Note that some of these notes are based on parts of The Great Conversation: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy Third Edition, by Norman Melchert, Mayfield, 1999.
The First Philosophers were in Miletus, on the Mediterranean shore of what is now Turkey. They lived in the sixth century BC.
Anaximander was a student of Thales. He said that everything is ultimately made of the Indefinite (or the Boundless), which is different from water, or any other familiar other elements (air, earth or fire). The Indefinite is that which is not created by anything else. It has no beginning or end.
Anaximander attempted scientific explanations of the appearances of the stars, the moon, and the weather. He did not explain them as caused by gods.
Note that the elements can be characterized as two contrasting pairs.
Anaximenes was a student of Anaximander. He said that everything is ultimately made of air. Through becoming denser or finer it has different appearances. Fire, winds, cloud, earth, and stone are all made of air of different densities.
He thought that the earth is flat and that heavenly bodies (the sun, moon, and stars) do not move under the earth, but around it.
Pythagoras (b. 570 B.C.) and his followers first developed geometry as an abstract discipline. An important geometrical theorem about triangles is names after him. Doing mathematics was seen as a way to purify the soul. He believed that the soul is distinct and immortal, and that it migrates into other bodies and animals after death. So he and his followers were vegetarian.
He thought 10 is a perfect number and comprises the whole nature of numbers.
Pythagoreans thought that the world is made of numbers. Mathematics should be able to completely describe the nature of ultimate reality. They were also notable for thinking that the earth is not at the center of the universe. Instead they thought that the earth revolves around fire, which is what causes night and day.
Heraclitus was at his peak shortly before 500 B.C. He was often referred to in Roman times as "Heraclitus the obscure," since he seemed to write in riddles. He thought that all things change, and nothing remains in rest. Plato said Heraclitus thought that you cannot step twice into the same river. He also thought that strife was necessary. Enemies sustain each other. War is part of peace.
Parmenides (c. 515 B.C. - 450 B.C.) wrote a long poem, The Way of Truth. He is the first thinker to provide sustained arguments for his views. He thought that only "the one" exists. There is only one thing in the world. He also thought that all change is just an illusion. His argument is based on the idea that you cannot think about something that does not exist. You can only think about what does exist. But the idea of change means that something was is now was not previously, and we cannot make sense of that idea, because we cannot make sense of something not being. Change is impossible! Appearance is an illusion.
Furthermore, everything in the world must be the same kind of thing. Whatever exists must also exist in complete fullness: there cannot be a mixture of being and non-being, because the idea of non-being makes no sense. So there cannot be different densities of objects in different places. So there can only be one object in the world, with no variation within itself.
Like Parmenides, Zeno argued that there could be no change and that there is only one thing. He had several arguments.
We know little about Leucippus. Democritus lived in Abdera in northern Greece during the middle of the fifth century. The atomists grappled with the problem posed by Parmenides. They argued that we could make sense of some kind of non-being, i.e. there can be space in which nothing exists. Space exists in between atoms; space is not the same thing as non-being. Atoms, according to their theory, are geometrical objects with no color, smell, taste, or temperature of their own. Atoms are indivisible and cannot be created or destroyed. With this theory, the atomists agree with Parmenides that nothing can come into being or be destroyed, but explain how there can still be change and motion in the world.
The Sophists were philosophy teachers in fifth-century B.C. Greece. They often moved from city to city, teaching skills necessary to be a successful citizen, including logic and rhetoric. They were known for believing that one can argue anything persuasively, using the appropriate techniques of argument. Students were taught to argue for first one side, and then the other side of an argument. So they could argue for whatever the pleased. This talent led the Sophists to a skeptical view about discovering truth. They thought that (at least for many issues) we can only ever have opinions, and that truth is beyond us.
Protagorus may have gone further than this: he wrote, in his book On Truth, "man is the measure of all things: of existing things that they exist; of non-existing things that they do not exist." This suggests that he was a relativist, which means that he thought that truth is relative to one’s perspective, and that there is no ultimate truth independent of our perspectives.
The Sophists distinguished between things that are true due to nature
(physis) and those that are due to convention (nomos). This
provides a more limited relativism. Some truths are independent of whether
we like them or agree with them: e.g., if you do not eat you will starve
to death. But other truths depend on human decisions: the highway speed
limit is 55 mph. Scientific truths are due to nature. But what about morality?
Is murder wrong just because we say it is (convention), or is the wrongness
of murder a matter of nature, independent of our beliefs about it? For
some of the Sophists, the answer was that morality is conventional. There
is no higher justice to appeal to, in their view.
Socrates was born circa 469 B.C. He lived in Athens during its most prosperous days. Athens was a democracy, and was the center of Greek civilization. He was born after the Persian Wars, 490 B.C. and 480 B.C. Persia even occupied Athens at various times during these wars. It was only in 479 B.C. that Greece combined armies with neighboring Sparta and expelled the Persians for good. Athens became extremely rich as a result of the victory over the Persians. During Socrates’ life, Greece became enemies with its former ally Sparta. The Spartan Wars lasted from 431 to 404 B.C. with 7 years of peace in the middle. This war cost both sides many lives and much money. It was the first sign of the gradual fall of Greek civilization.
