-Plato's (c. 427-347 BC) "Republic".
-The founding text of western political philosophy and considered to be Plato's greatest work.
-Incorporated political philosophy, moral psychology, metaphysics, and aesthetics.
-Socrates is the narrator.
-Socrates is on his way back home and is invited to a party by a dude named Polemarchus. He's joined by Thrasymachus, a sophist, and others, like Plato's brothers Glaucon and Adeimantus.
-They get into a conversation about the nature of justice.
-Thrasymachus seems to share a similar view about how injustice is more natural than justice, a view that is also held by Callicles from Plato's Gorgias.
-Real "justice" is the strong doing what they can and the weak suffering what they must. Our concept of justice is a corrupted version because it helps the weak rather than the strong.
-Socrates of course argues against this, but the others are not completely satisfied by his refutation.
-Next, Glaucon argues that we all may agree that our concept of justice is what works best, but perhaps it is not what we truly desire deep down and is against human nature.
-This is a precursor to Hobbes' "social contract" theory.
-Glaucon says that if a poor farmer had a magic ring that could turn him invisible, he would use his power to become rich, depose the king, bang the queen, etc; this is something that everyone would do!
-Socrates' job, then, is to show that justice is the better choice than injustice.
-Socrates says that we can learn about justice by examining the soul of a citizen in a city.
-Before we get to that, though, we need to ask how a city should be run. One strategy would be to model the city on an already existing prosperous city, or look at shitty cities and NOT do what they do, etc.- Theucydides' strategy.
-Socrates says that the best city would be small, comprised of a community of farmers, craftsmen, and traders. The citizens would all be vegetarian, wear simple clothes, and be chill.
-Glaucon objects to this, saying that this doesn't sound like a city of real men, but pigs!! Socrates replies by saying that if the city wants luxury, it will be required to expand, have a powerful military, occupy additional space, etc. It would thus need to be divided between laborers and the military, with the military having 100% control and power.
-Because of this, some have argued that Plato/Socrates is condoning totalitarianism, but it's likely that this is not true; Socrates is saying that a city with luxury is "fevered" and not truly healthy. Thus, this situation is not ideal.
-Anyway, how would this military ("guardian") class function? It would have to be divided into two parts:
-The "true guardians"- real rulers of the city (but must possess self-control)
-"Auxiliaries" - warriors
-It's also important that this city has the right people assigned to the correct roles.
-Sexual relations are highly-regulated.
-People are assigned partners through a rigged lottery that designated who they mate with (i.e. eugenics).
-The guardians have no private property and share everything, even children, who are taken from their mothers and are raised by the guardian community.
-Men and women have equal roles (surprisingly progressive!).
-If all of the stuff above is not implemented correctly, this could lead to the society falling apart. Therefore, to control everyone is "the noble lie", that each social class has a different metal in the blood, so they can't mix.
-Thus, true justice in this city is everyone doing what they are supposed to do. However, even Socrates (Plato?) argues that this is unsustainable.
-So what about justice and the individual?
-Like the city, Socrates says that there are three aspects of the soul: reason, spirit, and appetite.
-Reason- the pursuit of truth (i.e. guardians)
-Spirit- the pursuit of honor (i.e. auxiliaries)
-Appetite- the pursuit of food, drinking, and sex (i.e. laborers)
-So what about corruption of the soul?
-Socrates tells a couple stories as examples.
-Socrates also says that the natural order of a city, if not following his ideal model, will experience a series of five regimes: a timocracy, then an oligarchy, then a democracy, then tyranny.
-This is also a series going from least bad to worst!
-This can perhaps also be seen as a political statement by Plato regarding the Athenian government.
-Democracy allows for the freedom of all different lifestyles and behaviors, and Plato/Socrates believes that this is ultimately corrupting.
-Also, tyranny from democracy? Where did this conclusion come from?
-Plato may have perhaps been influenced by the 30 Tyrants oligarchy which was controlling Athens after the Pelopponesian War.
Tuesday, October 31, 2017
Monday, October 30, 2017
Famous Last Words - Plato's Phaedo
-Plato's (c. 427-347 BC) dialogue "Phaedo" dramatizes Socrates' swansong, his final philosophical discussion, and his death.
-Also introduces the "theory of Forms", arguably Plato's most important doctrine.
-Socrates is on his deathbed and talking to his students/friends/followers.
-When talking, they are discussing the soul, which they all presume to exist and be immortal.
-Socrates eventually gets on to demonstrate that the soul is immaterial, invisible, and can survive independent of the body.
-The soul is immortal, they believe, because it existed before we did.
-Here we are introduced to the concept of "Forms".
-As we grow older when we are children, we "recollect" Forms like "Beauty", "Equal-ness", etc. Not physical objects, but the nature that objects partake in.
-Because the soul can "recollect" these eternal Forms, the soul, too, must be eternal.
-Another interesting idea is that physical objects can represent Forms, but are never the Forms themselves.
-For example, two sticks may be equal in length, but they are unequal if compared to a third stick that is not equal in length. So, they don't capture "Equal-ness" perfectly.
-Another example- Helen of Troy: beauty personified, but not beautiful if compared to Aphrodite. So Helen is beautiful, but not "Beautiful" (the form).
-This concept is known as "Compresence of Opposites".
-Forms also play a role in Plato's metaphysics, not just his epistemology.
-For example, Plato believes that the Forms cause things to be so, so like the Form Equal-ness causes things to be equal. "Beauty" (the Form) causes beauty.
-However, the Forms do not cause do not cause other Forms or opposites; "Beauty" doesn't cause "Not Beauty".
-There are obviously lots of problems with this. If Forms are immaterial, then what about a form like "Large"? Some holes in this logic...
-To Plato's credit, he does have Socrates admit in this dialogue that perhaps he's oversimplifying things.
-So what about the soul?? Can the soul die?
-Socrates says that as a proper cause of life, the soul is immune to death. However, Socrates believes that his soul is to survive and join with divine masters and other good people (how modest!).
-What if the soul goes to another body?
-Socrates believed you get the body you deserve (similar to reincarnation)
-Also introduces the "theory of Forms", arguably Plato's most important doctrine.
-Socrates is on his deathbed and talking to his students/friends/followers.
-When talking, they are discussing the soul, which they all presume to exist and be immortal.
-Socrates eventually gets on to demonstrate that the soul is immaterial, invisible, and can survive independent of the body.
-The soul is immortal, they believe, because it existed before we did.
-Here we are introduced to the concept of "Forms".
-As we grow older when we are children, we "recollect" Forms like "Beauty", "Equal-ness", etc. Not physical objects, but the nature that objects partake in.
-Because the soul can "recollect" these eternal Forms, the soul, too, must be eternal.
-Another interesting idea is that physical objects can represent Forms, but are never the Forms themselves.
-For example, two sticks may be equal in length, but they are unequal if compared to a third stick that is not equal in length. So, they don't capture "Equal-ness" perfectly.
-Another example- Helen of Troy: beauty personified, but not beautiful if compared to Aphrodite. So Helen is beautiful, but not "Beautiful" (the form).
-This concept is known as "Compresence of Opposites".
-Forms also play a role in Plato's metaphysics, not just his epistemology.
-For example, Plato believes that the Forms cause things to be so, so like the Form Equal-ness causes things to be equal. "Beauty" (the Form) causes beauty.
-However, the Forms do not cause do not cause other Forms or opposites; "Beauty" doesn't cause "Not Beauty".
-There are obviously lots of problems with this. If Forms are immaterial, then what about a form like "Large"? Some holes in this logic...
-To Plato's credit, he does have Socrates admit in this dialogue that perhaps he's oversimplifying things.
-So what about the soul?? Can the soul die?
-Socrates says that as a proper cause of life, the soul is immune to death. However, Socrates believes that his soul is to survive and join with divine masters and other good people (how modest!).
-What if the soul goes to another body?
-Socrates believed you get the body you deserve (similar to reincarnation)
Sunday, October 29, 2017
I Know Because the Caged Bird Sings - Plato's Theaetetus
-Plato's (c. 427-347 BC) "Theaetetus" was the first work completely devoted to epistemology (the study of knowledge).
-The characters are Socrates, Theodorus of Cyrene (a Greek mathematician) and Theaetetus of Athens (a young Greek mathematician who was also super ugly, like Socrates).
-They are discussing what "knowledge" is (typical).
-Theaetetus first proposes that knowledge is "perception" (aestheses (where "aesthetic" comes from in English) in Greek), which can mean that our five senses or what we perceive with our mind. We know something when we perceive it!
-This obviously has problems, however, especially if two people perceive something differently. So, is truth relative? Is knowledge nothing but perception?
-Socrates comments that this is a common view ("truth is relative") by the sophist Protagoras (discussed in a previous post) in addition to the Pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus ("everything is in a change of flux") because everything is only what it seems to be to each individual person, something that means that everything is constantly changing and there is no inherent truth to anything.
-Protagoras would also argue that something is only "good" if it is good FOR YOU. WTF does "good" mean otherwise?
-What about facts? We can tell, for example, facts like temperature numbers and shit like that.
-Protagoras would say that these are still just numbers that we are perceiving and this is only true for us and maybe not true for someone else. How can we really know that there is a truth independent of what we perceive?
-Socrates counters by pointing out that if that's true, then what is the point of doctors? If taking medicine that you perceive to be true is good for you, then why would you need to seek a professional opinion? Or just predicting the future in general? Also, how can Protagoras' relativism doctrine be true if Socrates perceives it to be false?
-According to Protagoras then, Socrates' perception will even be true for Protagoras! This refutes Protagoras' doctrine.
-However, Protagoras maintains that it's just personal opinion on whether the doctrine is true or not, and that NOTHING is actually really true or false.
-Because of this, Theaetetus then proposes that knowledge is having true belief.
-Socrates points out that some sophists would argue that it's impossible to say or believe anything false. EVERYTHING is a matter of persuasion (we also saw this theme arise in the "Euthydemus").
-Eventually, the conversation reaches Meno's Paradox- either we know something, or we don't. If we know about it, then we won't make a mistake about it thanks to our knowledge, but if we don't know about it then we can't think about it, so we won't be able to make a mistake either. So we either have perfect knowledge of something, or no knowledge of it at all, and in neither case will we get things wrong. So it's impossible to believe anything false.
-Socrates points out (obviously) that there is a middle ground to this. He compares our perceptions to impressions in wax tablets, and that over time it fades and we make mismatches when comparing. Therefore, we can "know" something, but also make mistakes.
-Socrates also makes another analogy- our souls are like an aviary, and everything that we know is like a different bird in the aviary. New knowledge or info is like another bird. We now when we make a mistake because we pull out the wrong bird.
