This is how I read Plato: True knowledge is of the forms, which are immortal. The soul, which knows or can come to know the forms, is immortal. We are mortal because we're inherently contradictory, because of the soul / body split. The movement towards perfect unification is ultimately a movement towards immortality. We may see this in the Republic in that all of the craftsmen there exist only as craftsmen qua crafstmen; their other material characteristics are irrelevant to the immortal, and therefore never to be instituted, Politeia. To expunge all contradictions is to die (or be immortal); hence, the continuous discussion of "purity" in the Phaedo.
To say it in another way, here is a paragraph from a brief essay I wrote on the Gorgias:
In order for discourse to be possible, there must be a common ground to bridge the gap between individuals. In the first place, they must share a common language; words must mean the same thing for each. But in order to limit words by meanings, all of us must share some private “feeling” as a common measure; for humans as a whole, this feeling is eros (481d). There is therefore a certain level of consensus necessary for conversation; but there is also a point beyond which society seems to have deemed further regularization of meaning unprofitable, and this self-imposed horizon, according to Callicles, is the difference between the child and the adult (485d). Whether for the sake of a certain “ease in doing things” (459c), out of great violence of character (466c), or as consolation for the superhuman injustice of eros (511b), the practitioners of Gorgianic rhetoric seek to exploit the contradictions inherent in conventions (including language) for the purpose of their own animal gratification; while Socratic discourse, in its pursuit of absolute agreement beyond the jumble of day to day usages, seeks a harmony in word and deed that is purely human, and therefore divine.
I could probably say this a million other ways; everything points in this direction for Plato.
As far as what I believe, I think I believe that words are irrelevant to Truth, and that the silly "truths" you've offered are just chattering. I think your more serious "truths" are arguable, on the postmodern grounds that "I am not I." If I were going to let art be didactic, I would want it to "prove" things (or better, convince us of things) we need to believe, not true things. I think, however, that language is inherently false, or that by its nature it falsifies. In other words, this sentence is false.
Chris
|