PLATO'S REPUBLIC, of BOOKS VII to X (An Exposition and Critique)

PLATO’S THE REPUBLIC, of BOOKS VII to X(An Exposition and Critique)

The last four books of Plato’s REPUBLIC manifest fecundity, not simply in terms of books or pages but in terms of topics or themes. Plato in this opus, true to the form of a Socratic disciple, uses the method of the catena -chain. That is, one topic is nexated or interconnected to the other. This is also the reason why I have decided to delve into this paper not in terms of books but thematically, more specifically, those I consider to be major ones. These themes that I deem to be major ones contained in the four books are Plato’s notions of human nature and morality, socio-political philosophy, the process of education or learning, and then his epistemology. However, for the purpose of our present convention, I have decided to tackle only two, namely Plato’s notions of human nature and morality, and the process of education or learning -specifically that of the Guardians of the Republic. Lastly, let it also be pointed out that all the expository work and critique shared here are all mine, and thus, for any error or shortcoming, the burden is solely mine and not of Plato nor of any other person.On Human Nature and MoralityPlato expounded on his view of human nature through the story of Er . Er was a warrior who, people thought, died in battle. However, when his body was recovered ten days after the battle, it was still undecomposed. Subsquently, his family first held a wake for him and set to burn his body after two more days. However, two days later, as his body was already on the pyre to be burned, Er revived. Thereafter, Er recounted that during those days when people thought him to be dead, his soul actually went on a journey in the afterlife. He said that his soul was made to come back to his body because he was entrusted with the mission that “he must be the messenger to mankind to tell them of the other world” and that he was commanded “to give ear and observe everything” that he will witness.It is important to note that Plato, in recounting the tale of Er is using a “myth” to explain his view of human nature. “Myth” not in the usually-conceived sense that a story is simply fictional, ergo not true. Plato uses the “myth” here in the sense that, granting that the story itself may be imaginary, yet the message it conveys carries with it what he considers as a universal truth -i.e., true to everyone and in every manner-. And conveying a universal truth, therefore, the story carries with it, authority. And that because it has authority, ergo, it should/is ought to be believed. Thus, here we can see, that from Plato’s perspective, his view of human nature is not just a fallible theory but is already an ex cathedra ideology. That Er is a harbinger of a sacrosanct decree which humanity should/ought to heed for it is for the sake of humanity’s own good: in it lies humanity’s salvation and doing otherwise would be damnation. In other words, Plato’s view regarding human nature is not only on the factual level but already on the normative or practical. It takes on the force of law, thus it should be obeyed, a categorical imperative. And thus, after Er’s account is over, Plato says:And so, Glaucon, the tale was saved, as the saying is, and was not lost. And it will save us if we believe it, and we shall safely cross the River of Lethe, and keep our soul unspotted from the world. But if we are guided by me we shall believe that the soul is immortal and capable of enduring all extremes of good and evil, and so we shall hold ever to the upward way and pursue righteousness with wisdom always and ever, that we may be dear to ourselves and to the gods both during our sojourn here and when we receive our reward, as the victors in the games go about to gather in theirs. And thus both here and in that journey of a thousand years, whereof I have told you, we shall fare well.Indeed, in other words, Plato in a sense, by appealing to the authority of the myth, is putting a stamp of unimpeachable imprimatur on his view regarding human nature.Plato says that according to Er, the souls of those who die initially go either to the upper or lower regions -the former, heavenly; the latter, still earthly. Those who lived good or virtuous lives are judged to go to the upper region, and those who lived evil lives are adjudged to the lower region. The two groups will stay in their respective regions for a thousand years. On the upper region, the virtuous souls are to enjoy all the heavenly delights as their reward, and those on the lower rungs are also to stay in their region so as to be punished and also to be reformed/or purged of their past evils. When the thousand years have come to pass, those of two groups are to emerge out of their respective regions so as to be brought to an ascendant level. The virtuous ones will immediately be admitted into the next ascendant level, albeit, those of the lower regions is another case. As previously stated, those relegated to the lower regions are sent there to be punished and purged of their evil. However, the story says that there are