-But then again, later on in the dialogue they find this model faulty.
-By the end, Theaetetus still believes that knowledge must have something to do with true belief, plus something else.
-Modern-day epistemologists are still figuring this one out.
-They discuss other stuff too, but I guess it's more complicated and abstract and not so important as the main themes discussed above.
-The characters are Socrates, Theodorus of Cyrene (a Greek mathematician) and Theaetetus of Athens (a young Greek mathematician who was also super ugly, like Socrates).
-They are discussing what "knowledge" is (typical).
-Theaetetus first proposes that knowledge is "perception" (aestheses (where "aesthetic" comes from in English) in Greek), which can mean that our five senses or what we perceive with our mind. We know something when we perceive it!
-This obviously has problems, however, especially if two people perceive something differently. So, is truth relative? Is knowledge nothing but perception?
-Socrates comments that this is a common view ("truth is relative") by the sophist Protagoras (discussed in a previous post) in addition to the Pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus ("everything is in a change of flux") because everything is only what it seems to be to each individual person, something that means that everything is constantly changing and there is no inherent truth to anything.
-Protagoras would also argue that something is only "good" if it is good FOR YOU. WTF does "good" mean otherwise?
-What about facts? We can tell, for example, facts like temperature numbers and shit like that.
-Protagoras would say that these are still just numbers that we are perceiving and this is only true for us and maybe not true for someone else. How can we really know that there is a truth independent of what we perceive?
-Socrates counters by pointing out that if that's true, then what is the point of doctors? If taking medicine that you perceive to be true is good for you, then why would you need to seek a professional opinion? Or just predicting the future in general? Also, how can Protagoras' relativism doctrine be true if Socrates perceives it to be false?
-According to Protagoras then, Socrates' perception will even be true for Protagoras! This refutes Protagoras' doctrine.
-However, Protagoras maintains that it's just personal opinion on whether the doctrine is true or not, and that NOTHING is actually really true or false.
-Because of this, Theaetetus then proposes that knowledge is having true belief.
-Socrates points out that some sophists would argue that it's impossible to say or believe anything false. EVERYTHING is a matter of persuasion (we also saw this theme arise in the "Euthydemus").
-Eventually, the conversation reaches Meno's Paradox- either we know something, or we don't. If we know about it, then we won't make a mistake about it thanks to our knowledge, but if we don't know about it then we can't think about it, so we won't be able to make a mistake either. So we either have perfect knowledge of something, or no knowledge of it at all, and in neither case will we get things wrong. So it's impossible to believe anything false.
-Socrates points out (obviously) that there is a middle ground to this. He compares our perceptions to impressions in wax tablets, and that over time it fades and we make mismatches when comparing. Therefore, we can "know" something, but also make mistakes.
-Socrates also makes another analogy- our souls are like an aviary, and everything that we know is like a different bird in the aviary. New knowledge or info is like another bird. We now when we make a mistake because we pull out the wrong bird.
-But then again, later on in the dialogue they find this model faulty.
-By the end, Theaetetus still believes that knowledge must have something to do with true belief, plus something else.
-Modern-day epistemologists are still figuring this one out.
-They discuss other stuff too, but I guess it's more complicated and abstract and not so important as the main themes discussed above.
Thursday, October 26, 2017
We Don't Need No Education - Plato's Meno
-Can virtue be taught?
-The conclusion of Plato's (c. 427-347 BC) dialogue "Meno" is that we don't ever actually learn anything because we are actually just recollecting what we already know.
-In the dialogue Socrates is speaking with the Greek general Meno (AKA Menon) about this. Socrates says that he can't say if virtue can be taught or not because he doesn't know what "virtue" even is.
-Meno tries to provide some definitions, but Socrates shoots them down. This eventually results in Meno experiencing aporia (puzzlement, confusion, an impasse, etc.).
-Meno was actually confident that he could say what virtue is due to his rhetoric training under Gorgias (see last post).
-According to Gorgias, each kind of person has their own virtue. For example, a man's virtue is to be successful in politics, or a woman's virtue is to be successful in looking after the home.
-Socrates argues, however, that this isn't a definition, it's just a list. What do all these types of virtues have in common?
-The dialogue ultimately leads to the question(s)- "Do you have to know what virtue is in order to be able to define it? And what's a definition, anyway?"
-Meno says that virtue is achieving things in a "just" way, but Socrates points out that the very concept of "just" is also a virtue (i.e. Meno is basically saying "Virtue is achieving things in a virtuous way")! So this just goes in circles.
-Socrates finally explains to Meno the kind of definition he wants. The model he wants is similar to how you would define a geometric pattern. Because of this, Meno reaches aporia.
-This aporia is eventually broken, however, during the part of the dialogue known as "Meno's Paradox".
-Meno's Paradox basically says that you either know something, or you don't. If you need to inquire into it's nature or seek a definition, then you don't know it. However, how can you inquire into something that you don't know? And how will you know it when you find a proper definition?
-This paradox is meant to raise questions for the reader: What about partially knowing something? How much do we need to know until we can say that we know something for real? And how do we learn anything if we start out not knowing anything about it?
-Socrates answers these questions by getting mystical- he says that he heard from religious leaders that our souls are immortal. They have and always will exist. Because of this, our souls have already learned everything there is to possibly know. Therefore, it's impossible for us to know nothing because we actually know everything, we've just forgotten it because we keep on shifting into different stages of existence (i.e. reincarnation?).
-Meno isn't convinced because he thinks this is a pretty zany idea. So, Socrates summons a slave boy who is completely uneducated and tries to get him to do some geometric problem involving calculating the area of the squares. Obviously, the slave is unable to do it. However, he then gets the slave to see the correct answer through classic Socratic dialogue (asking leading questions). This leads Socrates to conclude that the slave knew the answer all along, it just had to be "brought out".
-Variations on this idea of "innate knowledge" still continue today (e.g. Noam Chomsky's theory of universal grammar).
-Anyway, one of the central themes of this dialogue is still being debated today- knowledge vs. belief.
-Also, there's the question of TRUE belief vs. knowledge. Are they the same thing? Or is one inferior to the other?
-Socrates makes an analogy- true beliefs are like magic statues that run away unless they are tied down. Our true beliefs can be unreliable unless they are "tied down" with reason behind their truth. This also suggests that those who have true belief can't share it because they have no reason that can prove it.
-It also gets brought up that virtue CAN be teachable IF it's a kind of knowledge.
-If that's true though, where are the teachers of virtue?
-At this point in the dialogue, a new character enters- the Athenian politician Anytus (also one of the future prosecutors of Socrates!).
-Socrates asks Anytus if anyone can teach virtue. Maybe the sophists?
-Anytus doesn't think so because he hates the sophists and instead says it's better to just ask the average Athenian citizen or politician about this.
-Socrates counters by pointing out that a lot of great politicians have shitty sons, so if they were such good sources for teaching virtue, then why do their kids suck ass?
-Obviously, this just pisses off Anytus, and Socrates doesn't get a good answer.
-One takeaway from this dialogue is that perhaps virtuous men instead possess beliefs about what they think is "right" (in terms of acting "virtuously"), instead of the knowledge of what is actually right.
-At one point Socrates proposes that these beliefs actually come from the gods, and this is evident because a lot of virtuous people aren't philosophers who would be able to explain themselves via sound reasoning why or how they are virtuous.
-Essentially, "true belief + x = knowledge", so the question is, what is x?
-The conclusion of Plato's (c. 427-347 BC) dialogue "Meno" is that we don't ever actually learn anything because we are actually just recollecting what we already know.
-In the dialogue Socrates is speaking with the Greek general Meno (AKA Menon) about this. Socrates says that he can't say if virtue can be taught or not because he doesn't know what "virtue" even is.
-Meno tries to provide some definitions, but Socrates shoots them down. This eventually results in Meno experiencing aporia (puzzlement, confusion, an impasse, etc.).
-Meno was actually confident that he could say what virtue is due to his rhetoric training under Gorgias (see last post).
-According to Gorgias, each kind of person has their own virtue. For example, a man's virtue is to be successful in politics, or a woman's virtue is to be successful in looking after the home.
-Socrates argues, however, that this isn't a definition, it's just a list. What do all these types of virtues have in common?
-The dialogue ultimately leads to the question(s)- "Do you have to know what virtue is in order to be able to define it? And what's a definition, anyway?"
-Meno says that virtue is achieving things in a "just" way, but Socrates points out that the very concept of "just" is also a virtue (i.e. Meno is basically saying "Virtue is achieving things in a virtuous way")! So this just goes in circles.
-Socrates finally explains to Meno the kind of definition he wants. The model he wants is similar to how you would define a geometric pattern. Because of this, Meno reaches aporia.
-This aporia is eventually broken, however, during the part of the dialogue known as "Meno's Paradox".
-Meno's Paradox basically says that you either know something, or you don't. If you need to inquire into it's nature or seek a definition, then you don't know it. However, how can you inquire into something that you don't know? And how will you know it when you find a proper definition?
-This paradox is meant to raise questions for the reader: What about partially knowing something? How much do we need to know until we can say that we know something for real? And how do we learn anything if we start out not knowing anything about it?
-Socrates answers these questions by getting mystical- he says that he heard from religious leaders that our souls are immortal. They have and always will exist. Because of this, our souls have already learned everything there is to possibly know. Therefore, it's impossible for us to know nothing because we actually know everything, we've just forgotten it because we keep on shifting into different stages of existence (i.e. reincarnation?).
-Meno isn't convinced because he thinks this is a pretty zany idea. So, Socrates summons a slave boy who is completely uneducated and tries to get him to do some geometric problem involving calculating the area of the squares. Obviously, the slave is unable to do it. However, he then gets the slave to see the correct answer through classic Socratic dialogue (asking leading questions). This leads Socrates to conclude that the slave knew the answer all along, it just had to be "brought out".
-Variations on this idea of "innate knowledge" still continue today (e.g. Noam Chomsky's theory of universal grammar).
-Anyway, one of the central themes of this dialogue is still being debated today- knowledge vs. belief.
-Also, there's the question of TRUE belief vs. knowledge. Are they the same thing? Or is one inferior to the other?
-Socrates makes an analogy- true beliefs are like magic statues that run away unless they are tied down. Our true beliefs can be unreliable unless they are "tied down" with reason behind their truth. This also suggests that those who have true belief can't share it because they have no reason that can prove it.
-It also gets brought up that virtue CAN be teachable IF it's a kind of knowledge.
-If that's true though, where are the teachers of virtue?
-At this point in the dialogue, a new character enters- the Athenian politician Anytus (also one of the future prosecutors of Socrates!).
