The Great Ideas of Philosophy by Daniel Robinson | Chapter 11: Hippocrates and the Science of Life

[DC]

Mark wrote: “You know, guys, it's also good to read other books on philosophy, such as Copleston's History of Western Philosophy and also Guthrie's Greek Philosophers From Thales to Aristotle. It is possible that that book on philosophy you're using is faulty and may lead you to having a poor or even mistaken appreciation of what these ancient Greek philosophers are really saying.”

Ycel wrote: “Thank you for your well-meaning comment. Copleston’s encyclopedic work is praise-worthy but it is worth noting, too, that his view was essentially Thomistic and that he was also a Jesuit. So to balance the discussion, we would like to see what, for example, Bertrand Russel (an atheist) had to say. It will be very much appreciated if you can point specifically which posts are faulty and then let us know what Copleston had to say and,more importantly, what you think. I think that would enrich the discussion a great deal, which is really the point of this thread.”


Well, if this particular book by the Western PhD is faulty, what's to stop us from believing that other sources are not faulty as well? (Then again, I suppose that at the end of the day, it all stems with the common facts, and the different viewpoints.)

Segue: I actually read somewhere that quantum physicists actually believe that there's no such thing as only one perspective when it comes to studying anything. All scientists may get the standardized stats of, say, the Higgs-Boson particle, but at the end of the day the interpretations about it may vary based on our own perspectives (how we grew up, how we felt at that particular instance, etc).

In addendum to what Ycel has earlier mentioned, I have the following questions: Mark, why do you, in particular, say that the book may be faulty? Has there been instances in the chapter(s) wherein proof otherwise has been noted? What are these instances/arguments?

I personally would appreciate you pointing out per se what these "faulty" arguments are, since I am no Philo major, and would appreciate the correction, if ever :D


Answers to guide questions and comments later!

[DC]

Questions to consider for Chapter 7:

1. Socrates assembles his friends in the years following the defeat of Athens at the hands of Sparta. Explain whether Socrates’s philosophy is the thought of the “losing side.”

I think that people, in general, are sore losers. I feel that this is particularly true for people who have invested not only time and money to an enterprise, but also their emotions. As noted, wars and what not have that tendency to harness the emotions of people - making them feel something about a random stranger just because they're not on the same side. (Simple example: Tekken at the arcade)

So, if you're on the losing side, you'd probably be thinking of how to amend the "loss" you yourself had obtained from someone else. I think a lot of people, especially in the spur of the moment, will think about retaliation and revenge. It's very human, very passionate, and very emotional.

(This reminds me of Sophocles of the former chapters, who wrote of tragedies about Passion vs Reason.)

Socrates was doing something different. He was allowing Reason to champion, instead of Passion. Just imagine that: your nation lost to another more powerful nation. Would you immediately think about the steps your nation should instead have taken/can take so it won't happen again, or would you immediately tweet about the your angry feelings?

So yeah, I don't exactly think that this kind of philosophy is *immediately* of the losing side's. Probably some time after the dust has settled, but not immediately. The introspection he practices is for the long-term, after all, and I believe that a lot of people love short-term solutions better --- because you get immediate results.

[DC]

Questions to consider for Chapter 7:

2. If Socrates was undermining the values and received wisdom of his polis, conclude whether he was justly prosecuted.

In the current world: (view spoiler)[ Socrates was being a troll, and he was summarily banned from his forum (ISPs and all), complete with ultimate deletion of comments.
OR: Socrates was being a semi-vocal critic/activist on social media networks, was summarily thought to be subversive by the Government and Church, and was sentenced to exile in Dapitan.
(hide spoiler)]

Warning: I'm speculating here!

I don't think he was undermining anything. He was merely asking people what they stood for (and why they did), and people got iffy that they could not answer properly. (I have a feeling that it was the elders who got iffy the most- and of course it was the elders who controlled state affairs. Isn't there that prevailing thought about the people who have settled in their preconceived notions and are abject to change since it's too much work to change?)

After all, if you are on unshakeable ground, why would you even think about earthquakes? We have a tendency to be defensive on things we have- surprise surprise- invested emotionally in - whether it be a gadget, a book, or even a love. We get so caught up with the the concept that we tend to be bias about it, no matter how introspective we get. (view spoiler)[("He was on a date with this girl." "No, I'm sure they're just friends." "They were holding hands." "Wasn't it cold out? He probably forgot his mittens again." "They were kissing." "Maybe his lips were cold too." "...") (hide spoiler)]

Oh, and Socrates was being questioning, which, in reality, can be incredibly annoying. Just imagine Socrates asking you what you ate for breakfast, then why you ate it, then why you ate it in that manner, then why you ate it at that time and place, then why you ate breakfast in the first place, then what your principle on breakfast is. And, for each answer you give, he'll ask you again WHY WHY WHY. Annoying, right? (This is also characteristic of children, I believe :D)

Now, is he justly persecuted? I don't think he was, on the grounds mentioned. (view spoiler)[Now that I think about it, it's kind of like the trump charges they placed on Jesus, don't you think? (hide spoiler)] The allegations were seemingly weak, but I guess they just really needed to boot him out... For the sake of society's sanity and keeping of laws?

But he allowed the system to work its way, because he probably was a Lawful Good type believed in the purpose of the system, and probably in the system itself. So I guess for Socrates himself it was a sort of justice for society.

[Mark]

Everyone, I didn't mean to sound like I'm propping up myself here. Only I wanted to say that I do not recognize in your discussions what the ancient Greek philosophers and thinkers, as I have read and understood them, have held most important. (For example, if you want to trace the development of Greek thought, it's a good idea to start with the Pre-Socratics. We then need to ask the questions: what is the great idea of Parmenides and Heraclitus? Of Anaximander and Zeno? Of Thales and Pythagoras? Who were the Sophists, and who the atomists? How did Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle respond to the ideas of their forebears? And why are these important?) Also try to read and understand their philosophies in themselves and as they understood it, and not against the backdrop of our own time. Try not to ascribe motivations animated by modern psychological (or post-modern) prejudices into their thinking. Hopefully, when this is done, we would be acquainted with the three main branches of philosophical thought that has weaved its way into man's intellectual history - three main lines of thought which inspire all our actions whether we know it or not. Just my humble opinion.

P.S. Even the relevance of the guide questions is suspect and seem remote when placed within the context of what you want to do - which is the study of philosophy and its history. Anyway, since I have no energy to offer a correction of these things, maybe it's best for me to just stay on the sidelines and offer only that you ought try to read the words of the philosophers themselves first and then try to get the best commentaries on the matter. Peace!

[Ycel]

MARK:

The study guide link is posted in DC’s first message and you can also check it out here. The lecturer did provide a reading list at the end of each chapter which we are supposed to study aside from the audio lecture. He did cover the pre-Socratics in lectures 3 and 4 and devoted an entire lecture (chapter 3) to Pythagoras. Currently, we are just getting warmed up on Socrates and we’ll be with him and Plato for 4 lectures before we are confronted with 3 lectures on Aristotle. So if the discussion so far has not been to your liking the fault is not in the lecturer, it’s on the students (yes, we are slow, because we also do other things and we do this buddy read when we have time). When DC and I first thought of buddy reading this, we were having second thoughts about opening a thread, but we agreed that it’s best to discuss this openly so people can share their thoughts and maybe offer guidance (as we are not Philo majors). But we anticipated that this entire endeavour will entail hard work and dedication because we have to go back to the source materials to appreciate the lectures. But we agreed, too, that we will be realistic in our expectations. The people who signed up for this buddy read are all “working students” that is why this thread is erratic. We appreciate that they listen to the audio lectures but to ask them to check out the primary sources and participate actively in the discussion is asking too much (even guys with PhD didn’t understand Plato’s Dialogues on first reading). Yet we persevere because we want to learn, but we won’t be able to cover and check out all the materials on our own, so we are very appreciative of your participation. But when you say that we are reading faulty materials it is quite frustrating, because you don’t elaborate (what is bitin?). If you think that we did not thoroughly discuss a topic and there are things that ought to be discussed, please post your thoughts. We can only discuss what is actually being discussed, and if there are only 2 of us talking here, then we’ll only discuss what we know and what material we came to read. So it’s a two-way thing, this messy process called communication. We won’t know what you want to talk about unless you say it.

P.S. If you will look at the thread history, people stopped contributing in the discussion starting with the lecture on Pythagoras and I suspect that it’s because the topic is too abstract. Some who actively participated in the past did tell me that they’d probably join back when we start tackling the existentialists because this is the subject that they know and can confidently discuss. So in the meantime DC and I will keep this thread moving, and you are welcome to join and share your thoughts.

