Philosophy Study: The Writings of Plato

After I finished my general study on philosophy, I wanted to dive deeper into some of the writings of these famous philosophers. Granted it's a lot more challenging to read the actual writings of these great philosophers verses the general summaries. However some of the best philosophers were also best writers who made their concepts fairly comprehensive. I found this mostly to be the case with Augustine of Hippo as I read his book, Confessions. Sure it's easy to get lost in some of the deeper concepts, but for the most part it stays coherent. Other examples of great philosophical writings include Plato (The Republic), Marcus Aurelius (Meditations), Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics), Michel de Montaigne (Essays), David Hume (An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding), and Rene Descartes (Meditations on Firth Philosophy). 

So about a month ago I was going through my bookshelf in my office, and stumbled upon some older books on philosophy. These were books Devon had given me a long time ago which collected dust for many years. I realized on these shelves were several famous philosophical writings including Lucretius (On the Nature of Things), Aristotle (On Man in the Universe), Montaigne (Essays), and John Stuart Mill (On Liberty). However the biggest discovery was three books on Plato (The Last Days of Socrates, The Symposium, and the Republic). I actually owned the book Symposium from one of my college English courses. However I had never read the other books. So I figured since Plato is considered one of the most famous of all philosophers this would be a great challenge to tackle his writings. 

Another reason I am especially interested in Plato is the major influence he had on Christianity. I realized this as I studied Christian theology a few months ago, in which many of the early church fathers were influenced by classic Greek philosophy, most notably Platonism. I think this is mostly because Plato is considered the architect of the immortal soul, which is a key belief of Christianity. He also promoted the concept of a visible and invisible world, which also aligns with Christian teachings. Plato himself was by no means a religious person, however many of his teachings have shades of monotheistic, metaphysical, and spiritual aspects to it. These concepts went on to inspire some of the greatest of Christian theologians such as Justin Martyr, Origen, and Augustine of Hippo.   

The Last Days of Socrates (Four Book Series)

What's quite unique about the writing style of Plato is he hardly ever speaks in his voice. Instead he mostly uses his teacher Socrates as the main narrator of all his most famous books. Plato also uses a format of dialogues with other famous thinkers discussing philosophy with Socrates. So the question becomes are these the concepts of Socrates or Plato, and the answer would be a little bit of both. It's well known that Socrates had a major influence on Plato and many other scholars in ancient Greece. Plato witnessed the final trial and execution of Socrates in 399 BC who was charged with heresy and impiety (against the gods of Athens). Thus his writing of The Last Days of Socrates is actually a four-part series pertaining to the death of his beloved teacher. So these concepts were likely shared by both Socrates and Plato in some sense, but ultimately belong to Plato since it is his writing. 

Of all Plato's writings, it's probably fair to say that the Last Days of Socrates probably reflects most of Socrates' concepts. This is because he is recounting historical events as a witness and partaker in these final events of the life of Socrates. The four books of the Last Days of Socrates begin with the Euthyphro (a dialogue on his way to the courthouse); the Apology (Socrates' trial and defense); the Crito (Socrates' acceptance of the law); the Phaedo (Socrates' concepts on the soul and the afterlife). I found these four books to be very intriguing and well-written, especially the final book pertaining to the soul. In these four accounts by Plato, he demonstrates how Socrates faced his death with such honor and peace of mind. 

Euthyphro

The first writing of the Last Days of Socrates is set before his trial, as awaits outside the courthouse. He has been charged with impiety, for corrupting the minds of the youth in turning away from the gods. At this point he meets a colleague name Euthyphro, who considers himself a very devout man of piety (almost the opposite of Socrates). So quite conveniently the stage is set for a discussion on the matter since the two are dealing with court cases pertaining to piety. Euthyphro is an accuser while Socrates is the accused (however they are separate cases). Euthyphro is charging his own father for negligent homicide of a captured criminal. The crime in itself is a debatable one, however according to law Euthyphro would still have a case.  

The discussion in this book however is not in regard to the details of Euthphro's legal case, rather the bigger topic on piety. This is where I first encountered Socrates' famous inquiry approach where he analyzes a topic with questions and examples. After some back-and-forth on the definition of piety, Socrates is able to establish a paradox in the matter. He ultimately questions if something is pious because the gods approve of it? Or do the gods approve of it because it is pious? This completely breaks Euthyphro's line of thought on the matter, and he is ultimately unable to explain his religious devotion to Socrates. This opening story could be seen not as Socrates' rejection of religion rather as an attempt to demonstrate the blind ignorance of piety. 