those in the lower regions who “are incurably wicked or... those who have not completed their punishment” . These said souls, according to the story, will not be allowed to automatically leave their lowly abode even if the prescribed millenial penalty has already elapsed. The ones who will be allowed to leave the lowly regions -for the higher level or heaven- upon completion of the penal term of a thousand years are only those who have been purgated of their evil. As the story progresses, it will be seen that only the said already-righteous and purged souls will be the ones who will be allowed once again to go through another cycle of birth in our temporal world. Or that, for a soul to be temporally reanimated or be subjected through another cycle of temporal life, it should have qualified to do so: the soul is one of virtue. This point is important, for it shows that Plato believes that all living creatures -at least the sentient ones, i.e., human beings and animals- have-temporal-lives/are-able-to-be-born-in-the-temporal-world precisely because they have good souls in their heavenly existence. However, another nuance is needed. That is, because the souls have been of virtue prior to their temporal rebirth, it necessarily follows that they also are temporally born of virtue. Not so, according to Plato, as per Er’s story.Er recounted that said righteous and purged souls, upon the passage of a millenium staying in their abovementioned designated habitations, are subjected to another process before they are again reborn in the world here and now. The said process is somekind of a half-way house. Now, in their new heavenly residence, after their emergence from their respective regions, they are made to individually choose as to what kind of life they individually would want to have in their approaching earth-bound rebirth. I highlighted the word “individually” to emphasize the point that it is each soul who makes the choice for him/herself. Ergo, inasmuch as no one compels anyone to make that specific choice, the individual soul bears sole responsibility for what it will become in its temporal rebirth. Thus the story says:“Souls that live for a day, now is the beginning of another life cycle of mortal generation where birth is the beacon of death. No divinity shall cast lots for you, but you shall chose your own deity. Let him who falls the first lot first select select a life to which he shall cleave of necessity. But virtue has no master over her, and each shall have more or less of her as he honors her or does her despite. The blame is his who chooses. God is blameless.”It can also be noted that I also highlighted the term “necessity” in the above citation. I did so because the story is also saying that one is also bound to one’s individual choice. Thus, whatever one’s choice was ante-birth, consequently that is what one shall also necessarily become in the temporal life. Simply put, Plato is saying that what one is in this world, one has become so because one has priorly decided to become so in the ante-life. This point is germane because its implication is that, if one made a bad or wrong choice in the ante-birth, one cannot anymore have the chance to lead a virtuous life here in the temporal sphere. One can only change again for the better only after one dies and his/her soul is sent to that earlier mentioned lower region and its subsequent possible release to the heavenly abode upon completion of a millenial purgation. Thus this also implies that one who leads a life of evil is worthless, i.e., negated of any positive value. Inferentially, therefore,it can be claimed that to kill evildoers or other evil sentient creatures is outrightly justifiable, or could even be considered as an act of charity because by doing so, the said evildoers are even helped to have their chance of redemption hastened. Thus, if one is born evil, one will always be evil, at least until one is still alive in this world, for in such life one “shall cleave of necessity”. Redemption for evildoers is simply not possible in this temporal existence. Only after death could one have the chance of redemption.Such view has another side to it. That is, only those who made the right choices in the ante-life therefore have lives worth living and cultivating in this space-time dimension for they are the only ones who are not predestined or fated to live evil lives. However, as the story of Er unfolded, upon their rebirth, all the souls -both those who made the right and errant choices in the ante-birth- have already forgotten their previous existence. Thus because of such existential amnesia, if persons -whose souls made the right choices in the ante-life- are not properly guided/properly “awakened” as regards their previous lives, they may also become evil, whether caused by human beings or other circumstances. Ergo, evil is not only predestined, but it could also be a result of non-cultivation of the predetermined goodness. However, of course, if one is already priorly evil, one will always be evil despite any guidance in this spatio-temporal existence.This view of predestined goodness or evil, as the case may be, has