[Mark]

Ycel, part of the reason why there is existentialist philosophy at all is because of modern philosophies' not understanding what the previous philosophies were about in the first place. This will become apparent to students of philosophy when they first understand the Scholastics, and then compare Scholasticism with the ideas of Descartes. But of course none of the modernists want to know about this. And that starts with refusing to really take time to understand what went before.

What went before? The Pre-Scoratics were particularly interested in finding out what is real. They wanted to get to the bottom of things, so to speak, the ultimate things. They talked about change and permanence, the one and the many, with one faction saying all change is illusion (nothing ever changes), and another saying everything is in constant change. Why did they think this kind of investigation is important? And how have they come to hold the answers they did? What are the consequences of their ideas? What were the effects of these philosophies to Greek social life? These are the relevant questions as far as the Pre-Socratics are concerned.

Then Socrates and Plato come along: Socrates with his elenchus and Plato with his Theory of Forms. What were they trying to do? What are universals? What are Forms? And then, what are the consequences of these ideas they advanced? What are their answers to the Pre-Socratics?

And then the next is Aristotle.

OK. I'll see if I can put in something about Pythagoras. He's actually one of the most exciting thinkers ever, the only one I can think of who has a special aversion to beans! Yes, BEANS! :-)

[DC]

Woah! Explosive! Thanks, Mark and Ycel, for your comments :)

Mark wrote: "Everyone, I didn't mean to sound like I'm propping up myself here. Only I wanted to say that I do not recognize in your discussions what the ancient Greek philosophers and thinkers, as I have read and understood them, have held most important... Also try to read and understand their philosophies in themselves and as they understood it, and not against the backdrop of our own time."

I think that with this statement, it seems as if you're deviating from the purpose of this buddy read: to read the book of Robinson, in particular, together :) We're tackling, after all, The Great Ideas of Philosophy, an audiobook featuring the Professor Emeritus Daniel N. Robinson :D

I think you're right, though, that there's more to the historical dimensions of philosophy than that which is tackled in this book -- if we're to go through each and every one, that would be an entire lifetime of studying! *laughs* Not so bad, but our purpose for this thread is to tackle the book in particular.

If you have more to say about the subject, we would sure be glad to hear them! As we've mentioned not enough: we're not Philosophy majors, so additional enlightment on the course would be great.


Mark wrote: " Also try to read and understand their philosophies in themselves and as they understood it, and not against the backdrop of our own time. Try not to ascribe motivations animated by modern psychological (or post-modern) prejudices into their thinking. Hopefully, when this is done, we would be acquainted with the three main branches of philosophical thought that has weaved its way into man's intellectual history - three main lines of thought which inspire all our actions whether we know it or not. Just my humble opinion. "

Oh, goodness, I think you're right. It's SO easy to get trapped in modern thinking :/ I guess it would help if we would orient ourselves to the historical background of the philosopher, which thankfully a number of people have been posting in our consequent discussions :D (Thanks in particular, Ycel!)

I know this is one of my faults too (it's just easier for me to attempt to modernize it for my better understanding!), so just holler if you think I'm deviating too much :D

(view spoiler)[I can't promise to change my pattern of thinking, but I'll try to better orient myself in past perspective :) (hide spoiler)]


Mark wrote: "P.S. Even the relevance of the guide questions is suspect and seem remote when placed within the context of what you want to do - which is the study of philosophy and its history. "

I'll be honest and say that I'm suspicious of the questions too (they're included in the audiobook package), since they seem to ask for opinions on a certain area of the topic, and I don't seem to get to discuss the actual content when I answer them. Hah!

But hey, that's why you're free to ask questions that could help lead us into better understanding of the philosophy by these famed people, right? :) Go ahead and bring your questions to the table: We are not hesitant to answer them if we're able :D


Ycel wrote: "The study guide link is posted in DC’s first message and you can also check it out here. The lecturer did provide a reading list at the end of each chapter which we are supposed to study aside from the audio lecture. "

Hmm. Think I better take note of additional references in my introductory posts per chapter, wherein I note the questions :)


Oh, and your latest post is interesting, Mark. It's quite eye-opening. I remember now your mentions of, say, the One and the Many in your previous posts. LOL at aversion to beans, btw!

[Ycel]

MARK:

I was trying to draw you into the discussion of the One and the Many when I asked you to share it in this post :) and borrowing Plato’s style of feigning ignorance, but alas, it did not work. LOL!

So now that we’re at it, it is good to revisit this because I agree with you wholeheartedly that it is important (always) to know the historical context of a philosophical idea (since philosophers are a product of their time).

So here’s a summary of what we have covered so far:

PART I

The lecture series appropriately started with the Upanishads and Greek mythology, because even before the Presocratic philosophers came on the scene, religious mythology was already setting the conceptual stage for philosophical speculation. Religion, then as now, was a powerful social force in shaping views of human nature and the cosmos. The Greeks believed that the gods brought about natural disasters, made demands on human conduct, and determined our place in the afterlife. While Homer (via the Iliad and the Odyssey) and Hesiod (Theogony) offered mythological explanations of the world, their cosmologies do not attribute the creation of the world to the work of the gods leaving much room for speculation about how the physical cosmos emerged, what it was composed of, and what gives it order. So the central question that emerged and preoccupied the Presocratics was: “What is the common stuff from which everything came?”

The first school of thought came from the Greek city-state Miletus.

Thales held that water is the basic stuff of all things.

Anaximander said, no, the underlying cause of everything was an indefinable stuff that he called the boundless. He insisted that there is a fundamental conflict between the qualities that we see in the four primary elements: something which is wet cannot cause something which is dry. If anyone of the four elements was the primary substance, spread infinitely throughout the cosmos, then it would counter act the others and prevent them from existing. Thus, the ultimate cause of things must be some invisible and limitless physical substance, which is capable of morphing into all the physical things that we see. So he proposed a non-sensory explanation of things.

Anaximenes disagreed with the two guys and posited that condensed and expanded air is the source of everything.

Next came the Ionian School of Philosophy, led by Heraclitus and Pythagoras.

Heraclitus burst into the scene and introduced the problem of flux (everything is constantly changing) and uttered that famous line (which, if you were listening to the audio lecture closely, Dr. Robinson quoted in Greek): “You cannot step twice into the same rivers; for fresh waters are ever flowing in upon you. It scatters and it gathers; it advances and retires.” His solution to the problem of constant change is a unifying plan that underlies the coherence of all natural changes and harmonizes their opposing tendencies which he dubbed the logos (Greek word meaning plan or formula).

Pythagoras, despite his aversion to beans, was held in high esteem during his time and maintained a cult following. His central philosophy is mathematics because he believed that mathematical relations govern all things (foremost among these are the Pythagorean theorem, the Tetractys and musical harmony). It is believed that he came into contact with Hindu thought because he believed in the transmigration of souls.

So we can see that the concept of a divine plan emerging with the Ionians.

The most radical philosophical theory among the early Greeks was proposed by a group of philosophers from the city of Elea, a Greek colony on the south-west coast of Italy. They are referred to as Eleatic philosophers in honor of their hometown.

Xenophanes’ contribution is three-fold. First is his philosophical position of relativism, namely, the view that the truth of some important claims depends on the views of some individual or social group. So Xenophanes is the forerunner of that well-used phrase “It depends.” Second, Xenophanes criticized Homer, Hesiod and Pythagoras for their anthropomorphic conceptions of the gods (meaning, the tendency to ascribe human qualities to non-human things, and this occurs in religion when we describe divine beings as having human qualities). He particularly disliked Homer for ascribing to the gods all things that are shameful and disgraceful among mortals, such as theft, adultery and deception which he deemed unacceptable. So his solution is his third contribution: God is identical with nature as a whole—a position that we now called pantheism, literally meaning “all God”. The standard view of God in Western civilization (in ancient times as well as now) is that God created the world, but exists independently of it: God has his own unique identity, and the created universe has its own. Pantheism, though, denies that God and the universe have their own independent identities; rather, they are one and the same thing.

The plot thickens as Parmenides joins the fray. He argues that only one unchanging thing exists, and it is an indivisible spherical-shaped thing, like a toy marble, which he calls “the One”. It might appear that the world consists of countless different things—me, you, the chair I’m sitting on, the dog barking down the street. According to Parmenides, though, this is all just an illusion, and I can’t trust my common sense; the truth is that only the One exists. (view spoiler)[(Enter The Matrix) (hide spoiler)]

Zeno, despite Parmenides’ weird theory, defended him and held that our common sense views of the world are even more absurd than Parmenides’ view of the One (he illustrated this in a series of paradoxes which I find too obscure to even discuss here).