-Socrates asks Anytus if anyone can teach virtue. Maybe the sophists?
-Anytus doesn't think so because he hates the sophists and instead says it's better to just ask the average Athenian citizen or politician about this.
-Socrates counters by pointing out that a lot of great politicians have shitty sons, so if they were such good sources for teaching virtue, then why do their kids suck ass?
-Obviously, this just pisses off Anytus, and Socrates doesn't get a good answer.
-One takeaway from this dialogue is that perhaps virtuous men instead possess beliefs about what they think is "right" (in terms of acting "virtuously"), instead of the knowledge of what is actually right.
-At one point Socrates proposes that these beliefs actually come from the gods, and this is evident because a lot of virtuous people aren't philosophers who would be able to explain themselves via sound reasoning why or how they are virtuous.
-Essentially, "true belief + x = knowledge", so the question is, what is x?
Wednesday, October 25, 2017
Virtue Meets Its Match - Plato's Gorgias
-Gorgias (c. 485-380 BC) was an infamous sophist.
-Believed that words have an almost irresistible power.
-It could be argued that his philosophy was perhaps almost proto-Machiavellian.
-In Plato's (c. 427-347 BC) dialogue "Gorgias", Socrates asks what "rhetoric" is.
-The story:
-Socrates is meeting with his friend Chaerephon, and they're talking to Gorgias and his sophist bros Polus and Callicles at the latter's house. Polus and Callicles are kind of noobs, but Gorgias is a badass rhetorician (and an honored guest at Callicles' house).
-According to Gorgias, rhetoric is an art- the art of speech! Against a truly effective speaker there is no defense. If a doctor and rhetorician were to debate over how to cure a patient, an audience would favor the rhetorician. He could even get away with murder! Anyway, it's just a power (like using the Force from Star Wars), so it's not good or evil unless you use it for those purposes. Don't blame the art, blame the student!
-Socrates points out that Gorgias could use his power to teach people to do good so that they'll do good things. Gorgias agrees that he can teach people goodness AS WELL AS rhetoric, I guess implying that those who learn rhetoric may still choose to use it for evil anyway?
-It's unclear that Gorgias actually felt this way IRL, because it seems like he was only really interested in teaching rhetoric only.
-Anyway, Socrates then argues that rhetoric isn't actually an art at all; it's actually more like a "know-how" or "knack".
-He argues that a rhetorician can convince you to do something, but that may not be the RIGHT or GOOD thing to do. Also, a rhetorician can teach you what is actually right or good.
-Polus then interjects by saying that who cares what is right or wrong if you have absolute power?
-Socrates argues that this is not true power. True power is the power to do what is truly "good" for oneself.
-Polus thinks this is silly. Who would turn down power over life and death?
-Socrates again argues that this isn't real power- "It is better to suffer wrongdoing than to do wrongdoing oneself." Of course, Polus thinks this is a ludicrous argument.
-Socrates counters by getting Polus to agree that justice is a good thing, and that injustice is a bad thing. Things are are good are good because they are either pleasurable, beneficial, or both. Justice can be unpleasant sometimes, so therefore it must be beneficial (and, thus, good). Injustice is bad, so thus it is the opposite of both pleasure and benefit. However, being an unjust tyrant isn't a bad thing because it is so pleasurable with all of its feasting and orgies. Therefore, if injustice is a bad thing, it can ONLY be so because it's harmful and not beneficial. So, VIRTUE is the knowledge of what is good so that you can do good to benefit yourself. If you don't know what is good for you, you are bound to choose shit that is bad for you. Thus, the greater power you have, the worse damage you can do to yourself because of your ignorance of virtue!
-So, does this mean we should only be virtuous because it's for our own benefit only? What about altruistic acts / Good Samaritans? This is more difficult to answer.
-The conversation then takes a turn when Callicles enters the debate. He accuses Socrates of exploiting Polus and Gorgias' feelings of shame. He tricked Gorgias into admitting that he could indeed teach his students virtue. It was also a mistake to agree with Socrates about justice.
-Polus then argues that justice is actually bad and INJUSTICE is actually GOOD! "Justice" is just a bunch of rules made up by society to keep the strongest from abusing their power.
-Nature actually shows that it is the strong who rule ("power") and enjoy their power ("pleasure"). Power and pleasure are good, so therefore injustice is good!
-Socrates admits that this is actually a very powerful argument (and is also an attack on morality made over 2000 years later by Friedrich Nietzche!). However, he counters by focusing on this idea that everything we do is to satiate our desire for pleasure (and is thus what life is all about), and he points out that that is actually slavery, not mastery.
-He then draws upon the traditional wisdom of Italian/Sicilian wise men or something in "the Allegory of the Jar". In this allegory, the soul is a jar. But a hedonist has a jar full of leaks, so that liquid pours out of the jar no matter how much he is pouring in. Pleasure-seeking is an endless task and becomes increasingly difficult.
-Callicles disagrees, saying that the hedonist life is at least continuously fun and new.
-Also, eventually Callicles refuses to continue debating with Socrates.
-The point of this dialogue is also maybe to demonstrate the futility of arguing with someone like a hedonist because they are impossible to refute.
-Believed that words have an almost irresistible power.
-It could be argued that his philosophy was perhaps almost proto-Machiavellian.
-In Plato's (c. 427-347 BC) dialogue "Gorgias", Socrates asks what "rhetoric" is.
-The story:
-Socrates is meeting with his friend Chaerephon, and they're talking to Gorgias and his sophist bros Polus and Callicles at the latter's house. Polus and Callicles are kind of noobs, but Gorgias is a badass rhetorician (and an honored guest at Callicles' house).
-According to Gorgias, rhetoric is an art- the art of speech! Against a truly effective speaker there is no defense. If a doctor and rhetorician were to debate over how to cure a patient, an audience would favor the rhetorician. He could even get away with murder! Anyway, it's just a power (like using the Force from Star Wars), so it's not good or evil unless you use it for those purposes. Don't blame the art, blame the student!
-Socrates points out that Gorgias could use his power to teach people to do good so that they'll do good things. Gorgias agrees that he can teach people goodness AS WELL AS rhetoric, I guess implying that those who learn rhetoric may still choose to use it for evil anyway?
-It's unclear that Gorgias actually felt this way IRL, because it seems like he was only really interested in teaching rhetoric only.
-Anyway, Socrates then argues that rhetoric isn't actually an art at all; it's actually more like a "know-how" or "knack".
-He argues that a rhetorician can convince you to do something, but that may not be the RIGHT or GOOD thing to do. Also, a rhetorician can teach you what is actually right or good.
-Polus then interjects by saying that who cares what is right or wrong if you have absolute power?
-Socrates argues that this is not true power. True power is the power to do what is truly "good" for oneself.
-Polus thinks this is silly. Who would turn down power over life and death?
-Socrates again argues that this isn't real power- "It is better to suffer wrongdoing than to do wrongdoing oneself." Of course, Polus thinks this is a ludicrous argument.
-Socrates counters by getting Polus to agree that justice is a good thing, and that injustice is a bad thing. Things are are good are good because they are either pleasurable, beneficial, or both. Justice can be unpleasant sometimes, so therefore it must be beneficial (and, thus, good). Injustice is bad, so thus it is the opposite of both pleasure and benefit. However, being an unjust tyrant isn't a bad thing because it is so pleasurable with all of its feasting and orgies. Therefore, if injustice is a bad thing, it can ONLY be so because it's harmful and not beneficial. So, VIRTUE is the knowledge of what is good so that you can do good to benefit yourself. If you don't know what is good for you, you are bound to choose shit that is bad for you. Thus, the greater power you have, the worse damage you can do to yourself because of your ignorance of virtue!
-So, does this mean we should only be virtuous because it's for our own benefit only? What about altruistic acts / Good Samaritans? This is more difficult to answer.
-The conversation then takes a turn when Callicles enters the debate. He accuses Socrates of exploiting Polus and Gorgias' feelings of shame. He tricked Gorgias into admitting that he could indeed teach his students virtue. It was also a mistake to agree with Socrates about justice.
-Polus then argues that justice is actually bad and INJUSTICE is actually GOOD! "Justice" is just a bunch of rules made up by society to keep the strongest from abusing their power.
-Nature actually shows that it is the strong who rule ("power") and enjoy their power ("pleasure"). Power and pleasure are good, so therefore injustice is good!
-Socrates admits that this is actually a very powerful argument (and is also an attack on morality made over 2000 years later by Friedrich Nietzche!). However, he counters by focusing on this idea that everything we do is to satiate our desire for pleasure (and is thus what life is all about), and he points out that that is actually slavery, not mastery.
-He then draws upon the traditional wisdom of Italian/Sicilian wise men or something in "the Allegory of the Jar". In this allegory, the soul is a jar. But a hedonist has a jar full of leaks, so that liquid pours out of the jar no matter how much he is pouring in. Pleasure-seeking is an endless task and becomes increasingly difficult.
-Callicles disagrees, saying that the hedonist life is at least continuously fun and new.
-Also, eventually Callicles refuses to continue debating with Socrates.
-The point of this dialogue is also maybe to demonstrate the futility of arguing with someone like a hedonist because they are impossible to refute.
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
Know Thyself - Two Unloved Platonic Dialogues
-Plato (c. 427-347 BC) wrote a bunch of stuff, and while there are a bunch of classics, there are also some gems that are less well-known:
-"Charmides"- named after the character who Socrates carries out the dialogue with. The character Charmides is super handsome, charming, and popular. In the story, Socrates has just returned from fighting in a war, but instead of telling war stories he instead starts discussing philosophical shit.
-He starts talking to Charmides, who comes into the tavern where Socrates is hanging out with others.
-It's important that we know the historical background to the characters in this story, as apparently they were were real people (both Charmides and another character, Critias, were members of "the 30 Tyrants", a pro-Spartan puppet oligarchy installed after Athens lost the Peloponnesian War).
-Charmides says that he's been having headaches, and Socrates claims that the cure is some leaf, but in actuality you have to to cure the whole body (holistically, an influence from the Hippocratic philosophy) and you can only do this by purifying your soul. In order to have a healthy soul, you must possess the virtue of sophrosyne ("restraint"/"self-control"/"temperance").
-Of course, the whole dialogue then takes off by trying to define sophrosyne.
-Charmides claims that it would be boastful to say that he possesses sophrosyne, but shameful if he said he did not. However, because of history, we know that Charmides will follow Critias and be a tyrant of Athens, so we know that he doesn't possess sophrosyne.
-The conversation is meant to raise the question of how do we know if someone has sophrosyne? How can we know if WE even have it?
-This arrives at one of Socrates' central themes- knowing others, and ourselves.