another quite ominous implication: that is, therefore everyone is not born equal. What makes the said congenital inequality more sinister is that it is something from which one cannot escape while one is still alive in the here-and-now. Thus, it follows that the caste system even of the Hindu variant is highly acceptable. Such system which has brought so much misery throughout human history to multitudes of human beings.Another onerous implication is that, it follows from the preceding implication that therefore the human being is not necessarily born free (and be-free), good (and be-good). That only some are. That there really are human beings who are therefore born evil and thus will always be evil throughout their temporal lives. And this has at least two further severe implications. Firstly, this might eventually prove that one should not necessarily be responsible for one’s actions, specially if they are evil. Fate -though of his own ante-life choice- has destined one to be so in this existence. And so no one should even blame the evildoer anymore. He/she is simply perfecting what he/she has started even before he/she was conceived. The evildoer’s existence is a mistake. The evildoer does not only have a tragic flaw here. He/She is tragedy itself. And it was not his/her fault to that he/she was made to proceed to rebirth despite such fateful affliction. As Er’s tale goes, he/she was simply made to proceed to rebirth despite of making the aforementioned wrongful choice. And such mistake cannot be rectified here and now but only in the afterlife. Ergo, the best resort for such an onerous temporal existence is to kill the evildoer -and with the further implication that through the said death the predestined evil is redressed and the a-priori error in the ante-life is once again in the process of being rectified. The second severe implication has to do with the existing cornerstone of human jurisprudence: that is, one should not anymore be presumed innocent unless proven otherwise, but instead the reverse. That because one has committed an evil action, therefore one is evil, unless he/she proves otherwise -again with the implication that one is able to do evil because one is of a soul who made the wrong choice in the ante-life.Another insidious consequence of predestined goodness or evil is the justifiability of the preferential treatment to a group of people on the assumption that they are the ones who are born to be virtuous -because they are also deemed to have made the right choice in the ante-life. Ergo, discriminations resulting from such preferential treatment are also warrantable. Therefore, only those who have been deemed to have been born to be good are to enjoy rights and privileges in this world. On the other hand, those considered base-born, therefore, based on the preceding arguments, will only have two rights: either to live a life of contempt, or to die. To live a life of miserable contempt for he/he deserves because it is what he/she actually is in the first place. To die, so as to be able to have the chance again to be purged in the after-life, so as to be subsequently able to hopefully make right choices in the following ante-life, so as to subsequently be able to have the chance to become virtuous in one’s next cycle of life.At this juncture, one might already have the impression that I might simply be putting words into Plato’s mouth, or charging him with ideas which he himself does not espouse. Let us see.The story of Er said that the souls made their choices in heaven, and that such choices were irrevocable. Thus being irrevocable, the souls who made wrong choices should be/are destined to live evil temporal lives. And being irrevocably evil lives, thus nothing will ever change it except death. I find such flow of the story logically implausible. The story would have been more sensible if it should have gone in such a manner that the souls should have corrrected or should have been allowed to correct their egregiously erroneous choices in the ante-life. Otherwise, the worldly existence of such Er’s story’s characters is meaningless, absurd. Meaning that, a storyteller does not put such a situation in a story unless either he/she does so by mistake -a mental lapse- or that she has the deliberate purpose for doing so.I would like to give Plato the benefit of the doubt: that he was not stupid, and thus he did not make a mistake/mental lapse, but instead has some very deliberate purpose in mind. I say very deliberate, for I can’t seem to conceive that a person of Plato’s caliber, whose extant works are nothing less than brilliant, can make an error in such crucial a point. I think he simply literally meant what he said through the story of Er. I would like to surmise that Plato was indeed simply saying that if one is being so predisposed -ergo in a sense predestined- to evil, therefore one simply makes one’s life nothing but being akin to a going-through-the-motions-existence, ergo, meaningless/absurd. That having already accepted that one has indeed been predisposed/fated to such, one also at the same time has ceased to struggle to ask, to question such kind