So at this point, we can see that the Presocratics wrestled with the view that the world is composed of many things yet there seems to be a unifying force behind all of this diversity (the problem of the one and the many). How then do we reconcile these two views of reality? As we have seen so far, the standard solution for Presocratic philosophers was to seek out a single source or explanation of all that exists, whether it’s water, fire, mathematical relations, or the One. There is, though, an alternative strategy called pluralism which in philosophy refers to the view that many kinds of things exist. Rather than reduce all things to a single force or substance, why not instead reduce everything to a few basic forces of substances? This is the approach taken by two Presocratic philosophers, namely, Empedocles and Anaxagoras.

[Ycel]

PART II

Empedocles held the view that there are four basic elements–namely earth, air, fire and water–which are organized by (hold your breath): (view spoiler)[ the two forces of love and strife (hide spoiler)]. (view spoiler)[Seriously? (hide spoiler)] All change that occurs in the cosmos results from the combination, separation and regrouping of these indestructible elements, depending on the amount of Love and Strife that is present. I suspect this is the basis for Woodstock and Free Love, and possibly, the annual orgies called Carnivale and Mardi Gras. But I digress.

And so Anaxogoras made it even more ridiculous by his theory of dualism, that there are two radically distinct types of things in the cosmos—matter and Mind—each of which performs its unique role in creating the universe and all that it contains. I won’t dilate on his cosmic blender thingamajig because it’s quite laughable.

The next important, and arguably, the most notable advance in Presocratic philosophy was a theory called Atomism set forth by Leucippus and Democritus. While most of the previous theories about the universe that we’ve examined so far have been rather strange, Atomism is different in that its essential features are the ones that we hold to today. Its central thesis is that the world is composed of indivisible particles called atoms that exist within empty space (the exact opposite of Anaxagoras’s position that matter was infinitely divisible). Everything contained in the universe, then, results from the clumping together of these atomic particles. There was no scientific equipment at the time that could prove or disprove this theory, so when physicists finally discovered 2,000 year later what they believed was the tiniest particle of matter, they named it the atom, in honor of this Presocratic theory.

The final group of Presocratic philosophers are the Sophists (Greek for “wise ones”), a collection of traveling freelance teachers with a reputation for skepticism. They filled an important educational function because there were no public schools, but their teaching was controversial and touched on important philosophical themes. Sophists taught their students an arguing technique called anti-logic, which involved arguing both sides of a case as strongly as possible. They were accused of undermining the very notion of truth by making the weaker argument appear the stronger. Because of this, the word “sophist” eventually became a term of contempt for someone who reasons subtly but deceitfully. They were not interested in the truth, they argued to win. (Sounds familiar, yes?)

The most formidable of the Sophists were Protagoras and Gorgias, whom Socrates confront in the Dialogues.

Protagoras is most remembered for his bold (and foolish) pronouncement that “man is the measure of all things.” He is the precursor of religious agnosticism. In contrast to atheism, he denied the capacity to know anything about the gods whatsoever, as expressed in the very term “agnosticism” which literally means “no knowledge.”

Concerning the gods, I am unable to know either that they exist or that they do not exist or what form they have. For there are many obstacles to knowledge: the obscurity of the matter and the brevity of human life.

Gorgias was foremost a teacher of rhetoric and argumentation, and did not aim to teach moral or political virtue. He is most known for putting forward three absurd positions: that (1) nothing exists; (2) if anything exists, it cannot be known; and (3) if anything can be known, it cannot be communicated. He maintained that there is a big gap between the sensory mechanisms by which we perceive external things, and the mental mechanisms by which we communicate through speech. They are each in their own realms, and because of this our speech has no real connection with the things that we perceive. Thus, if anything can be known, it cannot be communicated. This is what Dr. Robinson referred to as the problem of knowledge.

So this is the historical context for the current topic on Socrates and Plato (and later, Aristotle). The Presocratic philosophers before the Sophists showed a remarkable amount of creativity as they tried to offer rational explanations of the physical world around them but as we see, some of these explanations were carried to the point of absurdity. So the Sophists provided a kind of reality check. Just because a theory is interesting, that by itself doesn’t mean it’s correct. Just because an argument is well structured and looks compelling, that doesn’t mean that its conclusion is correct. The skeptical message of the Sophists is that we need to view philosophical and religious theories with suspicion. But the skepticism of the Sophists is not an end in itself. People have a built-in need to ask big questions like “where did everything come from?” and then offer far reaching answers to those questions. The next round of great philosophers – Socrates, Plato and Aristotle – offered some of the boldest and most influential views imaginable. All the while, though, the skepticism of the Sophists lurked in the shadows as a force that they had to reckon with.

The lecture series provides structure to the discussion, so as I keep admonishing in my past comments, hold on to your horses. We will come to Scholasticism and Descartes later on, but for now, let’s see what the 3 greatest Greek philosophers have to show us. All in good time, dear friends.

[DC]

Hey guys! How are you? You all still good? :)

If you're all right and all ready, let's move on to Chapter 8 - Plato's Search for Truth by, say, tomorrow? I'll have the links and questions up within the week :D

Thanks!

[Ycel]

DC: OK to move to Chapter 8. If there's anything more on Socrates, we can still post comments as he and Plato overlap.

[DC]

Chapter 8: Plato's Search for Truth

Scope: (view spoiler)[There is much revealed by Plato in his dialogue Meno, including a successful counter to the Sophist challenge about the search for truth—the challenge according to which such a search is either impossible (for one doesn’t even know what one is searching for) or unnecessary (for if one knows what it is, then no search is needed). If one knows what one is looking for, why is a search necessary? If one doesn’t know, how is a search possible? In Meno, we get a particularly clear version of that famous Platonic solution to the problem of knowledge, knowledge as a form of reminiscence. The reminiscence theory of knowledge is opposed to the empirical, the latter grounding knowledge in perception. (hide spoiler)]

Link to audio file: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B37rZ...

Noted recommended reading:
Plato. Meno, in The Dialogues of Plato, 2 vols., B. Jowett, trans. Random House, 1937.

Questions to Consider:
1. Explain whether the “Socratic method” is able to do any more than disclose confusions—whether it has a creative as well as a critical contribution to make.
2. Summarize how the notion of “pure forms” and skepticism regarding perception stand up against modern scientific conceptions of knowledge.

[Ycel]

Heeeh. Theory of Forms. Here we go.

[DC]

Chapter 8: Plato's Search for Truth

I think this seems more meatier in substance than the past chapters, yet we're still in the arena of the methods to get to The Truth, and not actually what that Truth is. Nevertheless, an interesting one.

(Hmm, I guess I should add on the scope for the chapter... Edited initial post to add this!)

Actual Notes: (view spoiler)[
*Meno: "How will you inquire, Socrates, into that which you do not know? What will you put forth as the subject of inquiry? And if you find what you want, how will you ever know that this is the thing which you did not know?"
(I could totally imagine that, as an immediate response, Socrates casting a knowing and pitying glance on Meno, haha!)

*What a note on barbarians as non-Hellenic people. Elitist indeed! LOL on BA BA BA BA -> BARBARIAN , though xD
Segue: In my alma mater, those who are not members of any orgs are called "barbarians". Interesting.

*A common man suddenly understanding a^2 + b^2 = c^2? Really? I don't think I'm part of the common man then, because I'll probably won't get it immediately D: Or maybe Socrates was on the top of the WISE MEN scale and was able to impart knowledge with just touching the sticks on the sand :o Ooooh :o

*Knowledge as a form of reminiscence. (If that's the case, I must be among the foolish because I keep forgetting things! D:)

*Truth as that which is unchangeable, and will always be true. This as opposed to Experience, which is perceiving the world from our sense organs. (Yes, this has indeed been tackled in former chapters!)

*Search for Truth as something people have intuitively? Hmm.

*Soma-sima! The body as a penitentiary! Totally rad concept! Though it makes me think whether the endpoint of this thought is a bunch of philosophers killing themselves - if only to reach that Truth.

*LOL at mortgage paid before heat death and what not XD

*What IS the real world equivalent of (-1)^1/2? And Pi indeed going on forever? It's crazy how we just accept that so-and-so is the official formula of getting the so-and-so area of the so-and-so shape, especially if it involves something as, well, eternal as pi!

*Logical -> Truth -> not Experience -> gift of Rationality
Hmm.

*Yes, it's not so much about what Socrates actually said, but the mere thought that he imparted! Geez, why can't you guys take some chill pills about it for a second? It's so... epistemological, when Truth may just be at our fingertips! Rah!