-Charmides claims that sophrosyne is "doing one's own business themselves", but Socrates challenges this and Charmides admits that actually he doesn't know, and that it was actually Critias' idea.
-Critias then arrogantly steps in to defend his idea, saying that sophrosyne is "doing what one SHOULD", i.e. good things. Of course, this is challenged by Socrates, so Critias instead says that it boils down to what is inscribed inside the Temple of Apollo (where the Oracle of Delphi hangs out)- "Know thyself".
-Socrates is still confused. What is "self-knowledge"? Critias says that, surprisingly, self-knowledge is just knowledge of knowledge (haha). WTF does that mean? After this, Critias finally admits that he doesn't really know what he's talking about.
-After this, we reach a paradox, as knowledge of knowledge is both essential (we have to know that we know things) and meaningless (what good is it to know that we know things?). Therefore, the dialogue ends in a stalemate.
-We can also see from this dialogue that Socrates does his classic trick of moving the discussion away from virtue and into epistemology, but actually Socrates believed that they are in fact the same thing. Is he right?
-Modern philosophy thinks not, but who knows?
-"Euthydemus"- a dialogue narrated by Socrates to his buddy, Crito. In the story, Socrates is talking to Clinias, a beautiful young man. However, he ends up arguing with two brothers, Euthydemus and Dionysodorous. These brothers used to be arriors who would train others how to fight. However, now they are sophists and specialize in verbal combat.
-Socrates asks them to prove their expertise by convincing Clinias to become a philosopher and seeker of virtue. Sure enough, they get to work on Clinias, getting him to contradict himself.
-Socrates rolls his eyes at their antics and instead begins to question Clinias in such a way that leads him to classic Socratic conclusions, such as things that seem to be good (money, food, wealth, power) are only good if they are used with knowledge.
-However, the brothers continue to try and lead Clinias astray, and so the dialogue gets pretty wacky.
-What's cool though is that underneath silliness, there are interesting metaphysical and epistemological questions.
-Ultimately, the dialogue is a reflection on knowledge; it's not just a farce.
-It also demonstrates that a philosophical debate is NOT to "win", but instead to seek wisdom!!
-Therefore, if this is to be taken as a serious source on Socrates, then he obviously wasn't a sophist. He was a true seeker of wisdom.
-One interesting point regarding these dialogues- don't they suggest that Socrates has his limitations? In these dialogues he always tries to introduce virtue, but fails.
-Plato actually revisits this concept a lot in his writings...
-"Charmides"- named after the character who Socrates carries out the dialogue with. The character Charmides is super handsome, charming, and popular. In the story, Socrates has just returned from fighting in a war, but instead of telling war stories he instead starts discussing philosophical shit.
-He starts talking to Charmides, who comes into the tavern where Socrates is hanging out with others.
-It's important that we know the historical background to the characters in this story, as apparently they were were real people (both Charmides and another character, Critias, were members of "the 30 Tyrants", a pro-Spartan puppet oligarchy installed after Athens lost the Peloponnesian War).
-Charmides says that he's been having headaches, and Socrates claims that the cure is some leaf, but in actuality you have to to cure the whole body (holistically, an influence from the Hippocratic philosophy) and you can only do this by purifying your soul. In order to have a healthy soul, you must possess the virtue of sophrosyne ("restraint"/"self-control"/"temperance").
-Of course, the whole dialogue then takes off by trying to define sophrosyne.
-Charmides claims that it would be boastful to say that he possesses sophrosyne, but shameful if he said he did not. However, because of history, we know that Charmides will follow Critias and be a tyrant of Athens, so we know that he doesn't possess sophrosyne.
-The conversation is meant to raise the question of how do we know if someone has sophrosyne? How can we know if WE even have it?
-This arrives at one of Socrates' central themes- knowing others, and ourselves.
-Charmides claims that sophrosyne is "doing one's own business themselves", but Socrates challenges this and Charmides admits that actually he doesn't know, and that it was actually Critias' idea.
-Critias then arrogantly steps in to defend his idea, saying that sophrosyne is "doing what one SHOULD", i.e. good things. Of course, this is challenged by Socrates, so Critias instead says that it boils down to what is inscribed inside the Temple of Apollo (where the Oracle of Delphi hangs out)- "Know thyself".
-Socrates is still confused. What is "self-knowledge"? Critias says that, surprisingly, self-knowledge is just knowledge of knowledge (haha). WTF does that mean? After this, Critias finally admits that he doesn't really know what he's talking about.
-After this, we reach a paradox, as knowledge of knowledge is both essential (we have to know that we know things) and meaningless (what good is it to know that we know things?). Therefore, the dialogue ends in a stalemate.
-We can also see from this dialogue that Socrates does his classic trick of moving the discussion away from virtue and into epistemology, but actually Socrates believed that they are in fact the same thing. Is he right?
-Modern philosophy thinks not, but who knows?
-"Euthydemus"- a dialogue narrated by Socrates to his buddy, Crito. In the story, Socrates is talking to Clinias, a beautiful young man. However, he ends up arguing with two brothers, Euthydemus and Dionysodorous. These brothers used to be arriors who would train others how to fight. However, now they are sophists and specialize in verbal combat.
-Socrates asks them to prove their expertise by convincing Clinias to become a philosopher and seeker of virtue. Sure enough, they get to work on Clinias, getting him to contradict himself.
-Socrates rolls his eyes at their antics and instead begins to question Clinias in such a way that leads him to classic Socratic conclusions, such as things that seem to be good (money, food, wealth, power) are only good if they are used with knowledge.
-However, the brothers continue to try and lead Clinias astray, and so the dialogue gets pretty wacky.
-What's cool though is that underneath silliness, there are interesting metaphysical and epistemological questions.
-Ultimately, the dialogue is a reflection on knowledge; it's not just a farce.
-It also demonstrates that a philosophical debate is NOT to "win", but instead to seek wisdom!!
-Therefore, if this is to be taken as a serious source on Socrates, then he obviously wasn't a sophist. He was a true seeker of wisdom.
-One interesting point regarding these dialogues- don't they suggest that Socrates has his limitations? In these dialogues he always tries to introduce virtue, but fails.
-Plato actually revisits this concept a lot in his writings...
Monday, October 23, 2017
In Dialogue - The Life and Writings of Plato
-It could be argued that philosophy "comes of age" with Plato (AKA Plátōn) (c. 427-347 BC).
-However, he was kind of an elusive character because he only wrote in dialogues, and never appeared himself in them!
-Born and raised in Athens.
-Encountered Socrates when he was a young man; heavily influenced by him.
-Spent time in southern Italy after Socrates' death; possibly encountered Pythagorean philosophy there.
-Well-versed in most Pre-Socratic philosophy, especially Parmenides and Heraclitus.
-Plato eventually returned to Athens and opened a philosophical school- "The Academia" named after Akademos (AKA Academus), a famous Athenian hero.
-Practiced not just philosophy but also speech, argument, math, and other subjects.
-Famously stated at the entrance- "Let no man enter here who has not studied geometry."
-Famous members at the time included Archytas of Tarentum (mathematician and Pythagorean scientist), Isocrates (influential orator and rhetorician), and, of course, Aristotle (AKA Aristotélēs).
-We know a lot about Plato (and other Pre-Socratic/contemporary philosophers) due to Diogenes Laërtius, a biographer and writer of "The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers".
-Diogenes says that "Plato" is actually a nickname and comes from the Greek word for "broad" or "wide", either due to to his wide array of knowledge, his powerful physique, or both!
-It's also possible maybe because he just had a wide forehead (haha).
-His real name was Aristocles.
-We also know some stories about Plato from this document.
-For example, one time he went to Syracuse (in Sicily) and was critical of the way the tyrant Dionysus (the Elder) was running the city. Of course, this pissed off Dionysus, so he arrested Plato and had him sold into slavery. Luckily, Plato was somehow ransomed and was able to return to Athens a free man. However, he later returned to Syracuse to meet with Dionysus (the Younger; AKA Dionysus II) who had taken over the city after the death of his father. He tried to get Dionysus II to rule well, but this failed and the tyrant sent Plato (accompanied by his friend, the Sicilian philosopher Dion who had also been critical of the regime) back to Greece. Plato then returned a third time, this time to get Dionysus II to reconcile with Dion, who wished to serve as adviser. This failed and Dionysus II kicked them out again, so Dion raised an army (!) and started a revolt in Sicily, deposed of Dionysus II and became tyrant himself!
-What's the point of this story?
-It's a good example of philosophers actually trying to have an influence on real-life policies and challenges the stereotype of them just sitting around and having endless heady debates and doing math and shit.
-Plato had truly believed that Dionysus II could have been a powerful philosopher-king.
-Plato wrote in dialogues because it simulated reality more accurately.
-A simple list of doctrines can't defend themselves when critiqued, but a dialogue can do a better job of this.
-Platonic dialogues are also perhaps written frustratingly on purpose.
-They are meant to be imperfect in order arouse curiosity and critical thinking from the reader.
-It's also meant to be read as both philosophy AND literature.
-How many dialogues are there?
-We don't know, but we think only between 25-30, and there are others which we aren't sure of in terms of legitimacy (or some which experts are almost positive are fake).
-Dialogues divided into "early", "middle", and "late" (rough estimates).
-Early dialogues were probably written right after the death of Socrates, and usually end in a stalemate.
-Middle dialogues- more ambitious, longer, and had less typical Socratic encounters.
-Main work during this time was "The Republic".
-Late dialogues- more technical, less dramatic, more new main characters.
-However, he was kind of an elusive character because he only wrote in dialogues, and never appeared himself in them!
-Born and raised in Athens.
-Encountered Socrates when he was a young man; heavily influenced by him.
-Spent time in southern Italy after Socrates' death; possibly encountered Pythagorean philosophy there.
-Well-versed in most Pre-Socratic philosophy, especially Parmenides and Heraclitus.
-Plato eventually returned to Athens and opened a philosophical school- "The Academia" named after Akademos (AKA Academus), a famous Athenian hero.
-Practiced not just philosophy but also speech, argument, math, and other subjects.
-Famously stated at the entrance- "Let no man enter here who has not studied geometry."
-Famous members at the time included Archytas of Tarentum (mathematician and Pythagorean scientist), Isocrates (influential orator and rhetorician), and, of course, Aristotle (AKA Aristotélēs).
-We know a lot about Plato (and other Pre-Socratic/contemporary philosophers) due to Diogenes Laërtius, a biographer and writer of "The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers".
-Diogenes says that "Plato" is actually a nickname and comes from the Greek word for "broad" or "wide", either due to to his wide array of knowledge, his powerful physique, or both!