Socrates was different from the Sophists, because he did not charge money for discussing philosophy with others, which was his main pleasure in life. He did not claim to a teacher, and he often claimed to have no knowledge about the topics he was discussing. But unlike the Sophists, he thought that truth is more important than rhetoric and is independent of our opinions. His method of dialog tries to make matters as clear as possible – he avoids fancy phrases, sermonizing and lecturing.
Nevertheless, most often he concludes that often people don’t know what they are talking about, and that the most honest approach is to admit our ignorance. He does not accept a view just because it is popular or because an important person holds it. He does not think that getting to the truth is easy. But he does believe he knows some things, and he was willing to die for some of them. These included the proposition that a good person cannot be harmed in either life or death.
This dialog, written by Plato, is between Socrates and Euthyphro. You should be able to answer these questions. The numbers in parentheses refer to page numbers in a standard Greek text of Plato, which are in the margins of your book.
The jury was made of 501 citizens. The main prosecutor is Meletus. Socrates starts after the prosecutors have made their case.
17a-18aWhat is the function of Socrates’ contrast between persuasion and truth? List the terms in which each is described. What kind of man does Socrates say that he is? What is his challenge to the jury?
18b-19aIdentify the earlier accusers and the later accusers. How do they differ? Why is it going to be very difficult for Socrates to defend himself against the earlier accusers? 19b-24b
What are the three points made against him in the older accusations? What does Socrates say about each of these accusations? How does Socrates distinguish himself from the Sophists here? What three classes of people did Socrates question? What, in each case, was the result? What conclusion does Socrates draw from his investigations?
24b-28aWhat are the two charges against Socrates? Does Meletus have an answer to Socrates’ question about what it is to improve the youth? Socrates could not have intentionally corrupted the youth, he argues. How does he argue this? Socrates argues that Meletus has effectively contradicted himself in his accusations about Socrates’ atheism. What is the contradiction supposed to be? 28a-34b
Socrates says that if he is convicted, it will be because of whose grudging slander? Far from being concerned about the danger he is in, Socrates says that a person should only be concerned about one thing in life. What is that? Why does he say that to fear death is to think oneself wise when one is not? If Socrates were offered a deal in which he would be spared so long as he stopped practicing philosophy, what does he say his response would be? (29c-30c) Who does Socrates say will be harmed if he is killed? What use does Socrates make of the image of the ‘gadfly’? What is an oligarchy? Why would it have killed Socrates? Why do people enjoy hearing Socrates talk with people who think they are wise, according to him?
34b-35dWhy does Socrates not appeal for pity and beg for his life or get his family to beg for his life?
35e-38bWhat penalty for himself does Socrates first suggest once the jury has found him guilty? Why does Socrates resist exile as a penalty? What does he say is the ‘greatest good’ for a man? Why? What does he finally offer?
38c-48aWhat does Socrates say is more difficult to avoid than death? And who has not avoided it? What ‘remarkable thing’ does he point out to his friends? What does he take it to mean? What two possibilities does Socrates consider death may hold? Are there any he dismisses? What is the one truth that Socrates wishes his friends to keep in mind? How does he try to comfort them? (41c-d)
In this part, he describes his view of the structure of reality, the relationship between the philosopher and society, the stages of enlightenment, and the main features of the philosophical temperament.
Here we have a dialog between Socrates and Glaucon. Glaucon is the one who almost always gives short responses to Socrates’ longer discussions.
Republic 513e-517a.
518b-d
According to the tradition, Gyges was a shepherd in the service of the King of Lydia; there was a great storm, and an earthquake made an opening in the earth at the place where he was feeding his flock. Amazed at the sight, he descended into the opening, where, among other marvels, he beheld a hollow brazen horse, having doors, at which he, stooping and looking in, saw a dead body of stature, as appeared to him, more than human and having nothing on but a gold ring; this he took from the finger of the dead and reascended. Now the shepherds met together, according to custom, that they might send their monthly report about the flocks to the King; into their assembly he came having the ring on his finger, and as he was sitting among them he chanced to turn the collet of the ring inside his hand, when instantly he became invisible to the rest of the company and they began to speak of him as if he were no longer present. He was astonished at this, and again touching the ring he turned the collet outward and re- appeared; he made several trials of the ring, and always with the same result--when he turned the collet inward he became invisible, when outward he reappeared. Whereupon he contrived to be chosen one of the messengers who were sent to the court; where as soon as he arrived he seduced the Queen, and with her help conspired against the King and slew him and took the kingdom. Suppose now that there were two such magic rings, and the just put on one of them and the unjust the other; no man can be imagined to be of such an iron nature that he would stand fast in justice. No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or go into houses and lie with anyone at his pleasure, or kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a god among men. Then the actions of the just would be as the actions of the unjust; they would both come at last to the same point. And this we may truly affirm to be a great proof that a man is just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any good to him individually, but of necessity, for wherever anyone thinks that he can safely be unjust, there he is unjust. For all men believe in their hearts that injustice is far more profitable to the individual than justice, and he who argues as I have been supposing, will say that they are right. If you could imagine anyone obtaining this power of becoming invisible, and never doing any wrong or touching what was another's, he would be thought by the lookers-on to be a most wretched idiot, although they would praise him to one another's faces, and keep up appearances with one another from a fear that they too might suffer injustice.