*Dialectical <3 (argumentative approach not just rhetorical, but a bona fide search for Truth - not Victory) --- So yeah, trolls are allowed here, as long as they don't win. Got it.

*A spiritually guided inquiry? Really? Does this have something to do with the entire cosmic soul shebang? (view spoiler)[SHEBANGS O BABY WHEN SHE MOVES SHE MOVES (hide spoiler)]

*A good listener, a good conversationalist, the end being not the discovery of what is unknown, but to find AGAIN the already known... Socrates totally proved there ARE aliens out there, and we may just not know it. (view spoiler)[TAKE THAT YOU SKEPTICS WE'VE GOT A DEAD *WISE* GUY ON OUR SIDE! BWAHAHA (hide spoiler)]

*You cannot discriminate based on experience. -> I love this. I super-love this. I've learned also that this is true - you can memorize a work in, say, 10 years at a job, but the next person next to you may memorize the necessaries in 6 months. I guess there IS a kind of rationality at play, and not necessarily experience. STILL, it may not necessarily be innate, right? It could be a nurture thing?
(hide spoiler)]


Oh, and, haha, is math TRULY constant and unchanging? Here's a problem for you:

I raked up 24 piles of leaves in my front yard. I raked up 39 piles of leaves in my back yard. If I put them together, how many piles of leaves do I have?

Answer: (view spoiler)[One big pile, my friend. That being the case, that simple problem shows that arithmetic is not necessarily unchanging, yes? Haha! But I suppose my example deals with synergy, etc... But what do you think? (hide spoiler)]

[Mark]

Hi everyone! How are you all? :-)

I come at this from a different vantage point and so I do not dismiss the Pre-Socratics, let alone dismiss them so casually. Why did the Pre-Socratics concern themselves with the things that they concerned themselves with? I think that is an important question. And the answer, in part, helps the student of philosophy have a better understanding of the context within which to understand Plato's Theory of Forms.

For a better appreciation of the contributions of Pre-Socratic thought, here's an article from philosopher Ed Feser. http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2008/...

(Please also read WKC Guthrie's The Greek Philosophers From Thales to Aristotle. It's a short book, and I think it will help a lot http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13... ). :-)

And for some humor, here's a comic strip on Zeno's paradoxes and young Socrates' response :-) http://thewrightopinion.files.wordpre...

[Ycel]

Chapter 8: Plato's Search for Truth

The lecture is about the dialogue Meno, a middle Platonic dialogue (for a quick refresher on the groupings of the dialogues, check out my previous notes under the topic “What is the Socratic method?”).

What is the Meno all about?
(view spoiler)[
A. The basic theme of this widely-read middle dialogue is whether virtue can be taught. Meno was a student of one of the greatest Sophists, Gorgias, who is not interested in teaching about virtue (arete), but training people to speak cleverly to put speech in the service of power.
1. First, Meno asks Socrates if virtue can be taught. Socrates then asks Meno to define what is meant by virtue. Is it knowledge? (Socrates doesn’t really give us the answer he could, but this is where he is headed, but Meno isn’t going to cooperate).
2. The character Meno attempts an enumeration of virtuous things or characteristics (in line with Gorgias’ methods), but Socrates insists on knowing the essence of virtue. We must remember that to Socrates and Plato, mathematics (and particularly geometry) was the underlying model of knowledge (this requires an “every and only” definition or answer to the question). A given example of triangle is not the essential or “real” triangle.
3. Socrates uses the elenctic* method to dismiss individual examples of virtue in attempting to get to the heart of what makes virtue what it is.
(*elenchus: in logic, an argument that disproves a proposition by proving the direct contrary to its conclusion. The word has the connotation of “cross-examination” and is a characteristic of the Socratic dialogue form. The adjectival form is “elenctic.”)

B. At this point, a second attempt is made at getting at virtue.
1. Meno tries again by stating that virtue is the acquisition of “good things.”
2. Socrates defeats this by saying that everybody wants good things. Meno uses gold and silver as an example of “good things.” Socrates is driving at a higher goal and tries to show that gold and silver (and by extension, worldly goods or triumphs) are not the answer to the question of virtue.
3. Meno blames Socrates for not giving him the answer. Because of his poor (or perhaps misguided) training by Gorgias, he is lazy and doesn’t want to make the effort required by a true Socratic dialogue.

C. In typical Platonic style, there is a third attempt at answering the same question; each attempt brings us by degrees to the final insight.
1. Meno says that Socrates makes him numb, that he, Meno, knew more when he started the discussion than he knows now. He doesn’t want to make the investment, and therefore throws the Socratic dialogue off the track.
2. Meno next tries sophistry by using the argument that a person cannot inquire into either what he already knows or what he does not know. Thus, he doesn’t really have to inquire into virtue or knowledge. Obviously, the Sophists have served him poorly.
3. Socrates’ answer is a long, dogmatic passage that indicates that the dialectic has broken down. He states that the soul is immortal, that it is reincarnated (an echo of the Indian Vedic knowledge), and all knowledge is therefore a recollection of things already in the soul from a previous life.
4. He illustrates his point by calling up a slave boy (“he knows Greek, he speaks our language”), whom he undertakes to instruct in geometry, even though the boy doesn’t know anything about it. Yet he is open to instruction. Even though his first answer is wrong, Socrates gets him to eventually understand. Socrates uses this as an example that he is “remembering” what he already knows. This is a good example of the propaedeutic method, that is, leading one forward as one does a child step by step to understanding. This is in contrast to the eristic (argumentative and confrontational) approach of the Sophists. But wait, what did Socrates draw on the sand?
(view spoiler)[ (hide spoiler)]

D. The dialogue comes to an ending without resolution (hence it is called an aporetic dialogue).
1. Meno doesn’t really want to go on. He is happy in his ignorance.
2. According to Socrates, virtue is teachable, but only if it is knowledge. But is virtue knowledge? Perhaps not, for if it were, there would be teachers and students of it, but there are not.
3. At this juncture, the character Anytus is introduced. He is one of those who would eventually accuse Socrates of corrupting the youth of Athens. He hates Sophists and thinks Socrates is one.
4. Socrates engages Anytus in a dialectical discussion, but Anytus is impervious to this, and to real intellectual improvement. Socrates asks how can the Athenians have lost the Peloponnesian War and how can they be so unvirtuous if the politicians like Anytus have done such a good job of educating them?
5. Anytus tells Socrates not to run down his betters and cites famous Athenians such as Themistocles (an earlier Athenian statesman and naval commander who defeated the Persians at Salamis in 480 B.C.) and Pericles (the ruler of Athens in its “Golden Age” from 445-430 B.C.) and other famous Greeks.
6. One theme which emerges here is the disjunction or conflict between knowledge and power, which is a persistent theme in Plato’s philosophy.
7. Virtue, since it isn’t knowledge (here we see some of Socrates’ irony) comes from the gods, and therefore Meno must be virtuous (more irony). He urges Meno to go talk to Anytus and let him know that Socrates’ goals are really the same as those of Anytus and the other politicians of Athens, even if he criticizes them (here Socrates is being more serious, since he realizes Anytus and his cronies are out to get him).
(hide spoiler)]

[Mark]

Question: The Greek word used was "arete". This is commonly translated as "virtue". But what did the Greeks mean when they used "arete"?

(Also, why did Socrates concern himself with the Sophists?)

[And a look back on the Pre-Socratics: looking at their theories about the cosmos (by the way, what did they mean when they talked about the "cosmos"?) what can be said about their (the philosophers' attitudes toward belief in the divine?]

[Mark]

By the way, I also highly recommend the book "Ten Philosophical Mistakes" by Mortimer Adler. Here's a short review. http://conservativenewager.wordpress....

[Ycel]

And a look back on the Pre-Socratics: looking at their theories about the cosmos (by the way, what did they mean when they talked about the "cosmos"?) what can be said about their (the philosophers' attitudes toward belief in the divine?

Pre-Socratics were preoccupied with the question: “What is the common stuff from which everything came?” or stated in another way, “Of what is the world ultimately composed?” They concerned themselves with the external world, the Cosmos, and did not explain its workings in terms of mythological explanations, but their method is a mixture of scientific observation and philosophic speculations.

Also, why did Socrates concern himself with the Sophists?
As outlined in my previous post, the Pre-Socratics wrestled with the view that the world is composed of many things yet there seems to be a unifying force behind all of this diversity (the problem of the one and the many). Their philosophies clashed with each other (for cosmic unity is confronted by the problem of flux) bringing no coherence and thus making the Pre-Socratic philosophies subject to mistrust (and ridicule).