The Apology

In the next account Socrates faces his judicial accusers on the charge of impiety. It's important to note here that the word "Apology" does not indicate a plead of forgiveness, rather an act of defense. This term was especially common during the Christian Apologetic era as they defended their faith to the Roman authorities. Once again in dialogue format Socrates addresses the court on his two charges of corrupting the youth and impiety. He uses his familiar questioning tactic to dive deeper into the charges, as to what exactly can be known. He recounts how the Oracle of Delphi claimed he was the wisest person alive, and yet he still knew nothing. 

Socrates goes as far as to question Athenian culture and the various roles in society that presume to have absolute knowledge. His point here is not to claim they are in the wrong, rather to claim that nothing can be certain. Socrates maintains that he does not reject the gods rather seeks to encourage a pursuit of wisdom and knowledge. He further explains that it is through inquiry that we can achieve better understanding. However the court ultimately finds this as a form of arrogance, disrespect, and sheer deflection of the questions at hand. The verdict is that he is found guilty of both charges and sentenced to death. It's important to mention that this case also had political motives to it. Many Athenians believed Socrates was associated to the Thirty Tyrants (a Pro-Spartan league) and thus a threat to Athenian society.  

Crito

In Plato's next account on the final days of Socrates, we find the great philosopher awaiting his death sentence in his prison cell. He is visited by some of his most devoted students including Crito, Antisthenes, Apollodorus, and Plato himself. The discussion unfolds when the wealthy Crito offers Socrates a means to escape though his powerful connections. This then leads to a dialogue pertaining to justice and principle. Socrates thoroughly explains that he would rather obey the law and face his sentence with dignity (albeit an unfair verdict), rather then commit an injustice to the law. He holds firm that one wrong (his sentencing) should not be resolved by another wrong (his escape). 

Here we see Socrates defend the institution of the state as the foundation that holds society together, but also puts more emphasis on the pursuit of justice. Every citizen should strive to honor the law, more-so for their own moral standings rather then the legal ramification. Furthermore people should seek to be true to one-self, rather then following the crowd. According to Socrates principle is more important than self-preservation or reputation. This is why he would rather face his sentence honorably standing by his beliefs rather then recant or choose to escape. There are many who claim that Socrates faced his death too easily without a fight, which leads to the final dialogue pertaining to the soul and the afterlife.

Phaedo

The final book of the Last Days of Socrates is one of my favorites from Plato since it pertains to the metaphysical. As I mentioned above it was Plato who championed the concept of the soul as an eternal entity. In this writing, Plato thoroughly explores the mystery of the afterlife through a dialogue from Socrates (who was also an advocate of the idea). These concepts predated Christianity by nearly 400 years, and later became influential to early Christian theology. Just as his teacher had done, Plato was openly challenging Greek polytheism (However he did not suffer the same fate as Socrates did). 

The dialogue begins once again in Socrates' prison chamber where his friends observe that he is facing his death very calmly. When asked how can he be so calm in the face of death, Socrates begins to explain his belief of the soul. He accepts that he is old and tired, and his physical body and mind have reached their limit. However within him (and every human being) is a soul that will go on after death and can achieve true wisdom. Socrates and Plato consider the practice of philosophy as a metaphysical state (like the soul), whereas the body restricts this freedom due to unending physical and emotional needs. He then proceeds to further explain his reasoning in four famous arguments.

• 
  The Argument of the Opposites- This claims that everything in the world is in an eternal cycle of opposites (similar to dualism). The night turns to day, then the day turns to night. Hot becomes cold and cold becomes hot. With this is mind if there is an eternal rotating process of opposites, then death must come from life and life must come from death. This theory aligns with various forms of pre-existence and reincarnation. 

• The Argument of Recollection- Plato claims that most of our learning is a form of recalling knowledge from a previous existence. This is how we distinguish and know what is absolute truth versus not. His best example is our concept of equality how humans are born with a natural understanding of what is and is not equal. This pertains to truths in general which according to Plato humans have acquired this perception of absolute truth in all things from their soul.

• The Affinity Argument- Continuing with a metaphysical dualism structure, Plato argues that the world is divided into a visible and nonvisible realm. The visible realm is the material world as we see it, which is in a continuous state of change. The invisible realm he refers to as the Forms is unchanging and eternal. The human body is the physical visible form that comes to an end, while the soul is the eternal nonvisible form that survives death.

