Parmenides and the defense of a position

I'll be honest, I find myself both thoroughly enjoying and thoroughly confused (At times) by Plato's "Parmenides" dialogue. I enjoy the dialogue in that I'm no Platonist and any criticism of the Forms makes me a bit over-giddy, but I'm often confused as to why Plato would include such an evisceration of his thought. I understand (from so many conversations with Dr. Rouse about the dialogue) that this is Plato's attempt to lay out the contemporaneous criticisms of the Forms, and work through some of them. This still doesn't resolve the issue satisfactorily.

It would be one thing to address the criticisms, defense in hand, and suss (to use the amazing British colloquialism) them properly. Instead, we're left with a bunch of loose ends, perhaps better termed a categorization of the critiques instead of an attempt to answer them. This brings to mind the question, "What is Plato shooting at, here?" Is he categorically listing these problems in hopes that a student will, at some point in time, come along and solve them properly? Has he finally reached a point where he's feeling backed into a corner and is, in some small way, acquiescing defeat? Or is there some other game going on, unknown to this lonely undergraduate?

If I were to place a wager, I'd say that Plato was laying out the problem in hopes that some future student could work through them. This guess does have some implicit issues, however, since Plato claimed knowledge of the Forms and that such knowledge was only the result of years of undertaking and actively working through, it's dubitable that Plato had the confidence in, essentially, anyone to reach this point. Without understanding the Forms, how could one be expected to defend them? (Which brings up the side point of the convenience in stating that the special knowledge of the Forms makes the knower sound crazy, a nice fallback point to those accused of insanity.)

Plato's greatest student, Aristotle, did indeed pick up the forms, but instead of relying on reason alone, Aristotle opens the door for empiricist understandings. Thus, while certain friends refer to themselves as Plato's Footnote, I'd be more comfortable as Aristotle's Footnote.

Plato. Catcher in the Rye. Harry Potter. Fahrenheit 451.

Stay with me. I'll connect the title, I promise.

As cliché as it may be, Catcher in the Rye is one of my favorite books. With a complete jackass of a protagonist that feels he's misunderstood by the world and uniquely understands the world better than any of his "phony" co-inhabitants, Salinger manages to create a character that almost everyone can connect with. Perhaps not everyone, but how many intellectuals will tell you that they've felt alienated, under-appreciated, and misunderstood by the world? Caulfield provides an exemplary character that goes through all of this pain (and mixes inordinate amounts of youthful angst to boot) and without learning how to fully deal with (it's hinted that he) ends up in a mental hospital. (Incredibly inarticulate and un-expansive) Moral? You've got to learn to live with the world.

Harry Potter is a book about wizards and witches. It's about love, dealing with power, forsaking power for the sacrifice and betterment of others. It's full of friendship, courage, and wisdom. The plot fights against sexism, racism, classism, and pushes equality. It shows exemplary characters that blow most religious texts' heroes entirely out of the water.

Fahrenheit 451 is a book about censorship. It's about protecting knowledge to the risk of one's own life. It's about how the ideals of society aren't always the best. It encourages individual thought, growth, introspection, and questioning.

All three of these are or have been banned books by different organizations.

Plato supports this idea of mass censorship for his intellectual elites. He assumes that the courage of the student will be inoculated with the discovery of death and the fear of the words of Homer and others of the malevolence and pain of Hades. Plato fears the weakening of Heroes shown as lamenting death, loss, or pain. Plato fears the very humanity of his philosopher kings becoming evident to themselves. The morals and thoughts presented in Catcher, Harry Potter, and Fahrenheit, would all be lost to his ideal kings. There very humanity thrown out in the creation of the naïve perfection education Plato advocates.

Instead the education should attempt to, as Plato later works into his allegory, revealing the full knowledge of the world. If these philosopher kings are truly capable of handling what is, then they should not have the thoughts of others hidden from them. Instead, with their superior capability for reason, they approach whatever ideas are given them, analyze, dissect and decide.

I find it humorous that this dialogue, presented with Socrates' own voice, is such an antithesis to his own approach.

Note: I should probably mention here that Banned Books Week happens at the end of this month.