The Sophists came into the scene at a time when the focus shifted from Cosmos to Man, owing to the exposure of Greece to other non-Hellenic cultures (Egypt, Persia, Babylon). So the questions now became “Are various customs, religious and ethical codes merely conventions or not? Was Hellenic culture a sacred ordinance, or could it be changed, modified, adapted, developed?” Sophism then dealt with man and the civilization and customs of man.

Sophists were widely-travelled; they journeyed around the Greek region, but were frequently in Athens, Greece’s greatest city, and sometimes functioned as political representatives from their home towns. At the time they filled an important educational function. In the absence of any public schools, parents’ options were limited when it came to educating their children. The two common choices were for fathers to train their own sons in the family business, or to find tradesman nearby who would take on their son as an apprentice. Sophists offered a third alternative, which was particularly attractive for wealthy families. Sophists claimed to be able to teach anything and charging a fee for their services. They were particularly good at rhetoric and politics, which appealed to parents who wanted their sons to be civic leaders.

The word "Sophist" had originally no bad connotation; it meant, as nearly as may be, what we mean by "professor." A Sophist was a man who made his living by teaching young men certain things that, it was thought, would be useful to them in practical life. As there was no public provision for such education, the Sophists taught only those who had private means, or whose parents had. This tended to give them a certain class bias, which was increased by the political circumstances of the time.

If the Sophists were merely teachers-for-hire, this would be nothing remarkable. The reality, though, is that much of their teaching was controversial and touched on important philosophical themes. First, like other Pre-Socratic philosophers, they advocated a naturalistic world view in place of the traditional and older mythological world view. This served to undermine traditional moral and religious values of the children they were instructing. Second, many Sophists taught their students an arguing technique called anti-logic, which involved arguing both sides of a case as strongly as possible. For example, a book titled Twofold Arguments, written by an anonymous Sophist, compiles arguments pro and contra on ethical issues, such as moral goodness, honor, justice, and whether virtue can be taught. The result of teachings like these was that Sophists were accused of undermining the very notion of truth by making the weaker argument appear the stronger. Third, there was an on-going debate among the Pre-Socratic philosophers whether so-called facts about the world are simply matters of human convention or matters of nature—custom versus nature. The Sophists usually defended the “custom” position, especially in matters of ethics and political systems.

Because of these controversial components of their teaching, eventually the word “Sophist” became a term of contempt for someone who reasons subtly but deceitfully. Among the many Sophists teaching throughout the Greek world at the time, the most renowned were Protagoras (who said that “Man is the measure of all things”) and Gorgias, a formidable Sophist whom Socrates confronted in the dialogue Gorgias. Gorgias was foremost a teacher of rhetoric and argumentation, and did not aim to teach moral or political virtue. However, some of his writings, which were largely exercises in argumentation, flirted with skepticism by taking a seemingly absurd position and defending it with persuasive force. For example, one book, titled The Encomium on Helen defends Helen of Troy’s acts of adultery, thereby conveying a kind of ethical skepticism. Today this might not strike us as being particularly controversial, but it might be like arguing for the view that Hitler was a really nice guy. Even if it was just a rhetorical exercise in argumentation, it crosses an important line of ethical protocol. Even more dramatically, his book titled On Not Being argues for three absurd positions: that (1) nothing exists; (2) if anything exists, it cannot be known; and (3) if anything can be known, it cannot be communicated. So the Sophists did not really help solve philosophical questions, but helped produce an army of relativists and skeptics.

Socrates and Plato’s great challenge then, was to establish the sure foundation of true knowledge and ethical judgments that the Sophists sought to undermine.

The Greek word used was "arete". This is commonly translated as "virtue". But what did the Greeks mean when they used "arete"?

“Arete” loosely meant excellence, but Aristotle specifically said that arete is what man needs to achieve eudaemonia. I won’t pre-empt the next chapters.

*************************

As a follow up post on the SOCRATIC METHOD, it is kind of hard to envision the dialectic if one has not read the Dialogues (and they’re not a breeze to be sure). The classic description of the Socratic Method in legal teaching that I know is still the one given by the formidable Professor Kingsfield in the novel and film "The Paper Chase":

"The study of law is something new and unfamiliar to most of you; unlike any schooling you’ve ever been through before. We used the Socratic Method here; I call on you, ask you a question and you answer. Why don’t I just give you a lecture? Because through my questions you learn to teach yourselves. Through this method of questioning, answering, questioning, answering we seek to develop in you the ability to analyze that vast complex of facts that constitute the relationships of members within a given society.

At times you may feel that you have found the correct answer. I assure you that this is a total delusion on your part; you will never find the correct absolute and final answer. In my classroom there is always another question; another question that follows your answer. You are on a treadmill; my little questions spin the tumblers of your mind. You’re on an operating table; my little questions are the fingers probing your brain. We do brain surgery here. You teach yourselves the law but I train your mind. You come in here with a skull full of mush and you leave thinking like a lawyer."

The Socratic Method in the Paper Chase is quite intimidating though, but the novel/film perfectly captures the nerve-wracking first year in law school.

[Mark]

There are two core ideas that all Sophists shared. These two ideas are the main reasons why Socrates dedicated his life to combatting the Sophists.

P.S. Another Greek word that is sure to come up in close connection with "arete" is the word "telos".

[Ycel]

Dear buddies:

Some of us are going through some challenging times, so this thread has taken a backseat. Do check back when we're ready to pick up the discussion again :)

[DC]

Hello, friends. Do you think we can pick up the golden thread of our conversations here again? How about we start again on the first week of April?

Let's go ahead and start with Chapter 9 this time, the lesson on Plato and virtue. I'll post up the links by next week, if you're all good for this.

Let's resume the bloody Philo classes!

[Ycel]

DC!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hamishooooooo!!!!!!!

[DC]

Chapter 9: Can Virtue Be Taught?

Scope: In the dialogue Protagoras, Socrates must learn from Protagoras how his young friend Hippocrates should be educated and where he should be schooled if were he to become a fine sculptor or an expert physician. Receiving predictable replies from Protagoras, Socrates then asks what it is that young Hippocrates should aspire to be for it to make sense for him to study with Protagoras! The answer given by Protagoras is “virtue,” but then Socrates must ask whether this is the sort of thing that can be taught.

Link to audio file: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B37rZ...

Noted recommended reading:
Julia Annas, Platonic Ethics, Old and New. Cornell University Press, 1999
T. H. Irwin, Plato's Ethics. Oxford University Press, 1995

Questions to Consider:
1. Explain whether the Socratic notion of virtue is taught in contemporary educational institutions.
2. Describe how Socrates would likely have been received by the politicians of this age.

[Ycel]

Chapter Nine: Can Virtue Be Taught?

This lecture is about the dialogue Protagoras.

Notes on Protagoras - The Dialectic of the Many and the One:
(view spoiler)[
The Protagoras, named after the famous Sophist philosopher, is an early dialogue which, along with the Gorgias, marks a transition to the great dialogues of Plato’s middle period. As mentioned in an earlier post, Socrates and Plato did not like the Sophists, believing them to be mis-educating the young men of Athens by their emphasis on flashy rhetorical tricks at the expense of true learning. They also took exception to the Sophists’ penchant for charging for their teaching. Reflecting the basic opposition of their views, the Protagoras is a dialogue of opposites, with Socrates skillfully showing the defects of the Sophistic way by contrasting its features and ends with those of the Socratic method. However, typical of the early dialogues (and many of the later ones), Protagoras ends in an aporia, an impasse, where there is no clear-cut answer to the underlying question (and this is why I think Prof. Robinson is throwing back the question to us). We come to know only what we don’t know. Although it doesn’t take us all the way to the unity of virtue or a full knowledge of virtue, it undermines the Sophistic attempts to create a pluralized definition of virtue. It provides engaging vignettes of the Sophists, seen at a gathering of Protagoras and some of his followers.

In terms of subject matter, Protagoras is notable for its skillful juggling of many themes: pleasure and virtue; the methods of rhetoric versus dialectic; logos and mythos (reason and poetry); and finally, unity and plurality.

Socrates and Plato vs. the Sophists
Socrates and Plato are interested in unity and coherence while the Sophists thrive in ambiguity and relativism. This is the opposite of Socratic precision and analysis, perhaps symbolized by the difference between poetry and mathematics.

Protagoras coined the phrase “man is the measure of all things.” This states his belief in relativity and plurality. However, this position leads to solipsism and makes any reasonable discourse impossible, since each person interprets words and reality from his or her own point of view. Socrates believes that it is precisely this plurality (or relativism) that is misleading and dangerous and he attacks it through his method of dialectic.

