The initial paradox is simple: The ideal state, as Plato describes it, is composed of un-ideal individuals. Both the warrior class and the masses are deprived of reason and must be governed by the philosopher-king. How can one legitimately call a community perfect when so many of its members are imperfect ? My point here is logical; the word ‘ideal’ is used in a self-inconsistent manner.

This paper is based on the "cratylus", although there is occasional reference to other dialogues. In plato's contrast between the language of the gods and the language of mortals, we may discern something like the contrast between ideal and ordinary language. By names he means terms which have both reference and sense necessarily; such terms are also verbs, for verbs are names of actions and actions are realities; for instance, a blow. The criterion for the identity of names is that (...) they mean the same thing. "statements".unlike names, statements have meaning without necessarily having any reference. A word is a name "only" if what it names exits, whereas a statement may be false. A statement achieves meaning by purely internal criteria as to its composition. "the structure of statements". A statement is not a list of names; it is a unity and has meaning only in its character as a unity. Ryle's view that the terms in a sentence are not independent constituents and that their meaning is contextual is presented. The author concludes that plato is undecided on this matter. (shrink)

The initial paradox is simple: The ideal state, as Plato describes it, is composed of un-ideal individuals. Both the warrior class and the masses are deprived of reason and must be governed by the philosopher-king. How can one legitimately call a community perfect when so many of its members are imperfect? My point here is logical; the word ‘ideal’ is used in a self-inconsistent manner.

Such a question and such a suggestion may seem preposterous. The scholarly tradition represents Plato as the first historical figure to construct a utopia, and as one who stimulated Th. More, Rousseau and others to similar efforts at construction. While I agree with this tradition, I do not think that its view of Plato's intention can be taken for granted; such a view needs arguing and demonstrating--arguing against important objections. The question is certainly not preposterous, as will be obvious from (...) a consideration of relevant passages. (shrink)

Jung has long been a doctor for mental illness; at Zurich and elsewhere the list of his patients---many of them American--is very large. But he has never been merely a practising physician of mental ills; he has all along been a student of the human psyche, both abnormal and normal. The forces impelling him to his investigations are surely complex. Jung, no doubt, is concerned with therapy--a therapy of the ills not only of particular individuals, but of societies too. Indeed, (...) he is deeply worried over the direction in which our Western culture is proceeding, and, like a prophet, he speaks out with vigor against present trends. But his interest in psychological phenomena goes far beyond the bounds prescribed by the pursuit of practical results. He is also an independent inquirer who seeks understanding for its own sake, and is concerned with extending the boundaries of our theoretical knowledge in psychology. He is a student not only of the individual mind but of culture as well--or, as he would prefer to put it, of the collective mind. Indeed, one of the points we must consider is whether, as has been alleged by some of his critics, Jung sinks the individual into the collective pool of the psyche, there to drown him. The question, in other words, is whether Jung believes that there is a group mind as an entity existing over and above individual minds. (shrink)