• The Final Argument (The Form of Life)- Here Plato argues that there are certain things that cannot take their opposite form since it would defeat what they are, such as the number three becoming an even number or a flame becoming cold while it is still a flame. In a similar way the soul brings life to the body but cannot take part in death. So when the body dies the soul continues to exist independent from the body. 

The Symposium

I believe it was either my freshmen or sophomore year in college where I took a literature course and the professor chose the theme of love for our semester of study. It was actually quite an enjoyable course and I remember we read and discussed several books such as Tristan and Iseult, Brokeback Mountain, Lolita, Angels in America, Closer, and The Symposium. I think I got the basic understanding of Plato's Symposium as a group of philosophers sitting back in their robes drinking wine and discussing philosophy. 

Socrates is once again surrounded by his circle of intellects, as they each give their own interpretation on the topic of love. It is a similar dialogue format as the Last Days of Socrates and is considered another of Plato's most famous works. All it's characters are real historical people and intellects who were part of Socrates and Plato's Athenian circle. It should also be noted that the book no doubt has a focus on pederasty, the relationship between an older man and a younger boy as was common in ancient Greece. However these discussions on the themes of love can still pertain to heterosexual love as well. 

• Phaedrus- The opening speaker is a wealthy young man who claims that Eros is the greatest of the gods because he is the oldest of the gods. Eros created love as a means to make people more courageous and honorable. This is especially the case when someone wants to prove themselves to another (such as the battlefield). Phaedrus' viewpoint frames love as a means to achieve glory in the eyes of their beloved as well as the gods.

• Pausanias- The second speaker is a legal scholar who claims that not all love is equal. It can range from vulgar lust to heavenly love. Lust is driven by instant sexual gratification whereas true love value's the persons character and virtue. True love is shared by exchanging wisdom and ideas rather than the physical desires. 

• Eryximachus- The third speaker is a physician who claims that love is not just a human emotion rather a fundamental part of nature that governs the universe. It is what creates balance and harmony in the world. It is like an energy force that affects not just humanity but also the plants, the animals, the weather, and the stars. The pursuit of love creates an ideal of sophrosyne, which is considered the highest form of human excellence. 
  

• Aristophanes- The fourth speaker is a comedic playwright who shares an ancient myth of the origin of love. He claims that humans were once split into half by Zeus and ever since have been searching for their other half. Aristophanes poetically considers the practice of eros (or love) as the pursuit of one's wholeness. 

• Agathon- The fifth speaker is a tragic poet who also happens to be the host of the party. He counters Phaedrus' claim that Eros is the oldest gods, yet rather is the youngest of the gods. He is the source of all virtues (wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice). Agathon emphasizes the ideal of beauty as the utmost feature of love. 

• 
  Socrates- Of course the best is saved for last and everyone in the room is eager to hear of the great philosopher's view on the topic of love. Socrates proceeds with his usual inquiry method asking deep questions on the nature of love. He then shares what he learned from a wise woman called Diotima on the topic. He describes love not as a god, yet rather as a spirit who serves as an intermediary between the gods and humanity. This spirit is poor by nature but in search of wisdom and beauty. It's goal is to produce physical, spiritual, and intellectual offspring which can lead to a higher form of immortality. In his speech Socrates even provides a detailed ladder from Diotima as an ascent of physical attraction to eternal beauty.
• It begins with a physical attraction to a single individual
• From here it grows into a physical attraction to all living people who all share the same beauty
• It then transcends into a love for the beauty of soul over physical beauty
• A love of the beauty of laws, institutions, and creations of society
• A love of the beauty of knowledge, the arts, and sciences
• Achieving the ultimate form of love through awareness of the eternal form of beauty

• Alcibiades- There is a bonus speaker after Socrates who enters in a drunken state singing praise of Socrates. Alcibiades describes a sincere attraction to the discipline, courage, and wisdom of Socrates. This is not so much a theoretical approach to love, yet rather an example of love in practice, which is a fitting end to the dialogue on the topic of love. 

The Republic

Plato's ultimate philosophical manifesto is in The Republic, which is considered one of the most influential works of philosophy. Here he basically covers all the topics he explored in the Last Days of Socrates and the Symposium. This ranges from themes on justice, politics, philosophy, education, reality, knowledge, love, aesthetics, metaphysics, and his most famous concept of the soul. It is here where he presents some of his most famous concepts including the Four Cardinal Virtues, Tripartite soul, his Theory of Forms, as well as the Allegory of the Cave. Once again it is in dialogue format where Socrates is the teacher discussing with a circle of other Athenian intellectuals. 