The setting of the dialogue is very similar to that of the Symposium. It is held in the same house and the same people are there. It is an enlarged dialectical argument in three parts: first Sophistic section, dialectic; second Sophistic section, dialectic; third Sophistic section, dialectic. Between the second and third sections, there is an aporia.

Socrates begins by narrating (to an anonymous friend) the story of being awakened before dawn by Hippocrates, who wants to go hear the famous Sophist, Protagoras, newly arrived in Athens. Socrates suggests that it is too early and that they should walk about discoursing until sunrise. Here, as in other dialogues, we again see the symbolism of the sun representing knowledge. The walking also symbolizes the journey of the dialectic, the way home to truth (Plato makes Socrates the “new Odysseus.”) This walk also tells us that both Socrates and Plato believe that the dialectic (as opposed to rhetoric) is the best way to teach. Finally, Socrates gives freely of his time and wisdom, and doesn’t charge for it like the Sophists.

The Dialogue
Upon arriving at the house of Callias, a wealthy Athenian, the pair is met by the eunuch doorkeeper. He is tired of all the Sophists and their comings and goings. He thinks Socrates is a Sophist and doesn’t want to let him in. Socrates clearly states that he is not a Sophist and is admitted. This is Plato’s clever use of humor and irony. The eunuch represents the demos of Athens who also couldn’t recognize the difference between Socrates and the Sophists. They are, in effect, mental eunuchs.

The admission scene at Callias’ house is described like Odysseus’ descent into Hades (Odyssey, Book 11). This Hades is full of Sophists (compare also to Dante’s Inferno, peopled with real figures). The three main Sophists are Protagoras, Hippias and Prodicus, the latter two in particular Plato treats with high comedy and parody.

Plato goes up to Protagoras, says his young friend wants to study with him and directly asks Protagoras “What do you do? What value would it be for my friend to study with you?” Protagoras delivers an encomium to himself, comparing himself to the poets Homer, Hesiod and Simonides. He analogizes Sophistry and poetry, but whereas the poets hid behind poetry, he (Protagoras) regards himself as courageous enough to call himself “sophist and educator”. Despite telling Socrates that he likes the way Socrates asks questions, he gives an ambiguous answer. Socrates refines the question: what do you teach? To whom? What is the benefit? Protagoras answers that he teaches politics and good citizenship, that is, political virtue. Socrates says he suspects political virtue is impossible to teach, because there is no techne involved. There are no specialists to call on, like shipbuilding or masonry.

This leads to the second Sophistic section. Protagoras asks if Socrates would like to hear a story or engage in a dialectic. While Socrates would prefer the dialectic, the crowd wants a story and Protagoras, who agrees that this would be “more pleasant” than the hard work of a dialectical argument, answers with a double origin myth. The myth of Prometheus is cited (the origin of the “natural” man) and then the account of Zeus and Hermes bringing justice to mankind is adduced. These two myths cover both nomos (conventional law) and physis (nature). Sophists don’t believe that conventional laws should be taken particularly seriously. Protagoras (a foreigner) goes on to say that this is why Athens is ruled the way it is (democratically). It is a relativistic affair, justified by the particular myth just cited.

Socrates starts the second dialectical section. He tries to bring Protagoras back by asking if virtue is a unity or a diversity. Naturally, Protagoras answers ambiguously. Socrates makes an argument for the function of virtue. Protagoras bristles and backs off. This leads to the first aporia. The aporia enables Plato to make the point, through the interchange of the characters, that the dialectic has its own rules and can’t be bent to the whim of the Sophists.

The third Sophistic section begins with Protagoras agreeing to ask questions in the dialectic method. He begins by asking Plato about the poet Simonides, meant to trap Socrates. Socrates turns the tables by giving three different interpretations, all saturated in irony and humor.

This leads to the third dialectic section. Hippias wants to speak, but Alcibiades cuts him off. Socrates wants more thinking and less talking. He brings the discussion back from poetry to the problem of the unity of virtue, Protagoras shifts his ground and says that the virtues do resemble each other fairly closely, except perhaps courage. Socrates then asks how pleasure relates to good. Protagoras affirms that, for him, pleasure does not equal good, but he points out that “the many” hold the opposite view (i.e., that pleasure is the good). Socrates shows that hedonism (pursuit of pleasure) is inconsistent with akrasia (weakness of the will, or the tendency to do the opposite of what one knows is the right thing to do). Protagoras agrees with Socrates that pleasure is not the good. The other Sophists chime in and claim to understand and agree with Plato, but only so that they can teach others for money (in other words, they don’t really care about the truth of the issue, they only want a position that they can teach). This professional jealousy and bickering shows that the Sophists are interested in only themselves and their position. This inconsistency and plurality of view underscores the point that Plato (through Socrates) is trying to say about the unity of virtue. Finally, Socrates ask Protagoras to defend his latest argument that “evil, ignorant men can be brave.” This gives Socrates the chance to go for the pin: if akrasia equals ignorance, and self-control equals knowledge, then the knowing man is the courageous man and the unknowing man is the coward. This demonstrates that courage cannot be separated from the unity of virtue.
The conclusion of this witty and ironic dialogue finds Socrates and Protagoras in an inversion of their starting positions. Socrates now argues that knowledge is virtue, so it must be teachable. Protagoras who had originally tried to prove virtue teachable (but for the wrong reasons), ends up trying to prove that virtue does not equal knowledge, and therefore is not teachable. The question of the essential nature of virtue is unresolved (the aporia). Protagoras is complimentary to Socrates (he states that Socrates will become very eminent in philosophy!), but is tired of the dialectical beating he has taken.

In this dialogue, Socrates, through the dialectic and use of irony, ridicules the Sophists as mercenary, incoherent, immoral, vain heirs of the poets. Techne can be taught through rhetoric, but arete can only be taught by dialectic pursuit of virtue. This is another way of saying that the pursuit of truth through dialectic is the way out of Hades, towards the sunlight.
(hide spoiler)]

I will post my thoughts over the weekend as I am busy with the quarter closing :)

[DC]

Ycel, amazing notes! Thanks for this! Really informative, and what a hoot. I love these particular parts of your post:

Upon arriving at the house of Callias, a wealthy Athenian, the pair is met by the eunuch doorkeeper. He is tired of all the Sophists and their comings and goings. He thinks Socrates is a Sophist and doesn’t want to let him in. Socrates clearly states that he is not a Sophist and is admitted. This is Plato’s clever use of humor and irony. The eunuch represents the demos of Athens who also couldn’t recognize the difference between Socrates and the Sophists. They are, in effect, mental eunuchs.

What a comedian, this Plato is. Hahaha!


Protagoras delivers an encomium to himself, comparing himself to the poets Homer, Hesiod and Simonides.

Can't stand people who compare themselves to the greats/popular people; you can already tell that they're full of air. I mean, I know I'm like a Socrates of my time, but that's a different story. /joke

But really, nice way to start a convo, Protagoras.


While Socrates would prefer the dialectic, the crowd wants a story and Protagoras, who agrees that this would be “more pleasant” than the hard work of a dialectical argument, answers with a double origin myth.

Protagoras seems to be running for office. LOL.


Socrates shows that hedonism (pursuit of pleasure) is inconsistent with akrasia (weakness of the will, or the tendency to do the opposite of what one knows is the right thing to do).

I'm wondering about this. Is this because one willfully pursues pleasure, so it's not necessarily the weakness of the will? So context is necessary before declaring a statement like this?

/troll comment
What if, by the way, my pleasure was in learning to be the most rational person in the room? Or to be a lifelong learner? Pleasure in knowledge?
/end troll comment

But then again, I suppose that the entire hedonistic principle is about pleasures of the body...?


Finally, Socrates ask Protagoras to defend his latest argument that "evil, ignorant men can be brave."

This gives Socrates the chance to go for the pin: if akrasia equals ignorance, and self-control equals knowledge, then the knowing man is the courageous man and the unknowing man is the coward. This demonstrates that courage cannot be separated from the unity of virtue."

Thought-provoking. But how does one define "brave"? Brave in the course of battle? Brave to do things in life?


Socrates now argues that knowledge is virtue, so it must be teachable. Protagoras who had originally tried to prove virtue teachable (but for the wrong reasons), ends up trying to prove that virtue does not equal knowledge, and therefore is not teachable.

LOGIC. And haha, Socrates, setting up the stage to PROFIT. LOL.

[DC]

My reaction towards the lecture of Chapter 9: (view spoiler)[

*Upon listening to the entire thing, I felt that it was incomplete. I guess I'll have to wait for the next chapter to know what Socrates was talking about with the concept of "virtuous people".

*I want to know that exactly "virtue" means here. The concept of good or bad? (That's morality/ethics, right?)... I tried to look over the previous posts, and totally got lost. Hahaha, it's quite the jungle out there. LOL.