of never-ending existential gloom. Therefore, by thinking so, Plato was simply trying to keep faith with his mentor Socrates’ credo that “An unexamined life is a life not worth living.” In fairness to Socrates however, I think here Plato might have taken his mentor’s words to their extreme. Methinks that I should, and I think so too Socrates would, agree with Plato that indeed an evil life is a meaningless life. However, I would like to disagree -and maybe Socrates also would- with Plato that there should only be two options that his paradigm should offer to an evildoer: one, a life worthy solely of contempt, or two, death.Ergo, again, I think by presenting his notion of human nature through the myth of Er, Plato could have either been culpably stupid -made a monumental mistake-, or that Plato being the classic genius that he was, was simply brilliantly deliberate. In addition, based on my previous discussions, whichever of the two Plato may have been, his appeal to the story of Er as a myth-expressing-universal-truth-ergo-being-authoritative is now highly suspect. The way I see it, the myth of Er as such is more of the fictional variant. Therefore, I conclude that Plato’s view on human nature -i.e., one is predestined to be either good or evil even before one is conceived- is also of the of the same kind: at minimum, highly questionable. Finally, through the story of Er, Plato, undeniably, however, also presented something worth positive merit. The story tells here of those souls who made the wrong choices in heaven:He was one of those who came down from heaven, a man who lived in a well-ordered polity in his former existence, participating in virtue by habit and not by philosophy, and one may perhaps say that a majority of those who were thus caught (i.e., making wrong choices) were of the company that come from heaven, inasmuch as they were unexercised in suffering. But those who came up from the earth, since they themselves suffered and seen suffering of others, did not make their choice precipitately...The above citation tells us several things. Firstly, that “habitual virtue” is not enough. Habitual virtue, meaning unreflectively repeatedly doing something precisely because we consider it to be ethically good or sought-for, thereby making the said action almost part of our so-called second nature. Plato here shows an insight into the human tendency to do things based on established pattern -and the pattern in turn already unquestionably considered as safe. At the same time, he however posits a challenge to the said habits by saying that one could be “... participating in virtue by habit and not by philosophy...”, thereby implying that even our so-called habitual virtues should also be adequately checked or examined either for further buttressing, or for possible amendments, or even for total change. Secondly, that what can really guide to make such checking and correcting is “philosophy” or simply put, reflection. Plato seems to be saying that habits at times could also lead us to self-deception, and unfortunately at times with dire consequences. Ergo, if ever there is a habit which should be so consistently nurtured and cultivated it is that of self-examination, self-reflection, because as Plato’s paragon Socrates said, “An unexamined life is a life not worth living.” Thirdly, that as our comfort zones -brought about by habitual inclinations- could dull our capacity for right judgment, inversely, difficulties could hone it. Thus the citation says that “But most of those who came from earth, since they themselves suffered and seen sufferings of others, did not make their choice precipitately...” My observation and experience confirm Plato’s point. I have seen that the people who usually panic or wilt in crisis or extreme situations are the ones who lives protected lives. To a large extent, quite a number of people who are products of sheltered upbringing lack that toughness to make even simple decisions, and more so, hard decisions. Simply as a college professor, I have witnessed quite a number of students coming from really prominent families who lived directionless lives. Students who are more focused in their studies -and later in their careers- are usually the ones who come from lower and middle income backgrounds, backgrounds usually characterized by resiliency, hardwork, competition. On Education and the Learning ProcessThe education that Plato refers to is not just any kind of education but something very specific. In the context of his work, the education he talks about is that of the people whom he deemed to govern his aspired Republic: the Guardians -and subsequently their mentors-, or in common parlance, the philosopher-kings/rulers. However, at this point, I would like to say tha Plato’s view of education being for the aforementioned class of people necessarily proceeds from his view of human nature and socio-politics. This being the case, I would like to categorically say that Plato’s view on education, though coming from quite problematic bases, still deserves worthy attention and respect at least even only as a process or method. That, if we distantiate Plato’s