Book 1- What is Justice?

In this opening discussion the question arises whether it is better to be just or unjust. Naturally one would would say just, however what if one could be unjust without any legal consequences (like those associated to power such as rulers, generals, or the wealthy class). Then the question becomes more intriguing. Each of Socrates colleagues' presents their own interpretation on justice. Cephalus claims that it is about honesty and repaying all debts; Polemarchus says it is about helping one another and fighting against enemies. Socrates refutes both these cases by diving deeper into the matter at hand, such as debt and harming one's enemy. 

Thrasymachus however counters the discussions with previous cases with his belief that justice is merely the advantage of the stronger who make the laws to appear righteous. Furthermore he claims that an unjust person, such as a tyrant, can acquire more wealth and power then the just person. Socrates however pushes back by explaining how injustice creates conflict internally and builds distrust among one's peers. Justice on the other hand is a positive form of social collaboration that is like a virtue of the soul. While a good answer, neither person in the party is convinced on a resolution, including Socrates himself. The question remains if justice is the nobler pursuit since it is governed by the law and ultimately comes without any real reward. The topic is further explored in book 2.

Book 2- Why Should One be Just?

Glaucon challenges Socrates with a fair question, what if you could get away with injustice. He animates this question with his story of the Ring of Gyges that presents two people a just person and an unjust person who discover a ring that make them invisible. So the question becomes would you still be just if you were invisible and there was no consequence for your actions. The just person chooses a life of honor, simplicity, and suffering while the unjust person can achieve fortune through manipulation, cheating, and wickedness. So why should one be just if there is no material gain from it? Adeimantus adds an extra layer to the question by focusing on the internal aspect free from the rewards of reputation, success, or wealth.

As usual the wise Socrates is able to accept the challenge through his inquiry approach of exploration. He explains the question can be explored by looking at the state as a whole, where justice is controlled by the law and society. He claims that it is easier to examine justice on a larger scale than the individual person. Here Socrates begins to develop his ideal city which becomes the basis of his philosophy throughout the book. In this city people have different tasks and needs, but still must depend on one another to function. It is through this collaboration of shared abilities that the society is able to operate. Glaucon however pushes back in regards to the problems of greed, crime, and war. Socrates then introduces his concept of guardians which is further explained in the next book.

Book 3- The Guardians of the City

In this ideal metropolis (known as Kallipolis) Socrates begins to develop the guardians of the city, who serve as the governing authority. Their motives should not be based on power rather the betterment of society. This includes better education with a focus on reading, poetry, physical exercise, and music. Here Socrates describes how the ideal person should have a balance of masculine physical strength with feminine finesse. He considers the study of gymnastics and music to be the perfect harmony for all young people to realize the true potential of their soul.  

However in order for this society to function peacefully with one another Socrates presents his concept of the Noble Lie. This is an invented religious belief that holds that all society is born with a certain type of soul that is divided into classes; the golden rulers, the silver soldiers, and the bronze people. The golden rulers are those who display the highest form of wisdom and virtue. Through this engrained belief people can accept their roles to contribute to society free from any class resentment. Although it borders on a totalitarian concept Socrates sees this merely as an example to maintain social loyalty, unity, and order.

Book 4- The Four Virtues and the Tripartite Soul

Socrates further emphasizes that the city would maximize it's happiness if it adheres to it's established structure and education. It is here that Socrates presents one of his most famous concepts on the Four Cardinal Virtues. This ideal city would be molded on a mentality of righteousness and goodness which lives by the four essential virtues; wisdom, courage, justice, and temperance. Wisdom comes especially from the rulers, courage from the soldiers, temperance from the people, and justice is the harmony of the entire society working together. They key here is that people do no meddle or interfere in other people's works, yet rather do what is best for themselves and the collective effort. 

He then turns this visual of the perfect state back to the individual soul, which was the question to begin with. Socrates finally begins to define justice here by focusing on the individual soul. Here he introduces his famous theory of the tripartite soul that is made up of three parts; reason, spirit, and appetite. Reason is the mind at work, spirit is it's emotional energy, and appetite is it's physical gratification. Plato then defines a just person as someone who can act by reason over appetite while it is the opposite for an unjust person. He then once again ties to this the ideal state where the rulers use reason, the soldiers use spirit, and the people use appetite. This then leads to his expansion on a perfect city that is ruled by a wise philosopher-king. 