*You know what I thought about the notion of virtue stemming from non-sensory actions that "people of virtue" do? I thought of the Aquinas principle of the Unmoved Mover in the Quinque viae.

Well, someone had to be virtuous from the start, right? Someone had to be that FIRST virtuous person right at the very top. I'm not saying that this could lead to an argument about the existence of a god as the first virtuous person, but interestingly enough, it COULD lead there.

*I'm guessing that the entire "teaching virtue" thing is enhanced by stories, anecdotes, and that kind of thing. Take for example: Aesop's fables. Is that right?

*The entire selfishness notion noted in the lecture was interesting. The "I'll do what I want and I'll only notice you if you try to thwart me" part.
Ycel: (view spoiler)[ I finally finished Atlas Shrugged, Ycel! John Galt is LURVE. (hide spoiler)]

*This argument of Protagoras, the entire "Man is the measure of all things" concept... Not very familiar with it, so I got this snippet from Wikipedia, retrieved 3 April 2014: (view spoiler)[

His most famous saying is: "Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not". Like many fragments of the Presocratics, this phrase has been passed down to us without any context, and its meaning is open to interpretation. However, the use of the word χρήματα (chrēmata) instead of the general word ὄντα (onta, "entities") signifies that Protagoras was referring to things that are used by or in some way related to humans. This makes a great difference in the meaning of his aphorism. Properties, social entities, ideas, feelings, judgements, etc. are certainly χρήματα and hence originate in the human mind. However, Protagoras never suggested that man must be the measure of the motion of the stars, the growing of plants, or the activity of volcanoes...

Plato ascribes to Protagoras an early form of phenomenalism, in which what is or appears for a single individual is true or real for that individual. However, as it is clearly presented in the Theaetetus, Protagoras explains that some of such controversial views may result from an ill body or mind. He stresses that although all views may appear equally true, and perhaps should be equally respected, they are certainly not of equal gravity. One may be useful and advantageous to the person that has it while another may prove harmful. Hence, the sophist is there to teach the student how to discriminate between them, i.e., to teach virtue.
(hide spoiler)]

Does this mean that, essentially, Protagoras was just saying that what was true for one person is true for that person only, and that a truth is true for each person themselves, and only themselves? Am I interpreting Protagoras right?

Oh, but I guess that's what Robinson was trying to say in the initial part of his lecture...?

*If virtue is not a specific act but a kind of daily living, that must mean that that person is a god. I mean, even the most well-known virtuous people on Earth can't be good all the time. Unless they're secretly androids or something. Or Dorotea of Middlemarch <3 (But more on virtuous people in the next chapter, ack! Can't wait!)
(hide spoiler)]

---

Answers to guide questions

1. Explain whether the Socratic notion of virtue is taught in contemporary educational institutions.
(view spoiler)[
Okay, so by the dialogue mentioned, Socrates is said to have mentioned that virtue is knowledge, and that, probably, the knowledge of what is essentially "virtuous", of what is essentially good. In addition, ignorance stems from moral evil. You can be virtuous and do virtuous acts if you know what is virtuous in the first place.

Now, I don't think that here, in the Philippines, Socrates - or philosophy in general, for that matter - is taught in elementary and high school. As far as I know, philosophy is usually reserved for the philo geeks and the collegiates who need it for their requirements, and by then only a few really get to immerse themselves into these foreign thoughts.

As for the notion itself, that knowledge is good because it leads you to learn about what is right from wrong, I guess... No. I mean, laws are there, and disciplinarians made sure that the laws were followed. However, I do not think that there's a kind of "Morality" subject in school, although I know that there's a kind of religious subject that sectarian schools have. (I had CCF in high school myself.) However, they only taught precepts of religion, and not necessarily the way of life... Except for the Beautitudes and Ten Commandments, which were essentially laws as well.

BUT some schools do have that GMRC subject - Good Manners and Right Conduct - so I guess that's kind of a segue into that thought.

I think that the Socratic notion of virtue is really taught by the family, or, at least, the immediate persons surrounding a certain person. I think that you learn it, not necessarily from materials and books, but from persons - your family, your friends, your teachers who are human too. They SHOW how live life, but I am not sure that you can really just TEACH this kind of thing.

... And so I guessed I DID learn something from the lecture. Touche'.
(hide spoiler)]

2. Describe how Socrates would likely have been received by the politicians of this age.
(view spoiler)[
If Socrates keeps on insisting with the politicians of this age that he wants a dialectical discussion with them, he'd probably be laughed at and/or not listened to. Politicians, at least of the Philippines, are not exactly the philosophizing kind. We have a mix of actors, lawyers, TV personalities, dynasties, and sports champions in the Congress. If he were to insist on a simply simple and truthful form of discussion with them, Tanda / Sexy / Pogi will probably give two-hour long speeches that do not address his points at all. Hah.
(hide spoiler)]

[Ycel]

DC:
I want to know that exactly "virtue" means here. The concept of good or bad? (That's morality/ethics, right?)
(view spoiler)[
A virtue is a moral characteristic that a person needs to live well and is central to the study of Virtue Ethics (VE). It emphasizes an individual's character as the key element of ethical thinking, rather than rules about the acts themselves or their consequences. Variations on the virtues theme are present in Plato’s works (as we see in the Dialogues) and in Thomas Aquinas. Socrates, as represented in Plato's early dialogues, held that virtue is a sort of knowledge (the knowledge of good and evil) that is required to reach the ultimate good, or eudaimonia, which is what all human desires and actions aim to achieve. In terms of the history of western moral philosophy, the origins of VE are often traced back to Aristotle, and his concept of eudaimonia (Chapter 14 - Aristotle on the Perfect Life), more popularly known as Nicomachean Ethics. VE is often focused on how adopting certain attitudes and behaviour may lead to the fulfilment of telos (end/purpose), rather than attempting to reason what it is ‘good’ to do (or not) using abstract rational arguments and principles. In this respect, one might consider the various forms of it to be teleological. Teleological approaches in ethics judge the rightness of moral actions based on how much they lead one to achieve a particular end, or fulfil a purpose. VE teaches that an action is only right if it is an action that a virtuous person would carry out in the same circumstances. It becomes apparent that Protagoras’ pronouncement that “man is the measure of all things” is incompatible with VE because of its relativism. What is good about VE? It centers ethics on the person and what it means to be human and takes into account the whole of a person's life. VE teaches that how we should live depends on our understanding of what constitutes the purpose of human life, and developing the ‘right’ kind of character (or attitude/virtues) in order to achieve it. The bad news? There is no general agreement on what the virtues are and what the purpose (or goal) of life is.
(hide spoiler)]

Answers to guide questions
1. Explain whether the Socratic notion of virtue is taught in contemporary educational institutions.
(view spoiler)[
Within the context of Socratic notion of virtue or the knowledge that is required to reach the ultimate good, I think that contemporary educational institutions are severely deficient in this regard. One submits a college application form without a clue as to what course he wishes to pursue, or worse, graduates from college without achieving any clarity as to what he wants to do in life. I think this is a dilemma for a lot of people. If one had a Catholic school education, more likely he is taught the Christian virtues: chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, kindness, patience and humility. Secular schools incorporate Christian Living and character-building activities in the curriculum. But how can one tie these to the achievement of the ultimate good when it is not clear what the ultimate good is? And more likely, depending where one receives his education, he is likely to receive confusing messages about what the ultimate good is. Is the ultimate good to serve others or to look out for one’s self-interest?
(hide spoiler)]
2. Describe how Socrates would likely have been received by the politicians of this age.
(view spoiler)[
Very few will be able to survive the Dialectic, if they dare engage him in one :D
(hide spoiler)]

[DC]

Ycel wrote: "What is good about VE? It centers ethics on the person and what it means to be human and takes into account the whole of a person's life... The bad news? There is no general agreement on what the virtues are and what the purpose (or goal) of life is. "

Oh, I see. It must mean, then, that the arguments over what's "ethical" will never end, given how different each and every person thinks...

But as a segue, I grew up listening/reading William Bennet's The Book of Virtues, which highlights key "virtues" such as honesty, courage, faith, and so on. I guess I kinda "learned" virtue by hearing/seeing examples of it, and then, by my own accord, decide what I believe in is good, I believe? Hmm.

But here's a question to pose: Do you agree with the Socratic notion of virtue? What do /you/ personally believe is the greatest virtue?


Ycel wrote: "One submits a college application form without a clue as to what course he wishes to pursue, or worse, graduates from college without achieving any clarity as to what he wants to do in life. I think this is a dilemma for a lot of people."

