-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...
No comments:
Post a Comment