-It's also possible maybe because he just had a wide forehead (haha).
-His real name was Aristocles.
-We also know some stories about Plato from this document.
-For example, one time he went to Syracuse (in Sicily) and was critical of the way the tyrant Dionysus (the Elder) was running the city. Of course, this pissed off Dionysus, so he arrested Plato and had him sold into slavery. Luckily, Plato was somehow ransomed and was able to return to Athens a free man. However, he later returned to Syracuse to meet with Dionysus (the Younger; AKA Dionysus II) who had taken over the city after the death of his father. He tried to get Dionysus II to rule well, but this failed and the tyrant sent Plato (accompanied by his friend, the Sicilian philosopher Dion who had also been critical of the regime) back to Greece. Plato then returned a third time, this time to get Dionysus II to reconcile with Dion, who wished to serve as adviser. This failed and Dionysus II kicked them out again, so Dion raised an army (!) and started a revolt in Sicily, deposed of Dionysus II and became tyrant himself!
-What's the point of this story?
-It's a good example of philosophers actually trying to have an influence on real-life policies and challenges the stereotype of them just sitting around and having endless heady debates and doing math and shit.
-Plato had truly believed that Dionysus II could have been a powerful philosopher-king.
-Plato wrote in dialogues because it simulated reality more accurately.
-A simple list of doctrines can't defend themselves when critiqued, but a dialogue can do a better job of this.
-Platonic dialogues are also perhaps written frustratingly on purpose.
-They are meant to be imperfect in order arouse curiosity and critical thinking from the reader.
-It's also meant to be read as both philosophy AND literature.
-How many dialogues are there?
-We don't know, but we think only between 25-30, and there are others which we aren't sure of in terms of legitimacy (or some which experts are almost positive are fake).
-Dialogues divided into "early", "middle", and "late" (rough estimates).
-Early dialogues were probably written right after the death of Socrates, and usually end in a stalemate.
-Middle dialogues- more ambitious, longer, and had less typical Socratic encounters.
-Main work during this time was "The Republic".
-Late dialogues- more technical, less dramatic, more new main characters.
Sunday, October 22, 2017
Method Man - Plato's Socrates
-Plato (c. 428-347 BC, Athens).
-Wrote the Socratic dialogues detailing "conversations" with Socrates.
-Shows us the Socratic method and other stuff.
-Unfortunately, we can't exactly say that this is an accurate portrayal of Socrates since Plato probably just used Socrates as a foil for his own philosophy and ideas.
-Wrote "The Apology" (not to be confused with Xenophon's "Apology") detailing Socrates' trial, although it's unclear as to if Plato was actually there or not.
-In this dialogue, Socrates isn't actually apologetic at all. However, while Socrates isn't as arrogant in this as he is in Xenophon's "Apology", he still only apologizes for being a bad public speaker haha.
-Directly addresses "The Clouds" by Aristophanes, and portrays Socrates as anything BUT a sophist in a seeming attempt to set the record straight.
-Focuses not so much on the charges against him, but rather why he is so unpopular in the first place.
-In the dialogue Socrates goes to the Oracle at Delphi, where he learns that he's the smartest man alive, so he goes and tries to test this by asking people shit because all he knows is that he knows nothing. Socrates finds out that people do know some stuff, but they commit logical errors by going too far in their thinking and reasoning by mistaking what they know for "true knowledge".
-Socrates then realizes that the Oracle meant that he's the smartest because he's the only one who realizes that he is not wise.
-This principle is called "Socratic ignorance". Socrates believes that he is actually doing the public a service in this way because he is guiding them to true wisdom.
-Socrates also uses what is called "Socratic irony" to talk to people who are being hypocrites to show them the error of their ways.
-Believed also that "no one does wrong willingly". People will ALWAYS choose what they believe to be "good", even if it isn't. Therefore, "bad" is chosen only because of incomplete information or ignorance. Thus, virtue is knowledge!
-However, even Socrates knows that his ideas of what it means to be virtuous is flawed. So why didn't Socrates make mistakes? Because, according to Plato, he had a "divine sign".
-Also wrote "Phaedo" about Socrates' death and "Crito" about Socrates' time in prison before his trial and execution.
-"Euthyphro" is another dialogue by Plato which details conversations with Socrates before his trial.
-Wrote a lot of other stuff too, of course, which we'll get into later.
-Wrote the Socratic dialogues detailing "conversations" with Socrates.
-Shows us the Socratic method and other stuff.
-Unfortunately, we can't exactly say that this is an accurate portrayal of Socrates since Plato probably just used Socrates as a foil for his own philosophy and ideas.
-Wrote "The Apology" (not to be confused with Xenophon's "Apology") detailing Socrates' trial, although it's unclear as to if Plato was actually there or not.
-In this dialogue, Socrates isn't actually apologetic at all. However, while Socrates isn't as arrogant in this as he is in Xenophon's "Apology", he still only apologizes for being a bad public speaker haha.
-Directly addresses "The Clouds" by Aristophanes, and portrays Socrates as anything BUT a sophist in a seeming attempt to set the record straight.
-Focuses not so much on the charges against him, but rather why he is so unpopular in the first place.
-In the dialogue Socrates goes to the Oracle at Delphi, where he learns that he's the smartest man alive, so he goes and tries to test this by asking people shit because all he knows is that he knows nothing. Socrates finds out that people do know some stuff, but they commit logical errors by going too far in their thinking and reasoning by mistaking what they know for "true knowledge".
-Socrates then realizes that the Oracle meant that he's the smartest because he's the only one who realizes that he is not wise.
-This principle is called "Socratic ignorance". Socrates believes that he is actually doing the public a service in this way because he is guiding them to true wisdom.
-Socrates also uses what is called "Socratic irony" to talk to people who are being hypocrites to show them the error of their ways.
-Believed also that "no one does wrong willingly". People will ALWAYS choose what they believe to be "good", even if it isn't. Therefore, "bad" is chosen only because of incomplete information or ignorance. Thus, virtue is knowledge!
-However, even Socrates knows that his ideas of what it means to be virtuous is flawed. So why didn't Socrates make mistakes? Because, according to Plato, he had a "divine sign".
-Also wrote "Phaedo" about Socrates' death and "Crito" about Socrates' time in prison before his trial and execution.
-"Euthyphro" is another dialogue by Plato which details conversations with Socrates before his trial.
-Wrote a lot of other stuff too, of course, which we'll get into later.
Thursday, October 19, 2017
Socrates Without Plato - Aristophanes and Xenophon
-Socrates is the most famous philosopher who never wrote anything! We only know about him from other authors writing about him.
-As a fun aside, he was also apparently really ugly!
-Socrates was executed via poison in 399 BC, and while it's possible that he was killed because he was seen as a blasphemer, it's also possible that he was persecuted for political reasons as well. It's unclear.
-Socrates actually wasn't just some dude who had spent his whole life annoying people- he had actually been a soldier and fought the Spartans and others.
-He even fought in the Peloponnesian War at the Battle of Delium, in which the Athenians lost against the Boeotians (allies of Sparta) in 424 BC.
-He was apparently a badass fighter and absolutely fearless, according to the Athenian general Alcibiades.
-He is portrayed by both Aristophanes (c. 446 – c. 386 BC) and Xenophon (c. 430–354 BC) as having a biting wit and also being obsessed with virtue.
-Aristophanes was an Athenian comedian and playwright, very clever and perverted.
-He portrayed Socrates in his play "The Clouds" as a comic figure, usually reserved for gods or divine heroes.
-Portrayed Socrates as a sophist, trying to get the main character to worship the clouds instead of the gods.
-This was surprising, since Socrates allegedly always clashed with the sophists. Socrates' motives seemed to be different, as he was motivated by virtue.
-Plato actually notes that Socrates was widely viewed as a sophist. However, the distinguished that Socrates was kind of a "noble sophist", battling against false beliefs as opposed to trolling. Also, Socrates was poor and never asked for money, unlike the sophists.
-Aristophanes also uses Socrates as a target to make fun of Pre-Socratic philosophers in general, who were obsessed with astrology and perhaps may have believed that air was a divine principle.
-Both Aristophanes and Xenophon are adamant that Socrates never got into scientific discussions or anything like that.
-What's crazy is that it was the very concept of Socrates getting someone to turn their back on the gods that ended up getting him executed.
-Xenophon had been an exile of Athens for a long time due to his role in joining an army of Greeks as a mercenary in a push to overthrow King Artaxerxes II of Persia (extremely simplified version). However, the attempt failed, and Xenophon had to travel back to Greece from Persia! Really dangerous!
-He recorded his journey in the book "Anabasis" ("Expedition Up From").
-Xenophon also wrote about Socrates, perhaps inspired by Plato and what he was doing with his writings.
-Xenophon's Socrates was very different from Plato's. His goal was not to use Socrates as a philosophical foil, but to vindicate him from the ridicule and accusations made against him in his trial.
-In Xenophon's writings, Socrates is a paragon of virtue, and is actually a believer in divine providence and that we must respect the gods.
-Socrates is also extremely arrogant when he is on trial.
-Additionally, if Socrates was a paragon of virtue, then why was he charged with corrupting the youth? The answer is that it's possible that many young men did start to imitate Socrates' behavior, as Socrates promoted independence and freedom.
-For example, although he was poor, he was self-sufficient (unlike many rich people!). Socrates argued that the true slaves were actually tyrants, and that sophists were just whores. Socrates was also in debt to no one, had many friends, and followed his own rules.
-Xenophon agrees with Plato in that Socrates taught that knowledge is the most important thing in life, and a virtue in and of itself.
-To do anything virtuously is to do it well, and to do it well is to act with knowledge. This is a strong political point too. After all, you wouldn't choose an untrained doctor to operate on you!
-It's also worth pointing out that Xenophon does portray Socrates as sometimes doling out kind of banal advice about random crap as well though, too.
-As a fun aside, he was also apparently really ugly!
-Socrates was executed via poison in 399 BC, and while it's possible that he was killed because he was seen as a blasphemer, it's also possible that he was persecuted for political reasons as well. It's unclear.
-Socrates actually wasn't just some dude who had spent his whole life annoying people- he had actually been a soldier and fought the Spartans and others.
-He even fought in the Peloponnesian War at the Battle of Delium, in which the Athenians lost against the Boeotians (allies of Sparta) in 424 BC.
-He was apparently a badass fighter and absolutely fearless, according to the Athenian general Alcibiades.
-He is portrayed by both Aristophanes (c. 446 – c. 386 BC) and Xenophon (c. 430–354 BC) as having a biting wit and also being obsessed with virtue.
-Aristophanes was an Athenian comedian and playwright, very clever and perverted.