view on education from his aforementioned views, there are substantial things that we can learn. We therefore proceed with this thought in mind. Firstly, as previously stated, Plato’s education serves primarily to produce a corps of leaders in his Republic who will eventually take care of a citizenry of morally upright citizens -albeit, Plato’s version. Thus, Plato’s school is one which will be somekind of a sifting ground for those people who are of the two kinds of -previously discussed- souls. For this Plato, deemed the necessity of mentors. Plato conceived of mentors as those who are only the best. The first generation of mentors will consist of Plato and those whom he considered to be also like him: men of wisdom and virtue . And when I say men, based on the text, I am quite convinced that the first generation of mentors/formators had in mind were males. From what can be culled form the text, the first generation mentors are not really that many. Because of this, Plato even anticipated the possibility of recruiting them even from other states. From this, we can safely say that the succeeding generations of mentors will then come from the subsequent batches of the future well-trained Guardians. Being so, Plato, eventually envisioned that the mentors will eventually include even women from the Guardian ranks. He explicitly says:And so, when each generation has educated others like themselves to take their place as guardians of the state, they shall depart to the Islands of the Blessed and there dwell. And the state shall establish public memorials and sacrifices for them as divinities if the Pythian oracle approves or, if not, as to divine and godlike men... And on the women too... for you must not suppose that my words apply to the men more than to all women who arise among them endowed with requisite qualities... That is right if they are to share in all things with the men as we laid it down.In the “Allegory of the Cave”, Plato says “Picture men dwelling in a sort of subterranean cave... having their legs and necks fettered from childhood.” I highlighted “childhood” for several reasons. Firstly, if we tie the aforementioned citation with what Plato said in the further portion of Book VII, we can see at what age Plato deems that the formation of the Guardians are to begin. Thus he says:... But this we must not forget, that in our former selection we chose old men, but in this one, that will not do. To the young belong all heavy and frequent labors... all this study... must be presented to them while still young. These two quotations clearly show that Plato indeed preferred that his Guardians’ formation be started while they were still young. But how young? Further on Plato said:All inhabitants above the age of ten, I said, they (referring to the first generation of the self-appointed mentors/formators) will send out into the fields, take over the children, remove them from the manners and habits of their parents, and bring them (referring to the children) up in their (referring to the formators) customs and laws which will be such as we have described.The key terms are “inhabitants above the age of ten” and “take over the children”. Meaning that those who will be left in the city are therefore those whose ages are ten and below. Ergo, Plato here clearly shows that the mentors -i.e., from the first generation to their successors- are to start their formation of children at maximum at the age of ten. Such claim is further bolstered through the kind of training that Plato prescribes for the said wards:... a free soul ought not to pursue any study slavishly, for while the bodily labors performed under constraint do not harm the body, nothing that is learned under compulsion stays with the mind... Do not then, my friend, keep children to their studies by compulsion but by play. That will also better enable you to discern the natural capacities of each.The term “free soul” denotes the state of innocence of children. Such innocence which, we can safely assume, only children of ten and below are capable of. And such innocence which also therefore makes them so transparent/discernible, affirming Plato’s statement “... that will also better enable you to discern the capabilities of each.” And the conclusive proof for the aforementioned claim is the training to be given them, based on the citation: play.This being so, for my next point, we can see Plato’s certain insight into the psyche of the child (probably we can claim to to have seen here a prototype of child psychology?). I think it ould be safe to assume that he sees the pliability of the child’s psyche, and thus its openness to Plato’s kind of formation. And not just any type of formation but a very specific one: play. Which simply shows that Plato had foreseen that compulsion, or harshness can produce trauma in children, which might make the children intractable, and thus defeating his vision of producing virtuous and wise rulers.Plato’s school is a state institution, thus all the Republic’s children, maybe with the exception of the first generation, will have to pass through the said state institute. The children are compelled to