Now, if we are to form a real judgment of the life of the just and unjust, we must isolate them; there is no other way; and how is the isolation to be effected? I answer: Let the unjust man be entirely unjust, and the just man entirely just; nothing is to be taken away from either of them, and both are to be perfectly furnished for the work of their respective lives. First, let the unjust be like other distinguished masters of craft; like the skilful pilot or physician, who knows intuitively his own powers and keeps within their limits, and who, if he fails at any point, is able to recover himself. So let the unjust make his unjust attempts in the right way, and lie hidden if he means to be great in his injustice (he who is found out is nobody): for the highest reach of injustice is, to be deemed just when you are not. Therefore I say that in the perfectly unjust man we must assume the most perfect injustice; there is to be no deduction, but we must allow him, while doing the most unjust acts, to have acquired the greatest reputation for justice. If he have taken a false step he must be able to recover himself; he must be one who can speak with effect, if any of his deeds come to light, and who can force his way where force is required by his courage and strength, and command of money and friends. And at his side let us place the just man in his nobleness and simplicity, wishing, as AEschylus says, to be and not to seem good. There must be no seeming, for if he seem to be just he will be honored and rewarded, and then we shall not know whether he is just for the sake of justice or for the sake of honor and rewards; therefore, let him be clothed in justice only, and have no other covering; and he must be imagined in a state of life the opposite of the former. Let him be the best of men, and let him be thought the worst; then he will have been put to the proof; and we shall see whether he will be affected by the fear of infamy and its consequences. And let him continue thus to the hour of death; being just and seeming to be unjust. When both have reached the uttermost extreme, the one of justice and the other of injustice, let judgment be given which of them is the happier of the two.
Biographical details
|
|
|
|
||
| The Aim of Philosophy | For Plato, the real world is unchanging, eternal, and beyond our senses. We can understand reality though intellectual study. The aim of philosophy is to get away from the world of sense and desire to the higher realm of existence of the Forms. | For Aristotle, the aim of philosophy and science is to understand this world. This world of physical objects and biological organisms such as octopuses, snails and eels is good enough, and is not to be despised. | ||
| Paradigms of Knowledge | For Plato, mathematics is the paradigm of knowledge, since it is done through intellectual reasoning independent of the apparent world around us, and tells us eternal unchanging truths. He even has some mystical traits in his thought, since he thinks that in some cases it is possible and even necessary to go beyond reason, and see truth with the mind’s eye. | For Aristotle, science is the main paradigm of knowledge, and is done through an investigation of the world around us combined with rigorous thinking about it. The senses do lead us to knowledge when guided by the intellect. | ||
| Mind and Soul | For Plato, our souls are separate from our bodies. Our bodies are merely temporary prisons of our souls. "Our souls possess knowledge of the Forms before we are born, and with determination, intelligence, and virtue, we can enjoy a blessed communion with the Forms after death." | For Aristotle, human beings are rational animals. The soul is not something distinct from the body, but it is instead the "form" of the body, what makes it the particular sort of body that it is. All creatures have souls in the sense that they have the capacity to metabolize. Having a higher level of soul is simply the capacity to move about, to have desires and to fulfill them, to perceive and to contemplate. | ||
| Against Relativism | Plato is deeply concerned about refuting Protagorean relativism. He wants to show that there is absolute truth, and absolute right and wrong, and that human beings are not the measure of all things. | Aristotle simply takes it for granted that relativism is wrong. It is obvious to him that scientific reality is independent of us, and that an action is not right simply because it seems to us to be so. | ||
| Ethics | Plato thinks that we can reason about ethics with the same certainty and rigor as we can reason about mathematics. Knowing the Form of the Good will provide a single standard for deciding how to live, although only a few people in society (the philosophers) are capable of actually knowing the good. | Aristotle
does not think that we can achieve as much certainty in ethics as we can
in mathematics, and we should not ask for more certainty than the subject
at hand allows. He believes that an ordinary citizen is able to make good
decisions and lead a good life. We achieve fulfillment through developing
and exercising our human capacities.
|
||
It is possible to learn the will of
nature from the things in which we do not differ from each other. For example,
when someone else’s little slave boy breaks his cup we are ready to say,
"It’s one of those things that just happen." Certainly then, when your
own cup is broken you should be just the way you were when the other person’s
was broken. Transfer the same idea to larger matters. Someone else’s child
is dead, or his wife. There is no one who would not say, "It is the lot
of a human being." But when one’s own dies, immediately it is. "Alas, Poor
me." But we should have remembered how we feel when we hear of the same
thing about others. (E 26)
The Rise of Rome
Basic Questions
J.
M. Roberts, A
History of Europe, Allen Lane, New York, 1996.