-He portrayed Socrates in his play "The Clouds" as a comic figure, usually reserved for gods or divine heroes.
-Portrayed Socrates as a sophist, trying to get the main character to worship the clouds instead of the gods.
-This was surprising, since Socrates allegedly always clashed with the sophists. Socrates' motives seemed to be different, as he was motivated by virtue.
-Plato actually notes that Socrates was widely viewed as a sophist. However, the distinguished that Socrates was kind of a "noble sophist", battling against false beliefs as opposed to trolling. Also, Socrates was poor and never asked for money, unlike the sophists.
-Aristophanes also uses Socrates as a target to make fun of Pre-Socratic philosophers in general, who were obsessed with astrology and perhaps may have believed that air was a divine principle.
-Both Aristophanes and Xenophon are adamant that Socrates never got into scientific discussions or anything like that.
-What's crazy is that it was the very concept of Socrates getting someone to turn their back on the gods that ended up getting him executed.
-Xenophon had been an exile of Athens for a long time due to his role in joining an army of Greeks as a mercenary in a push to overthrow King Artaxerxes II of Persia (extremely simplified version). However, the attempt failed, and Xenophon had to travel back to Greece from Persia! Really dangerous!
-He recorded his journey in the book "Anabasis" ("Expedition Up From").
-Xenophon also wrote about Socrates, perhaps inspired by Plato and what he was doing with his writings.
-Xenophon's Socrates was very different from Plato's. His goal was not to use Socrates as a philosophical foil, but to vindicate him from the ridicule and accusations made against him in his trial.
-In Xenophon's writings, Socrates is a paragon of virtue, and is actually a believer in divine providence and that we must respect the gods.
-Socrates is also extremely arrogant when he is on trial.
-Additionally, if Socrates was a paragon of virtue, then why was he charged with corrupting the youth? The answer is that it's possible that many young men did start to imitate Socrates' behavior, as Socrates promoted independence and freedom.
-For example, although he was poor, he was self-sufficient (unlike many rich people!). Socrates argued that the true slaves were actually tyrants, and that sophists were just whores. Socrates was also in debt to no one, had many friends, and followed his own rules.
-Xenophon agrees with Plato in that Socrates taught that knowledge is the most important thing in life, and a virtue in and of itself.
-To do anything virtuously is to do it well, and to do it well is to act with knowledge. This is a strong political point too. After all, you wouldn't choose an untrained doctor to operate on you!
-It's also worth pointing out that Xenophon does portray Socrates as sometimes doling out kind of banal advice about random crap as well though, too.
Wednesday, October 18, 2017
Making the Weaker Argument the Stronger - The Sophists
-Nowadays, "sophist" has a negative connotation- it means someone who makes deceptively plausible arguments but are actually totally bogus, or are just arguing badly on purpose (basically just internet trolls).
-Interestingly enough, the term actually means "wise person". So WTF?
-Comes from Plato and Aristotle, perhaps sarcastically referring to people who do this shit.
-One of the most powerful sophists was Protagoras, due to his friendship with the great Athenian general Pericles.
-Many sophists were crafty non-Athenian Greeks who had traveled to Athens in hopes of making a career out of teaching rhetoric and also maybe working as a lawyer or negotiator.
-According to Plato, they were just merely teaching persuasive techniques at a steep price. However, in reality most sophists had a ton of people under their wing that influenced the culture, from artists to playwrights to philosophers, etc. Even mathematicians!
-Prodicus is one influential sophist of note, as he was skilled at debating semantics.
-Also an acquaintance of Plato and a teacher of Socrates!
-Stated that in order to be civil, we must DEBATE, not argue.
-One typical sophist argument would be that there is no absolute truth; we only have persuasion.
-This philosophical concept is usually associated with Protagoras.
-This is famously portrayed in the eponymous Plato dialogue.
-In "Protagoras", Protagoras states that political virtue is a gift from the gods to humanity- it's open to everyone to everyone, unlike a more specific skill, like, say, flute-playing. Because of this, we punish those who fall short of behaving according to the basic virtues.
-Because not everyone acts virtuous, Protagoras teaches people how to be more virtuous than perhaps they are naturally inclined to be.
-Protagoras is actually so confident in his teachings that he will accept any payment for his teachings so long as the customer pays what they feel was the worth of what Protagoras had taught them.
-A famous quote: "Man is the measure of all things. Of the things that are, that they are. Of the things that are not, that they are not."
-This is the root of the philosophical concept of "relativism".
-Plato included this Protagoras quote to communicate the belief that each man only judges what is true for himself, but no one is in a position to judge what is true for anyone else. Essentially, truth is only what is true for that person.
-For example, the wind may be cold for one person, but warm for another person. There is no such thing as what the wind actually is.
-So, one obvious question is: how can Protagoras teach virtue when truth is relative?
-In another dialogue, Protagoras answers this question: a person's virtue is only what is advantageous for that person, and that person alone. Protagoras only teaches virtue that is best for that person, but not necessarily best for everyone.
-In yet another dialogue, Socrates debates this idea, but this time it is proposed that virtue is what is advantageous not just for anyone, but for those who are naturally stronger.
-Another sophist named Persimicus argues for this idea in Plato's "Republic".
-Basically, if there is no absolute truth, then there is only advantage, and therefore the strongest should be the most rewarded.
-However, how can the sophists argue what SHOULD happen when morality is rejected altogether? The sophists shoot back by distinguishing between "custom" and "nature". "Customs" are social rules and laws of justice, but they are not necessarily reflective of the natural order. However, it is "natural" for the strong to dominate the weak.
-The sophists perhaps saw themselves perhaps as iconoclasts, exposing society to how man-made its norms are.
-It seems like Protagoras never went so far with his belief that he got into "Might Is Right" territory...it was just more like he worked to improve his clients advantages, regardless of whether the virtue behind it was "true" or not.
-Protagoras also seemed to enjoy "double arguments", arguing both sides.
-Sophists loved to boast that they could always "make the weaker argument stronger" because it didn't matter which one was right or not since truth didn't even exist in the first place!
-Gorgias, another famous sophist, argued that the rhetoric he taught was neutral and amoral...you could use it for "good" or for "evil", but whatever you chose, neither was his responsibility. Essentially, mastery over rhetoric was almost like magic.
-On a side note, Gorgias also wrote a parody of the Eleadic philosophy of Parmenides, "On Not Being". A+ trolling.
-Interestingly enough, the term actually means "wise person". So WTF?
-Comes from Plato and Aristotle, perhaps sarcastically referring to people who do this shit.
-One of the most powerful sophists was Protagoras, due to his friendship with the great Athenian general Pericles.
-Many sophists were crafty non-Athenian Greeks who had traveled to Athens in hopes of making a career out of teaching rhetoric and also maybe working as a lawyer or negotiator.
-According to Plato, they were just merely teaching persuasive techniques at a steep price. However, in reality most sophists had a ton of people under their wing that influenced the culture, from artists to playwrights to philosophers, etc. Even mathematicians!
-Prodicus is one influential sophist of note, as he was skilled at debating semantics.
-Also an acquaintance of Plato and a teacher of Socrates!
-Stated that in order to be civil, we must DEBATE, not argue.
-One typical sophist argument would be that there is no absolute truth; we only have persuasion.
-This philosophical concept is usually associated with Protagoras.
-This is famously portrayed in the eponymous Plato dialogue.
-In "Protagoras", Protagoras states that political virtue is a gift from the gods to humanity- it's open to everyone to everyone, unlike a more specific skill, like, say, flute-playing. Because of this, we punish those who fall short of behaving according to the basic virtues.
-Because not everyone acts virtuous, Protagoras teaches people how to be more virtuous than perhaps they are naturally inclined to be.
-Protagoras is actually so confident in his teachings that he will accept any payment for his teachings so long as the customer pays what they feel was the worth of what Protagoras had taught them.
-A famous quote: "Man is the measure of all things. Of the things that are, that they are. Of the things that are not, that they are not."
-This is the root of the philosophical concept of "relativism".
-Plato included this Protagoras quote to communicate the belief that each man only judges what is true for himself, but no one is in a position to judge what is true for anyone else. Essentially, truth is only what is true for that person.
-For example, the wind may be cold for one person, but warm for another person. There is no such thing as what the wind actually is.
-So, one obvious question is: how can Protagoras teach virtue when truth is relative?
-In another dialogue, Protagoras answers this question: a person's virtue is only what is advantageous for that person, and that person alone. Protagoras only teaches virtue that is best for that person, but not necessarily best for everyone.
-In yet another dialogue, Socrates debates this idea, but this time it is proposed that virtue is what is advantageous not just for anyone, but for those who are naturally stronger.
-Another sophist named Persimicus argues for this idea in Plato's "Republic".
-Basically, if there is no absolute truth, then there is only advantage, and therefore the strongest should be the most rewarded.
-However, how can the sophists argue what SHOULD happen when morality is rejected altogether? The sophists shoot back by distinguishing between "custom" and "nature". "Customs" are social rules and laws of justice, but they are not necessarily reflective of the natural order. However, it is "natural" for the strong to dominate the weak.
-The sophists perhaps saw themselves perhaps as iconoclasts, exposing society to how man-made its norms are.
-It seems like Protagoras never went so far with his belief that he got into "Might Is Right" territory...it was just more like he worked to improve his clients advantages, regardless of whether the virtue behind it was "true" or not.
-Protagoras also seemed to enjoy "double arguments", arguing both sides.
-Sophists loved to boast that they could always "make the weaker argument stronger" because it didn't matter which one was right or not since truth didn't even exist in the first place!
-Gorgias, another famous sophist, argued that the rhetoric he taught was neutral and amoral...you could use it for "good" or for "evil", but whatever you chose, neither was his responsibility. Essentially, mastery over rhetoric was almost like magic.
-On a side note, Gorgias also wrote a parody of the Eleadic philosophy of Parmenides, "On Not Being". A+ trolling.
Tuesday, October 17, 2017
Good Humor Men - The Hippocratics
-"First, do no harm." - attributed to Hippocrates (460-370 BC) of Kos (an island in the southeast of the Aegean Sea, off the west coast of Turkey), the founder of modern medicine. However, from what we can tell the earliest this appeared in writing is in "Epidemics", a work attributed to Hippocrates but whose true authorship is actually unclear.
-What about the "Hippocratic Oath"?
-There is indeed a book attributed to Hippocrates called "The Hippocratic Oath" (AKA "The Oath"), but it's unclear/unlikely that he actually wrote it.
-More than 60 works have (like The Oath) have actually been attributed to him, the entirety of which make up the "Hippocratic Corpus".
-According to Plato, Hippocrates was a teacher and taught students medicine and shit (for a fee, of course).
