grgr dates &plato

[Robert L. Zamsky]

"Terrance F. Flaherty" wrote:

> Did Plato really believe the forms existed?

Umm, yes, though they are unattainable in the merely pedestrian physical
world.

>
>
> What are the forms?

Ideals that encompass the grand possibilities of a thing as such.  Think
of a table -- any particular table is only an approximation of the ideal
of table, and this approximation carries within it the essential
elements of the form of table which it has in common with other
imperfect physical approximations of "table."

>
>
> Are they the same in all of the dilologues or different?

Sorry, can't help.

>
>
> Can they be known? How?

See Kant and Schiller.

>
>
> What has the soul to do with the forms?

Again, see Kant and Schiller.  The deal with forms is that they are
ideals and, as such, it is in their realm of perfection which the soul
also resides.  All of earthly life is at best a pale impersonation of
the forms, though, at its best,  it may lead toward the way of the form.

>
>
> If they can be known, can they be taught?

Well, again Schiller comes to mind and his particular pop-Kantian
pedagogy.  In a sense, yes, by means of exposure to "the best" of
aesthetic life.  On the other hand, as Schiller also argues, not if the
pupil isn't sufficiently prepared to receive the form.  He clearly gets
into quite serious trouble with most 20th century notions of aesthetics,
though I would bet you could make just such a "formal" argument for
Pynchon -- in much the same way as you could for, say, John Barth.

>
>
> Pynchon is very interested in Plato's ideas on music. Why?

Music is the readiest example of the possibility of form b/c it is not
refential -- it is not polluted by the whole signifier/signified issue.
It just is.  Or, to put it in Kantian terms, music avoids the danger of
"interest," which is essentially the bias of the reader/listener, which
inhibits the appreciation of the form.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,
rz