Writing his landmark work Process and Reality during the years when quantum mechanics and general relativity were discovered, Whitehead’s philosophy of organism treats the universe as a web of interconnected processes and changes. Whitehead applied the logic of Plato’s writing from 2,400 years ago to identify crucial connections in the web and, by following their paths, he related concepts in general relativity and quantum mechanics to the universe as an organism. From Whitehead’s perspective, there was clear logic for an eternal co-dependency of the infinite universe and the finite connections within its web.

The mathematician had much to say about the nature of time, which was a prominent in the episode’s discussion. To Whitehead, time was not linear but circular, and likewise Plato’s character Timaeus described the universe as spherical. Timaeus also stated that the changes we see everywhere around us are in a “moving image of eternity, moving according to number, of eternity remaining in unity.” The appeal of Timaeus’ perspective to a mathematician becomes even more obvious in the character’s next statement: “This number, of course, is what we now call 'time'.”

Can science and philosophy be reunited? If ever there was a time for such unity, the time is now, and Whitehead paved the way to connecting ancient principles with the discoveries of Albert Einstein and Nils Bohr that have transformed the modern world.

In discussing selections from Badiou’s writing and lectures from several decades ago, James Myers and Michael Fitzpatrick found many connections between the the polarized politics of today and the philosopher’s work and views on political organization and practices of his time. As opposition is increasingly entrenched, Badiou said the key is to base political actions on a truth such as justice that all factions could reasonably support, making the political challengers commensurable to truth rather than existing only to oppose each others’ ideas.

The three great tasks of philosophy, Badiou says, are “to deal with choice, with distance, and with the exception.” The event is the exception, and philosophy leads us to understand the connections of cause and effect in the exceptions that shape our lives. Thinking the event helps us to distinguish the real from the shadowy projections on the wall of Plato’s allegory of the cave, and by opening our eyes to what really happened we regain our agency for change to make something different happen.

Those interested in Michael's writing on Plato and related subjects can visit "Plato for the Masses" at https://platoforthemasses.substack.com/.

On February 18, 2024, members of the Toronto, Calgary, and Chicago Philosophy Meetup groups turned to the dialogue’s beginning armed with knowledge of Book X, which opened our extended series on the Laws by exploring Plato’s presentation of the universe as having a soul and, at its core, the supremacy of Reason. Everything comes to be from a cause and Reason and, in Book I, virtue is presented as the reason for a peaceful and just society.

Is there a lesson for the world now, 2,400 years after Plato wrote the Laws, in the pursuit of collective virtue as a higher good than the quest for individual freedom?  Would a focus on virtue replace the present discord with harmony? Our discussion covered many of the practical considerations including security and protection of material possessions, the problems of measuring cause and effect over time, and the benefit of citizens who (in the words of the Athenian) know both “how to rule and be ruled as justice demands.” Such skill requires self control, a subject we’ll discuss in our next episode when we will cover the second half of Book I of the Laws.

This episode is also featured on The Quantum Record, at https://thequantumrecord.com/.

For that matter, what, exactly, is “the one” that is the subject of the various hypotheses tested in dialogue between Parmenides and young Aristotle, and why does Plato leave us with no definition of the one if nothing would be without it? A proposition was made for our discussion, that Plato’s purpose in the Parmenides was that we consider our minds’ system of perception in time. Only in time, in the changing state of becoming, are we able to perceive, when all perception is of differences that stand in contrast to the unity of one. It was proposed that without reference to the unity of one, itself beyond the constraints of time as Parmenides claims, our perceptions of a thing itself – such as the large – and of the character of the thing’s parts, would always differ and lead to an infinite regress in thought.

Early in our discussion we considered Parmenides’ description of “the instant” of time when neither change nor rest exist but either is possible. Is “potential” another way of describing “the one”, in the instant in which either of two states is possible? We explored the relationship between this concept of the instant of time and current knowledge of quantum mechanics and the qubit, in particular the phenomenon of quantum superposition of states. Analogy was also used to consider the meaning of Plato’s words, and one participant connected the analogy of the circle to a balloon as a way of understanding the limitless capacity of the one in three dimensions of either state of change or rest. Does time associate itself with number, as Plato wrote in the Timaeus, and if so what are the consequences? What are the unique properties of the one, among numbers, limits, and the differences in perception that arise from limits?

We will consider these and other themes of Plato’s works in September, when Plato’s Pod will resume group discussions with an examination of the Cratylus. In the meantime, stay tuned to Plato’s Pod over the summer months for some fascinating interviews and more perspectives on the works of Plato, the philosopher and geometer who wrote nearly 2,400 years ago.

Numerous points of logic emerge as Parmenides and Xeno train the young Socrates in the art of dialectic, to identify the first principle of a thing. Parmenides advises Socrates to identify as distinct one thing, and then to test the distinction so made by hypothesizing the consequences of the many in relation to themselves and in relation to the one, and of the one in relation to itself and in relation to the many. Such is the only logical means to achieve a full view of the truth, Parmenides states, and in our discussion we explored the nature of logic itself in relation to being and non-being.

Do we think that we are part of one universe, or of a multiverse? Is logic ultimately a single universal form or, as Parmenides asks Socrates by analogy, is it like a sail covering many people who obtain either a part of the whole or the whole of the sail itself? This led to a discussion of what has become famously known as the “third man argument” arising in Plato’s Parmenides, referring the possibility of an infinite regress in logic as we attempt to identify the origin of a thing. Is there an absolute truth in the matter, as one participant asked, and can it ever be proven empirically? It’s an important question, among others, that we will explore in our second session on the Parmenides, as we ponder the possible universality of its conclusion that “if the one is not, nothing is.”

Members of the Toronto Philosophy and Calgary Philosophy Meetup groups met on May 22, 2022 to consider these and other questions, in the third of three dialogues on The Statesman. We began by listening to a re-enactment of Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and discussed the conditions of the civil war era during which the emancipator’s words were spoken. Given their times, was Lincoln in some ways a tyrant, and was Henry VIII foremost a tyrant? These and other questions were raised as we pursued the proposition that constitutions should not be fixed in time. Several current constitutional issues were brought into the discussion, and one participant suggested that we might consider the advantages of welcoming the Visitor’s ideal ruler, constrained by laws, under judges elected by the citizens. Could this be a better form of democracy? And what does democracy mean, when it is so widely and variably applied?

Perhaps then the key is to find the common ground in the mean of extremes, as we discussed in our previous episode, and to ensure the continuing harmony of the mean in its own derivative. Is this what the Visitor from Elea was trying to tell us, in so many words?

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.

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 dialoguesonplato@outlook.com 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.

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.