-The Hippocratic Corpus:
-Taught about the way a doctor should behave, causes of disease, medical procedures, gynecology, diet, exercise, etc.
-At this time, medicine still was kind of connected to religion (like philosophy).
-For example, during this time epilepsy was known as "the sacred disease" due to its association with visions and seizures.
-Hippocrates tried to combat the notion that it was "sacred", and that it was just a disease of affliction similar to any other bodily problem.
-However, he still believed that diseases and afflictions were caused by natural forces, which are in essence divine (which perhaps means ultimately that they are the creation or causes of divine forces, but not directly caused by them via random divine intervention).
-Believed that all of nature is divine (or divine in origin), similar to the philosophy of Xenophanes.
-During this time, Greek medicine was traditionally combined with religion.
-Various cults asked supreme beings for healing, such as the cult of Asclepius, whose priests also acted as doctors/healers.
-Asclepius' symbol of the snake around the staff (The Rod of Asclepius) is where we get this symbol for medicine today!
-The cult of Asclepius actually got really big in Ancient Greece, including Kos, where they erected an asclepeion (a temple dedicated to Asclepius). It was at this temple where Hippocrates allegedly received his medical training.
-However, the Hippocratics (who came along welcomed the idea of praying to the gods, but also wanted to understand and cure diseases from a human perspective as well.
-Other Pre-Socratic philosophers got involved in medicine too, trying to figure out why we got sick, what sickness is, etc., from a rational point of view.
-Many of them (such as Empedocles) linked health to its relationship with the four elements, while others (like Anaxagoras or Diogenes of Appalonia) introduced the idea of pneuma ("air" or "breath").
-One of the books of the Hippocratic Corpus, "On Medicine", talks about how important it is to actually veer away from the ideas of Empedocles and the others and get into a more rational, "scientific" theory and practice.
-Another Hippocratic theory that emerged at this time was the concept of "humors" (bodily fluids).
-Blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile were all described in Hippocrates' (allegedly) "On the Nature of Man" and matched up with personality traits (as opposed to diseases). For example, we get the word "melancholy" from this (melankholía ("black bile" in Greek)) or the adjectives "sanguin" or "phlegmatic" from these concepts.
-The practice of bloodletting (which Hippocratic will eventually begin to perform) comes from this school of thought. However, in general the Hippocratics tried to avoid surgical shit like this, and preferred to act more as like general practitioners.
-The Hippocratics were also really into preventative medicine and believed that medicine was an art, not a set of rules that can just be applied to anyone for a diagnosis. Everyone is different!
-Also were into holistic medicine- one shouldn't just focus on one part of the body if it has a problem; the whole body itself is important in this matter!
-Finally, the Hippocratics believed that the human body was a microcosm, a tiny version of the universe itself! Laws that apply to the universe thus apply to human health as well.
-Thus, philosophy began to spread into other facets of Greek daily life, and wasn't just for thinkers with too much time on their hands :)
-What about the "Hippocratic Oath"?
-There is indeed a book attributed to Hippocrates called "The Hippocratic Oath" (AKA "The Oath"), but it's unclear/unlikely that he actually wrote it.
-More than 60 works have (like The Oath) have actually been attributed to him, the entirety of which make up the "Hippocratic Corpus".
-According to Plato, Hippocrates was a teacher and taught students medicine and shit (for a fee, of course).
-The Hippocratic Corpus:
-Taught about the way a doctor should behave, causes of disease, medical procedures, gynecology, diet, exercise, etc.
-At this time, medicine still was kind of connected to religion (like philosophy).
-For example, during this time epilepsy was known as "the sacred disease" due to its association with visions and seizures.
-Hippocrates tried to combat the notion that it was "sacred", and that it was just a disease of affliction similar to any other bodily problem.
-However, he still believed that diseases and afflictions were caused by natural forces, which are in essence divine (which perhaps means ultimately that they are the creation or causes of divine forces, but not directly caused by them via random divine intervention).
-Believed that all of nature is divine (or divine in origin), similar to the philosophy of Xenophanes.
-During this time, Greek medicine was traditionally combined with religion.
-Various cults asked supreme beings for healing, such as the cult of Asclepius, whose priests also acted as doctors/healers.
-Asclepius' symbol of the snake around the staff (The Rod of Asclepius) is where we get this symbol for medicine today!
-The cult of Asclepius actually got really big in Ancient Greece, including Kos, where they erected an asclepeion (a temple dedicated to Asclepius). It was at this temple where Hippocrates allegedly received his medical training.
-However, the Hippocratics (who came along welcomed the idea of praying to the gods, but also wanted to understand and cure diseases from a human perspective as well.
-Other Pre-Socratic philosophers got involved in medicine too, trying to figure out why we got sick, what sickness is, etc., from a rational point of view.
-Many of them (such as Empedocles) linked health to its relationship with the four elements, while others (like Anaxagoras or Diogenes of Appalonia) introduced the idea of pneuma ("air" or "breath").
-One of the books of the Hippocratic Corpus, "On Medicine", talks about how important it is to actually veer away from the ideas of Empedocles and the others and get into a more rational, "scientific" theory and practice.
-Another Hippocratic theory that emerged at this time was the concept of "humors" (bodily fluids).
-Blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile were all described in Hippocrates' (allegedly) "On the Nature of Man" and matched up with personality traits (as opposed to diseases). For example, we get the word "melancholy" from this (melankholía ("black bile" in Greek)) or the adjectives "sanguin" or "phlegmatic" from these concepts.
-The practice of bloodletting (which Hippocratic will eventually begin to perform) comes from this school of thought. However, in general the Hippocratics tried to avoid surgical shit like this, and preferred to act more as like general practitioners.
-The Hippocratics were also really into preventative medicine and believed that medicine was an art, not a set of rules that can just be applied to anyone for a diagnosis. Everyone is different!
-Also were into holistic medicine- one shouldn't just focus on one part of the body if it has a problem; the whole body itself is important in this matter!
-Finally, the Hippocratics believed that the human body was a microcosm, a tiny version of the universe itself! Laws that apply to the universe thus apply to human health as well.
-Thus, philosophy began to spread into other facets of Greek daily life, and wasn't just for thinkers with too much time on their hands :)
Sunday, October 15, 2017
All You Need is Love (and Five Other Things) - Empedocles
-Empedocles (c. 490-430 BC) was born in Agrigentum (modern-day Agrigento), Sicily.
-We actually know a lot about what he wrote, or, at least, more than the other Pre-Socratics due to the discovery of some of his writings in the 1990s ("The Strasbourg Fragments").
-Combines the religious mystique of Pythagoras, the impenetrability of Heraclitus, and the cosmic vision of Anaxagoras.
-Empedocles claimed that HE was a god (!) and that he was decorated with wreaths everywhere he went, worshiped by the common folk, and was constantly bothered for prophecy and healing.
-There's actually some possible validity to this.
-Also allegedly raised a woman from the dead and cured an entire city of the plague.
-Had long, flowing hair, a purple robe, and bronze-soled shoes.
-Allegedly died by hurling himself into a volcano to vanish without a trace and prove that he was a god (?!).
-Perhaps influenced by Pythagoras, especially with his claims of divinity.
-Believed in reincarnation, especially because he could remember past lives, including being a boy, a girl, a bird, a fish, and even a bush at one point.
-Believed it was wrong to eat meat, because you could be eating your family or friends who had been reincarnated!
-Wrote in hexameter poetry, similar to Parmenides. Maybe influenced by him too, believing also that nothing ever changes and that everything already exists (as "roots") exists in the cosmos and that nothing can ever change or move (they just separate and recombine, which is the nature of the universe).
-The roots: air, water, fire, and earth; these are the basic ingredients of the world.
-Empedocles refers to the names of the roots as gods. For example, fire is Hephaestus, water is Persephone (AKA Nestus), etc.
-For example, combined together with certain proportions, bone is created.
-Used the analogy of painters being able to create a wide variety of new colors from just a few colors through mixing.
-Then, who is the painter? Empedocles believed in two- "Love" and "Strife".
-Because of these two cosmic forces, there is a waxing and waning of all cosmic cycles within the cosmos (which is a sphere).
-When Love is dominant, everything is mixed together and there is total harmony. However, when Strife is dominant, everything separates back to their original roots.
-When there is a balance between the two, we get earth, people, plants, etc.
-Believed that before this, in the initial stages, you just had disembodied limbs and shit (gross). That's how we get monsters too (like in Greek mythology). However, these monsters eventually die out because they are "unsuitable".
-Also believed that reproduction is an ability gained later in the cycle by plants and animals.
-We actually know a lot about what he wrote, or, at least, more than the other Pre-Socratics due to the discovery of some of his writings in the 1990s ("The Strasbourg Fragments").
-Combines the religious mystique of Pythagoras, the impenetrability of Heraclitus, and the cosmic vision of Anaxagoras.
-Empedocles claimed that HE was a god (!) and that he was decorated with wreaths everywhere he went, worshiped by the common folk, and was constantly bothered for prophecy and healing.
-There's actually some possible validity to this.
-Also allegedly raised a woman from the dead and cured an entire city of the plague.
-Had long, flowing hair, a purple robe, and bronze-soled shoes.
-Allegedly died by hurling himself into a volcano to vanish without a trace and prove that he was a god (?!).
-Perhaps influenced by Pythagoras, especially with his claims of divinity.
-Believed in reincarnation, especially because he could remember past lives, including being a boy, a girl, a bird, a fish, and even a bush at one point.
-Believed it was wrong to eat meat, because you could be eating your family or friends who had been reincarnated!
-Wrote in hexameter poetry, similar to Parmenides. Maybe influenced by him too, believing also that nothing ever changes and that everything already exists (as "roots") exists in the cosmos and that nothing can ever change or move (they just separate and recombine, which is the nature of the universe).
-The roots: air, water, fire, and earth; these are the basic ingredients of the world.
-Empedocles refers to the names of the roots as gods. For example, fire is Hephaestus, water is Persephone (AKA Nestus), etc.
-For example, combined together with certain proportions, bone is created.
-Used the analogy of painters being able to create a wide variety of new colors from just a few colors through mixing.
-Then, who is the painter? Empedocles believed in two- "Love" and "Strife".
-Because of these two cosmic forces, there is a waxing and waning of all cosmic cycles within the cosmos (which is a sphere).
-When Love is dominant, everything is mixed together and there is total harmony. However, when Strife is dominant, everything separates back to their original roots.
-When there is a balance between the two, we get earth, people, plants, etc.
-Believed that before this, in the initial stages, you just had disembodied limbs and shit (gross). That's how we get monsters too (like in Greek mythology). However, these monsters eventually die out because they are "unsuitable".