be taken away from their families at the aforementioned age. They will be nurtured and screened there as they go through years of training. In other words, not all children will become guardians, thus the dropouts will become ordinary citizens but still doing their own share of burden in the affairs of the republic. Being taken away from their nuclear families serves the purpose of making the child loyal to only one institution: the state. Actually, if we look at it, Plato’s republic is one big family. Ergo, I think, so as to make the children focused on their training and subsequently their duties as Guardians, Plato deems of the said instutional loyalty.The training is rigorous. The children will be trained as soldiers, adept in physical training, arts, music or the study of harmonies , basic math or arithmetic , geometry , astronomy , physics or “of the third dimension of solids” , and lastly dialectics or philosophy proper . Plato is insistent though, and has repeatedly said that the said curriculum should consistently have one end or goal: wisdom. This is exemplified when he says:... I take it that if the investigation of all these studies goes far enough to bring out their community and kinship with one another, and to infer their affinities, then to busy ourselves with them contributes to our desired end, and the labor taken is not lost...This is also the reason why Plato is a bit critical about techne -technical studies like carpentry, toolmaking, etc. - and those which he considers to be mimetic art -painting, sculpture, acting. He says that techne provides only manual or mechanical instruments, thereby implying that one doesn’t really have to be intellectually brilliant to make them. As to the mimetic arts, being simply imitative, they offer nothing new to human knowledge because they in fact only repeat what is already found in real life. Plato even also points out that the said mimetic arts tend to stunt people’s growth towards virtue and wisdom. Singling out tragedies, he said that they simply nurture humanity’s passion for pathos and sorrow, imprisoning human beings in stagnant humanly state and consequently obstructing their desire and capacity for nobler pursuits in life -presumably philosophy. Plato therefore implied that mimetic arts should at times be censored.The Guardians’ training lasts a lifetime. The abovementioned subjects are taken by gradation. And observably, Plato allots the greatest number of years for the training in dialectics/philosophy. According to Plato’s estimate, a Guardian’s training ends by the times he/she reaches the age of fifty .Admittedly, Plato’s curriculum, though daunting is excellent. I am convinced that had its curriculum been applied to today’s situation minus the aforementioned institutional features, at the least excellent students would consequently be produced. However, the fact that it is institutionalized the way he perceived it -i.e., lifetime, compulsory, nuclear-family-free-, I therefore doubt if he could really produce Guardians as he intended them. Plato said that he and the other wise men shall serve as the first generation of Guardians and thus, they will also be the teachers of the first generation of properly and communally schooled Guardians. Take note that Plato prescribed that when a child reaches the age of not more that ten, he/she shall be taken away from his/her nuclear family so as to begin the Guardianship formation. Plato’s main reasons being that the child should be purged of his/her presumably base surrounding, and that the Guardians are supposed to have their loyalty to no specific human being but only to the ideals of the Republic -and consequently that of goodness and wisdom.I have reservations regarding the aformenetioned process of formation though. I think the said arrangement is psychologically unsound, and thus will make Plato’s dream of formation of the Guardian corps either an illusion, or at least a highly flawed one. Firstly, It should be noted that the children who will become the first generation of of Guardians will come from individual nuclear families -because Plato surmised that in the succeeding batches, the Guardians will already procreate among themselves-. Coming from nuclear families, the said children will therefore already have a real sense of family. However, being of tender age when culled from their families, the greater probability is that the children will be considerably traumatized. Psychology says that childhood trauma if not handled carefully will actually be a strong negative force in the child’s development and later life. The child will develop compulsions due to the trauma of separation he/she went through, compulsions which will greatly burden one -and even others- throughout one’s lifeSecondly, I don’t think that Plato and his company of wise men -as first generation mentors- would be up to the work. We have to take note, that Plato’s group is not numerous and they are all adult males. Thus surely, they will have a difficult, if not hopeless, situation of duplicating, the family atmostphere which their wards were priorly exposed to. Their number will not be adequate