Book 5- The Philosopher Kings and the Theory of Forms

Socrates continues to frame his ideal city of Kallipolis as one that is built on virtue and goodness. He even considers women as equal to men, worthy of being guardians themselves. Although not physically equal, women share the same nature and abilities as most men, thus could perform most any job that is not physical with equal measure. This claim of gender equality was very ahead of it's time. Socrates also supports the practice of a communal family over a private enclosed family. This reduces division while encouraging social collaboration and unity. He ultimately believes this ideal city must be ruled by philosopher kings, who would put wisdom over power.

As he goes on about the necessity of philosopher kings, Plato begins to introduce his famous concept of the Theory of Forms. He states that all people are divided into three types of person; a lover of beauty,  a lover of wisdom, and those who confuse the two. The lover of beauty enjoys the certain thing, while the lover of wisdom seeks the meaning behind that beauty. This begins to lay out the distinction of those who appreciate material physical things versus those who prefer the non-physical things. Plato eventually expands on this theory as two types of realms; visible (physical) and nonvisible (nonphysical). The visible realm is what we see and feel while the nonvisible realm is the forms we sense through reason and intellect. The visible realm is everchanging and deteriorating while the nonvisible realm is constant and unchanging.  

Book 6- The Form of Good

Socrates continues to defend his reasoning for the philosopher-kings as the best guardians of the city. However is met with opposition from Adeimantus who claims that they are still just humans capable of flaws such as corruption, favoritism, and uselessness. Socrates then illustrates the example of the Ship of State where the philosopher is the only skilled navigator despite arguments from the crew. The philosopher king must put wisdom and humility over any form of wealth and power. His sole purpose is the sustainment and balance of the community rather than his own personal interests. Socrates then presents his Form of Good, in which the philosopher-king must understand the highest form of good in order to rule effectively.  

Socrates argues that goodness is more than just kindness or happiness. It is the source of all wisdom and knowledge that comes through reason. This form of good is the highest form of knowledge, the most perfect and beautiful of all things. It is similar to the sun which lets us see things, however this goodness is more than just visibility. It is total truth that lets us understand things. Socrates further explains the theory of Good through his analogy of the Divided Line. We see things and come to know them in many different ways. We imagine and perceive things, such as a shadow or reflection. We see the physical thing and come to believe it as reality. We then think of something through reasoning or mathematics. We finally come to understand that thing through total knowledge and the form of good. 

Book 7- Allegory of the Cave

Continuing with his Form of the Good, Plato then illustrates one of his most famous analogies, the Allegory of the Cave. The scene is one of prisoners who are chained and unable to move their necks. They can only see a wall before them that shows the reflections of shadows from behind. They spend their whole life believing that this is the true nature of reality. But that is only because they have never known any other way. Eventually one of the prisoners escapes and sees how different things are from what he believed. He struggles with this new perception, but eventually sees the sun as the source of the shadows he had come to know all his life. He realizes that the sun is the ultimate form of good. However he is unable to convince the other prisoners of the cave. This allegory aligns with Plato's belief that the soul is limited by the human body, almost trapped just like the prisoners. It is unable to achieve it's full understanding of reality due to it's physical restrictions. 

Although Plato does believe in the metaphysical, he is not making the case that there is more then meets the eye. Instead he uses this allegory as an example of people's tendency to accept things as they appear instead of looking beyond what is visible. Most people need to see something to fully understand and believe it. Plato on the other hand believes that truth comes through reason versus simply seeing something as it is. It is this pursuit that leads to his highest form of good, the ultimate peak of knowledge. I would make the case here that this notion is very on par with the practice of faith, believing in something that cannot be seen. Both mindsets (the religious or the philosophical) adhere to a reality that is beyond what is our senses perceive. 

Book 8- Types of Government

After discussing his theory of good and the soul, Socrates then returns to exploring the perfect city of Kallipolis. He describes five types of government; aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny. Socrates ideal state would by the Aristocracy that is ruled by the wisest and most virtuous of people "the philosopher-kings". However he acknowledges that nothing can be perfect and eventually this perfect ideal state could break down through the usual course of human nature. He basically draws upon a recurring political pattern of the rise and fall of governments. A historical pattern that still seems to occur today. 