-Also believed that reproduction is an ability gained later in the cycle by plants and animals.
Monday, October 9, 2017
Mind Over Mixture - Anaxagoras
-Anaxagoras (c. 510-428 BC) is the most notable philosopher from Athens until Socrates; kicked off its reputation and tradition of being the intellectual capital of Ancient Greece.
-However, Anaxagoras himself was from Klazomenai, Ionia (near modern-day Izmir, Turkey), so he must have relocated to Athens at some point.
-Became an associate of the Athenian statesman Pericles, who would lead the Delian League against the Peloponnesian League in the Peloponnesian War, as well as building up Athen's power after its wars with Persia.
-Anaxagoras, like Socrates, was also persecuted for not being religious enough, but instead of being executed he just fled the city instead.
-A major component of his philosophy was mind/reason ("nous") as what gives order to the universe.
-However, it's more complicated than that, as reason only accounts for living things. Therefore, it's not exactly "intelligent design"; it's more like an explanation for the abilities of living things.
-For example, humans have lots of nous, but rocks have none.
-The other major component is universal mixture.
-Before the cosmos was formed there was nothing but mind and another infinite substance in which all other things were mixed together. However, in this other substance there were things called "seeds", which were the beginnings of later distinctive substances like air or water. Only nous stands outside of this mixture. It remains unmixed so it can control everything.
-The nous then initiated a cosmic rotation in which the infinite mixture starts to spin around. As it rotates, the seeds of lighter stuff goes out toward the edges and becomes the air and fire of the heavens, and the seeds of moisture and density stay in the middle. At some point, some of the solids fly out of the center and form the sun and moon, burning white with heat.
-We kind of saw stuff involving density earlier with Anaximenes, and the concept of nous is similar to what Xenophanes was saying about a supreme being or god that is ultimately alien to us with its infinite power.
-However, Anaxagoras also adds to this stuff with his own idea- that even tho the stuff is separated out in the rotation, nothing (except for mind) is ever completely separated! Instead, "everything is in everything."
-For example, the ocean may appear to just be made of water, but it also has maybe a bit of air and fire in it as well. In fact, all things contain all other kinds of things!
-According to what Aristotle wrote about Anaxagoras, it's possible that he (Anaxagoras) also agreed with Parmenides that "nothingness" was impossible because something can't come from nothing, but also agreed with the atomists that things CAN change and move, which Parmenides believed was impossible.
-Anaxagoras differed from the atomists by saying that absolute change is not required because everything is ALREADY everything else.
-If you eat some food, that food replenishes your body. Therefore, your body must have a part of itself in that food!
-No matter how small you divide something, even to infinity, it will still contain the ingredients for all other things. Nothing is completely pure.
-So, if everything is everything, then why doesn't everything look the same, or similar?
-According to Anaxagoras, this is because everything is in everything else at different proportions.
-These proportions come from how the seeds were divided up in the rotation, as the seeds were the only original pure things.
-It's possible also that this seems weird because we have an incomplete picture of his philosophy.
-However, he's kind of right in a way about the seeds and ingredients of things, because this is a really primitive explanation of the periodic table!
-Mixture was a real problem for early philosophers.
-Atomists believed (rightly so) that mixture was a complicated process of a mixing (or non-mixture/partial mixture) of atoms, but Anaxagoras believed that it was possible for 2 things to mix together completely, including a drop of wine in the entire ocean! According to Anaxagoras, once you drop a bit of wine in it, even just a tiny bit, it will mix with the rest of the ocean.
-However, Anaxagoras himself was from Klazomenai, Ionia (near modern-day Izmir, Turkey), so he must have relocated to Athens at some point.
-Became an associate of the Athenian statesman Pericles, who would lead the Delian League against the Peloponnesian League in the Peloponnesian War, as well as building up Athen's power after its wars with Persia.
-Anaxagoras, like Socrates, was also persecuted for not being religious enough, but instead of being executed he just fled the city instead.
-A major component of his philosophy was mind/reason ("nous") as what gives order to the universe.
-However, it's more complicated than that, as reason only accounts for living things. Therefore, it's not exactly "intelligent design"; it's more like an explanation for the abilities of living things.
-For example, humans have lots of nous, but rocks have none.
-The other major component is universal mixture.
-Before the cosmos was formed there was nothing but mind and another infinite substance in which all other things were mixed together. However, in this other substance there were things called "seeds", which were the beginnings of later distinctive substances like air or water. Only nous stands outside of this mixture. It remains unmixed so it can control everything.
-The nous then initiated a cosmic rotation in which the infinite mixture starts to spin around. As it rotates, the seeds of lighter stuff goes out toward the edges and becomes the air and fire of the heavens, and the seeds of moisture and density stay in the middle. At some point, some of the solids fly out of the center and form the sun and moon, burning white with heat.
-We kind of saw stuff involving density earlier with Anaximenes, and the concept of nous is similar to what Xenophanes was saying about a supreme being or god that is ultimately alien to us with its infinite power.
-However, Anaxagoras also adds to this stuff with his own idea- that even tho the stuff is separated out in the rotation, nothing (except for mind) is ever completely separated! Instead, "everything is in everything."
-For example, the ocean may appear to just be made of water, but it also has maybe a bit of air and fire in it as well. In fact, all things contain all other kinds of things!
-According to what Aristotle wrote about Anaxagoras, it's possible that he (Anaxagoras) also agreed with Parmenides that "nothingness" was impossible because something can't come from nothing, but also agreed with the atomists that things CAN change and move, which Parmenides believed was impossible.
-Anaxagoras differed from the atomists by saying that absolute change is not required because everything is ALREADY everything else.
-If you eat some food, that food replenishes your body. Therefore, your body must have a part of itself in that food!
-No matter how small you divide something, even to infinity, it will still contain the ingredients for all other things. Nothing is completely pure.
-So, if everything is everything, then why doesn't everything look the same, or similar?
-According to Anaxagoras, this is because everything is in everything else at different proportions.
-These proportions come from how the seeds were divided up in the rotation, as the seeds were the only original pure things.
-It's possible also that this seems weird because we have an incomplete picture of his philosophy.
-However, he's kind of right in a way about the seeds and ingredients of things, because this is a really primitive explanation of the periodic table!
-Mixture was a real problem for early philosophers.
-Atomists believed (rightly so) that mixture was a complicated process of a mixing (or non-mixture/partial mixture) of atoms, but Anaxagoras believed that it was possible for 2 things to mix together completely, including a drop of wine in the entire ocean! According to Anaxagoras, once you drop a bit of wine in it, even just a tiny bit, it will mix with the rest of the ocean.
The Final Cut - Democritus and Leuccipus
-Democritus (c. 460-370 BC) and Leuccipus (c. 5th century BC) are famous for being the pioneers of "atomism" ("atomon" = indivisible, un-cuttable).
-Perhaps a response to Zeno and his paradoxes because they argued that eventually if you keep dividing everything, you WILL hit a smallest point that can't be divided! They called this point the "atom".
-Also had a response to Melissus and his "motion is impossible" theory by saying that there MUST be a nothingness upon which something can move into, because we can see that motion is clearly possible! Therefore, there is "being" (atoms) and "non-being" (void). Motion happens when the atom moves into the void.
-We don't actually know where Leuccipus is from, but we do know for sure that he was well-versed in Parmenides' Eleatic philosophy. However, it's most likely that he was responding to Zeno and Melissus, not Parmenides himself.
-Democritus seems to be directly influence by (or a student of) Leuccipus.
-We're pretty sure Democritus lived around the same time as Socrates, so it's kind of misleading to label him as a "Pre-Socratic".
-Democritus was most likely from Abdera, Thrace.
-We're also not sure who said what in the atomist doctrine, as the chronicles would usually just refer to the atomists as a whole or collective instead of giving credit to individual philosophers.
-Democritus also wrote on both atomism and ethics as well.
-Atomists believed that atoms had a wide variety of shapes so that they can fit together and shit.
-The soul has round atoms that allow us to flow around the body.
-There are an infinite number of atoms; being is not one and infinite, but MANY and infinite!
-They believed that there was no reason why there would be a limit to atoms, and yet no limit to void/space.
-There seems to have been a debate among atomists as to the size of atoms.
-There have always been atoms, and they just bounce around off of each other forever, and that over time the atoms that are similar to other ones connect with each other.
-The heavier atoms tend to form a center, and the lighter ones go to the outside.
-Believed in an infinite number of worlds (due to the infinite number of atoms).
-Democritus also did echo Parmenides and others in that our senses can't completely be trusted because TRUE existence is just atoms and void, which we can't plainly see (like the Matrix with everything just being code).
-Like Xenophanes and Heraclitus said, we don't really know anything! We can only believe...
-Perhaps a response to Zeno and his paradoxes because they argued that eventually if you keep dividing everything, you WILL hit a smallest point that can't be divided! They called this point the "atom".
-Also had a response to Melissus and his "motion is impossible" theory by saying that there MUST be a nothingness upon which something can move into, because we can see that motion is clearly possible! Therefore, there is "being" (atoms) and "non-being" (void). Motion happens when the atom moves into the void.
-We don't actually know where Leuccipus is from, but we do know for sure that he was well-versed in Parmenides' Eleatic philosophy. However, it's most likely that he was responding to Zeno and Melissus, not Parmenides himself.
-Democritus seems to be directly influence by (or a student of) Leuccipus.
-We're pretty sure Democritus lived around the same time as Socrates, so it's kind of misleading to label him as a "Pre-Socratic".
-Democritus was most likely from Abdera, Thrace.
-We're also not sure who said what in the atomist doctrine, as the chronicles would usually just refer to the atomists as a whole or collective instead of giving credit to individual philosophers.
-Democritus also wrote on both atomism and ethics as well.
-Atomists believed that atoms had a wide variety of shapes so that they can fit together and shit.
-The soul has round atoms that allow us to flow around the body.
-There are an infinite number of atoms; being is not one and infinite, but MANY and infinite!
-They believed that there was no reason why there would be a limit to atoms, and yet no limit to void/space.
-There seems to have been a debate among atomists as to the size of atoms.
-There have always been atoms, and they just bounce around off of each other forever, and that over time the atoms that are similar to other ones connect with each other.
-The heavier atoms tend to form a center, and the lighter ones go to the outside.
-Believed in an infinite number of worlds (due to the infinite number of atoms).
-Democritus also did echo Parmenides and others in that our senses can't completely be trusted because TRUE existence is just atoms and void, which we can't plainly see (like the Matrix with everything just being code).
-Like Xenophanes and Heraclitus said, we don't really know anything! We can only believe...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)