to pay enough attention to the special needs of children. Special, meaning, being at their very delicate stage in life, the children have multifarious needs which will also require a wide range of attention. Being exclusively male, maybe, the first generation mentors could provide paternal care and presence. But what about maternally? Absence of female mentors would also consequently leave a void which will also lead to another psychological imbalance. Psychology says that it is during the said childhood years that sexual identity, sense of belonging and other important personality features begin to crucially take root. And the said maternal absence denies the said children that necessary sense of balance that only a complete nuclear family can offer. We have to remember that what is at stake here is the first generation of Guardians. A first generation which, with defects, can later snowball such defects into monumental intractabilities which can be passed on from one generation to the next. Thirdly, having a commune of Guardians for the sake of eugenic purity is also not viable. The said commune will lead to inbreeding, and it is a scientific fact that inbreeding in turn leads to genetic defects on offsprings. Fourthly, based on the statements of Plato,the first-generation formators are basically self-taught. That is, unlike the second and subsequent generation of Guardian-mentors, the first generation mentors have reached their said level of enlightenment and competence by their own individual endeavor. And if, as the first-generation mentors have shown that wisdom or enlightenment can be achieved by one’s own efforts, then why cannot others do so too, in this case, the perceived second-generation mentors and their progeny? In other words, wouldn’t it be right to say that inasmuch as formation can be self-taught, ergo, isn’t the strict need for formators only superficial, or simply imposed, rather than necessary?Ergo, from the abovementioned discussions, I therefore conclude that Plato’s own dream of forming a corps of Guardians to be the elite of his aspired Republic is highly unviable, if not outrightly acarpous.In the final tally, indubitably, Plato, as I have mentioned at the beginning of this paper, was a genius. Plato had that seemingly unebbing tide of ideas which should merit great study and affirmation, or even adherence. However, there is an oft-quoted adage which says that “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Ergo, in the same vein, in Plato’s case I say, “Brilliance instructs, but it also can brilliantly obstruct” us from truth, that is, if we are not discerning. Philosophy of Science speaks of what is called the Principle of Verification. This principle is commonly applied in empirical experiments. In such experiments, the variables are clearly identified, and out of the said variables, the experimenter assumes that a certain/specific expected result will necessarily follow. This principle has its merits. Surely, it usually produces a certainty within its operational parameters; certain/specific postulates are validated resultant of the controlled variables. This means that within the parameters of the said variables, one usually gets what one in the first place expected. Ergo, consequently, another merit is that long-standing theories or notions are always validated or confirmed.Philosophers of Science however also confer a caveat upon the said principle: the principle of verification also has its deficiencies, and serious at times. Caution is directed towards the element of aforementioned preconceived expectation. The problem with preconceived expectation is that the experimenter will only tend to see what he/she has in the first place expected to see, and nothing else more. That, given the variables a, b, c...n, therefore experimenter Z gets X. However, at times, from the variables a, b, c...n, it is not only X that actually result/s. It might be that a, b, c...n, ergo, X1, X2, X3...Xn. What further compounds the predicament is the fact that if only experimenter Z noted or considered the anomalies, X might have been further developed or validated, or if not falsified or proven to be untrue or invalid. And if one looks at it, whether X is validated or falsified, experimenter Z is in a win-win situation: if verifying, then the claim to X is further fortified; if falsifying, therefore an opportunity to correct an error is presented and thus one can proceed to develop a new, correct or valid one. And here, we are only talking of the result of variables a, b, c...n. What more if on the first place experimenter Z has already made erroneous assumptions about a, b, c...n, in that, actually the variables are a1, b1, c1...n1? Thus, when we read Plato, or any other writer for that matter -yours truly not excluded-, I think we should always keep in mind the lesson that the defect which the verification theory shows. Ergo, a, b, c...n, therefore X and therefore, X cannot be a1, b1, c1...n1, nor a,b,c...n be therefore X1, X2, X3...n. Indeed, caveat emptor!Jose Ma. Ybanez Tomacruz28 October 2000PhilosophyDivisionAteneo de Davao UniversityJacinto St., Davao City