First it would likely succumb to military strength and transform into a totalitarian timocracy that is ruled by strength of arms. It would then become a government where the military and government is bought out by the wealthy, also known as oligarchy. Eventually this would lead to an extreme social division of the wealthy and poor that would lead to revolution. The people would overthrow the regime and establish one that is more balanced and democratic. However it would only be a matter of a time until one person would seize all power to become a tyrant. Thus Plato accepts that even his perfect city of reason could decline due to the usual physical desires of greed and power. 

Book 9- The Tyrant and the Just Soul

After accepting that his perfect city could fall, Socrates then turns back to the individual pursuit of justice. This time he focuses on the tyrant whom he considers to be the prime example of an unjust person. He compares the qualities of the unjust tyrant with a just person. First the tyrant is driven by the physical desires of wealth and power instead of knowledge. Unlike the just person he has no discipline or self-restraint. He is controlled by his desires, never satisfied, and always wants more. This tyrant ignores reason in favor of his own gratification, which ultimately brings him great internal conflict. Unlike the unjust tyrant however the just person pursues wisdom as their principal guide. They practice self-control and humility and appreciate internal reward over external rewards (such as wealth).

This analysis of the tyrant, finally brings an answer to the original question whether it is better to be just or unjust. Plato concludes that the unjust person seeks materialism and physical desires over knowledge and thus becomes conflicted and never satisfied (like the tyrant). While the just person is able to control his physical desires through the practice of reason. The just person thus becomes the happier person because he is satisfied with the simple things. This type of person ultimately has the healthier soul as a lover of wisdom. While the honor-loving person, and wealth loving person fall behind and short on true peace and harmony.

Book 10- Myth of Er

After resolving the debate on justice vs injustice, Socrates returns to a final criticism on the arts. He claims that many forms of arts such as poetry or paintings tend to imitate reality which can confuse true reason. He uses the example of the form of the bed, the actual physical bed, and then the artistic representation of the bed. The form of the bed is our general understanding of what makes it a bed (versus a tree). The physical bed attempts to imitate this concept, but is ultimately imperfect and will eventually deteriorate. The painting of the bed is even more-so removed from the true form of the bed, since it only represents the appearance but not it's physical structure. This same sequence is applied to many other forms of art such as sculpture, theatre, and poetry which can cloud our minds with fantasy over reality. 

Plato's one exception for the arts however is music which he claims to be more influential on a person's character and their soul. He then elaborates on the topic he discussed in Phaedo pertaining to the immortality of the soul and the afterlife. Plato claims that the soul cannot be destroyed by injustice and is thus eternal (for a just or an unjust person). Although injustice can corrupt and damage a soul, the person continues to live on until their body gives out. Plato then completes his theory on the soul's journey into the afterlife with a vivid illustration of his Myth of Er. In the myth a warrior shares his visions of how souls are judged based on how they lived. The good souls experience rewards while the bad souls are punished but are not annihilated. All souls are then redistributed into their next earthly lives, based on how they lived prior (very similar to the process of Reincarnation). 

Comparisons to Christianity

While I love Plato's firm resolve on the concept of the eternal soul, I'm not crazy about his concept of the afterlife presented in his Myth of Er. It's not that I'm opposed to reincarnation, but I just hate the idea that our memories would be completely erased before beginning a new life. This essentially makes all our relations and memories somewhat meaningless, and the only thing that carries on was whether it was a good or a bad soul. I suppose I'll have to dive deeper into this theory in a separate post someday. For the most part however I would make the case that Plato is still one of the most influential non-Christian philosophers of Christianity itself. 

For starters his concept of the eternal soul was groundbreaking for it's time which Christian teaching was able to build upon as a unity of soul-and-body created by God. Plato also argues the soul should seek a path of inner wisdom which relates to the Christian's path of spiritual prayer. His Theory of Forms establishes two types of realms, visible and nonvisible. His realm of forms is the nonvisible reality of constant perfection, beauty, and justice. This metaphysical concept is similar to the Christian belief of heaven and the spiritual realm. Plato's Form of Good is also very similar to God's supreme nature as the one true source of perfection, beauty, and knowledge. Even Plato's concept of inner-corruption became influential to the Christian Problem of Evil as a privation of good. It's quite clear to see these concepts as the foundational blocks of some of my favorite Christian theologians; such as Origen, Augustine of Hippo, and Thomas Aquinas.