his father for the impiety of murder. Upon hearing of Euthyphro's case, Socrates mentions his own accuser Meletus whose charges would eventually lead to Socrates' trial and death. We discussed other historical applications of piety's meaning, including that which misled the Inquisition to condemn Galileo for holding what later proved to be true knowledge of the ordering of the heavens and orbit of the planets around the sun. Are interpretations of piety universal, even among the gods? We investigated this question, and the "Euthyphro dilemma" of the eternal order of what "is" that Socrates raises in the question: "Is the pious being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is being loved by the gods?"

Was the cataclysmic disappearance of Atlantis and its wealth and beauty, nine millennia before Plato wrote about it, real? Or was Atlantis presented as a model and archetypical civilization, sending a humbling message to Plato's time and ours about disorder and discord that arises when the divine nature of the soul is diluted and obscured by lust for possessions and power? On May 2, 2021 participants from the Toronto Philosophy, Calgary Philosophy, and Online Rebels Meetup groups met in this live recorded discussion to consider these and other questions raised by Plato's Critias. We drew parallels to other dialogues of Plato, including Meno, Timaeus, and Phaedrus, as we considered the theory of forms, knowledge as recollection, time as a circular function, and other aspects of Plato's tale of Atlantis that has gripped the imagination since he presented the legend.

Does speech exist to provide direction to the soul, as Socrates asserts in the second part of The Phaedrus? How do we use the power of reason to interpret the general form of a spoken concept and apply that understanding to a particular purpose? In this live recording made on April 11, 2021 of a discussion of the Toronto Philosophy, Calgary Philosophy, and Online Rebels Meetup groups we explored these and other aspects of Plato's Phaedrus (from 257(c) to the end). Among the powers of speech we considered are its two-way nature in contrast to other forms of expression, and in the context of the legend of Thamus and Theuth the ability of speech to promote knowledge as recollection in the soul. A participant began by asking whether the people of Plato's time spoke of "the infinite" as we examined the geometry of the tetrahedron, and we ended with the words of Socrates at 277(c) that in speaking of a concept "you must how know how to divide it into kinds until you reach something indivisible". Between the beginning and end of our dialogue, many fascinating logical connections and ideas were raised.

How do we bring "many perceptions together into a reasoned unity" and does this require that we understand speech "in terms of general forms"? These are among the questions that Socrates invited us to consider, as we did in this March 28, 2021 live recording of a meeting of the Toronto Philosophy, Calgary Philosophy, and Online Rebels Meetup groups. During the course of our dialogue, covering the first part of The Phaedrus to 257(b), we explored the multifaceted nature of the soul and the language that the soul uses to communicate meaning, as we also explored Plato's theory of forms.

Is knowledge of all knowledge, including of that which is not knowledge, logically possible? This, among other questions, was the subject of discussion in this March 14, 2021 live recording of a discussion of the Toronto Philosophy, Calgary Philosophy, and Online Rebels Meetup groups. The range of our own dialogue covered the nature of self and of temperance, which Plato represents as the “science of self”, and Socrates’ words that “…it was not living scientifically that was making us fare well and be happy, even if we possessed all the sciences put together but that we have to have this one science of good and evil.”

In this live discussion of the Toronto Philosophy, Calgary Philosophy, and Online Rebels Meetup groups that occurred on February 28, 2021 we examined the nature of virtue and whether virtue can be taught, which is the opening question that Meno asks in Plato’s dialogue. Our own dialogue explored the nature of knowledge, which Socrates proclaimed to be “recollection” and the “account of the reasons why”, and the application of knowledge in the intelligent universe.

This recording of a live discussion of the Toronto Philosophy, Calgary Philosophy, and Online Rebels Meetup groups occurred on February 14, 2021. We continued our discussion of two weeks earlier by reviewing the logical construction of the intelligent universe from 28(a) to 33(d). Then we began to explore the shape of the physical universe that is observable by intelligence, bearing in mind as Timaeus suggests at 50(d) “three types of things: that which comes to be, that in which it comes to be, and that after which the thing coming to be is modeled, and which is the source of its coming to be.”

This recording of a live discussion of the Toronto Philosophy, Calgary Philosophy, and Online Rebels Meetup groups occurred on January 31, 2021. Our focus was on the first part of Plato’s Timaeus, to 47(e), discussing the creation of the intelligent universe. The logical flow that begins at 28(a) of the dialogue was reviewed early in our second episode.