I can totally relate to that. I did not have a real go-to course when I was applying for colleges; I chose Statistics here, Engineering there, Chemistry elsewhere... And instead ended up with a course that had nothing to do with the mentioned three.

Funnily enough, until now, I sometimes still think about what I want to be "when I grow up".


But here's another question: Do you think that the Socratic notion of virtue /should/ be taught in contemporary educational institutions?

[Ycel]

Do you agree with the Socratic notion of virtue? What do /you/ personally believe is the greatest virtue?

These are the ramblings of a person whose weekend is about to get ruined by the thought that tomorrow is the ITR and quarterly audit results week.
(view spoiler)[
According to Socrates, virtue is knowledge of what is good and bad. Plato listed four cardinal virtues in the Republic, and these are also listed as cardinal virtues (in contrast to the theological virtues) in Christian Teaching:

1. Prudence (Wisdom)
2. Temperance
3. Courage
4. Justice

Socrates argued that virtue is sufficient for happiness. Do I believe this? At the outset, I am inclined to say no. But if I think about it, I don’t suppose Socrates meant knowledge in a theoretical sort of way. I don’t think that by knowing, he meant a bookish kind of knowledge. Because how do we acquire knowledge of something? We truly learn by doing, by experience, by stopping and reflecting and re-doing until we get what we think works for us, not when our mothers say seemingly corny and formulaic stuff like “Anak, the greatest waste on earth is to work without a plan.” Seriously, my mother told me this countless times growing up but I never really understood what she meant until I ran my own life (and household). Of course I know now that what she told me then was a nugget of wisdom, but it took me years to come to that knowledge and truly own it. As a young person, I thought creating a plan is peanuts. Why I just jot it down and it’s done. When I was single it was a five-year plan, but when I had a family it became a long-range plan that stretched into retirement. Alas, I learned that a plan goes through countless revisions and needs updating to stay relevant (like a rolling forecast) and to get any sense of accomplishment I have to break it into milestones. In between revisions I prepare a budget to see which objectives are achievable or not and each month is a constant struggle to prioritize, to continue spending on what’s worth it and to stop the madness of wasting money on things that don’t add value. So gradually I get a clear sense of purpose and decision-making parameters are refined and things stay the course until something unexpected happens and then I refine my plan by putting provisions for the unexpected, and so on. If financially I realize that it will take longer to achieve a milestone and a career change is in order (because how else can you make the pie bigger?) then I literally summon a lot of courage and seek the counsel of the wise to take the leap. It’s a never ending process as long as one is alive and thinking (LOL).

What do I think is the greatest of these virtues? I’d say they are all important but prudence (wisdom) sits at the top of the list because all the other 3 comes only after one has reflected upon, thought about and ruminated on what has been and sets out clearly what ought to be and all the possibilities that our mind can hold.

To say that virtue is sufficient for happiness is something that each of us will have to answer on our own (because one has to define for himself what is happiness). To me, the most important questions to answer are:

Who am I?
What sort of person should I be?
What do I do to be the sort of person I should be?
(hide spoiler)]

NB: I just realized that my ramblings about my mom's advice falls squarely into that Ethiopian saying: "Give advice. If they don't listen, let adversity teach them." I just hope my kids will have enough sense to listen to me. Huhu.

[DC]

Wow, Ycel, that post was pretty deep. But then again, I guess you're right about Life being a, well, life-long process :)

I guess it's true what they said, "Wisdom cannot be taught, only earned." As for your kids, well, (view spoiler)[I remember a Mark Twain saying once, "When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years."

I guess we sometimes choose when to take the wisdom pill :) I know they'll turn out fine :D
(hide spoiler)]

Do you agree with the Socratic notion of virtue? What do /you/ personally believe is the greatest virtue?
(view spoiler)[
As for me, I think that knowledge is power. I mean, the more I know, the more it gets difficult for me to decide on what is "right" in this world. There will always be a kind of issue that will challenge my beliefs and principles. Nevertheless, I'd rather be non-ignorant to most things, as much as it can be painful to hear or know about.

However, if there's anything that was drummed into me when I was growing up, it's the value of Honesty. It's really difficult to be perfectly honest in this world; a lie or two is so much more easier than facing the difficult consequences, or, well, owing that it's one's fault. I sometimes still get plagued by this though (honesty or pain? honesty or bliss?), but, hey, sometimes it's the easiest, though most painful, way out.
(hide spoiler)]


Do you think that the Socratic notion of virtue /should/ be taught in contemporary educational institutions?
(view spoiler)[
I think that students can be really thick-headed sometimes - I guess we all know that feeling, really. Therefore, I guess that as much as it's great to actually teach a kind of underlying philosophy that could help students decide on their own, I think that each individual will still decide on what they would like to listen to.

Still, having the precepts there would be good, I guess. Exposure to many fields helps one choose what field they utterly decide to get into, I suppose.
(hide spoiler)]


All right, if we're all good for this chapter, I'll post up the next chapter by, say, end of this week? :) Chapter 10 is Plato's Republic - Man Writ Large.

[Mark]

//Protagoras coined the phrase “man is the measure of all things.” This states his belief in relativity and plurality. However, this position leads to solipsism and makes any reasonable discourse impossible, since each person interprets words and reality from his or her own point of view. Socrates believes that it is precisely this plurality (or relativism) that is misleading and dangerous and he attacks it through his method of dialectic.// <--- Excellent observation! One needs to keep this in mind the next time one meets a relativist. Indeed, Socrates directed his life to combatting this disease of relativism and which he sees (rightly so) as the cause of social degeneration. Even today, the philosophical descendants of the Sophists make their presence felt in those who believe and say that truth is relative or subjective (or even unknowable), in those who believe that there can be no absolute or objective knowledge of any kind (while at the same time holding that belief as an absolute truth), and in those who dismiss truth and knowledge to mere opinions, where the opinion of any one is as valid as another's. (The effects of relativism is truly destructive - for if everything is relative, then truth, beauty, and goodness are also relative and man is then pushed into confusion and despair of not knowing what is truly good and beautiful. Man would not know what is right from wrong, for example, and he cannot tell beauty from ugliness. We have all heard the tired saying, "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder". This belief too, is one of the consequences of relativism.) Relativists believe these things without any clue as to how self-defeating these beliefs are. This relativistic attitude is so common in modern culture that many have a difficult time seeing it. Or, when relativism is seen and its contradictions exposed (as Socrates have done to the Sophists), many people find it difficult to shake off not because of any intellectual problem but because relativism has such a hold on personal feelings -- people put much investment in the beliefs they hold. They want what they believe to be true or valid and so it becomes difficult for them to accept truth. It is thus a problem of the will. The question that Socrates posed before the Sophists are posed before us. Are we willing to go where the questions lead us?

[Mark]

What Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle wanted to do was to know the way things are. More importantly, they wanted to know if what they knew about the way things are are true, or if it brought them closer to the truth. They first asked whether there are such things as natures or essences. They answer, Yes. The essence of a thing is that which make a thing the thing that it is. Things have essences or natures and we can use reason to know what some essences are. This philosophical tradition is known as realism or essentialism. (Later on you would find that it is developed by Aristotle and refined further by Aquinas).

[Ycel]

Happy Easter! Welcome back, Mark! Sorry I haven't back read the comments. Still crazy busy at work. Posting this as intro material to the next topic.

Chapter 10: Plato's Republic - Man Writ Large

The Allegory of the Cave

[DC]

Hi! Here's Chap 10.

Chapter 10: Plato's Republic - Man Writ Large

Scope: This most famous of the dialogues begins with the metaphor—or the reality—of the polis as the enlarged version of the person. The fate of each is inextricably bound up with the fate of the other.

Plato’s Republic is taken to be the foundational work in what we call “political science,” but it is useful to recall that the dialogue begins with a quite different question—namely, what is it by which a man can be said to be “good”? In light of the complexity of the question, Socrates suggests that the subject of the inquiry be enlarged, made big enough so as to be seen more clearly. Thus, the question is transformed.

Link to audio file: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B37rZ...

Noted recommended reading:
Plato. The Republic and Protagoras, in The Dialogues of Plato, 2 vols. B. Jowett, trans. Random House, 1937.

Annas, J. “Classical Greek Philosophy,” in The Oxford History of Greece and the Hellenistic World. J. Boardman et al., eds. Oxford, 1991


Questions to Consider:
1. Bertrand Russell, in his History of Western Philosophy, regarded the Plato of the Republic as a garden-variety fascist. Explain whether this is a sound reading of the dialogue.
2. Conclude whether there has ever been a “philosopher king.” Marcus Aurelius comes to mind, and the record he compiled was rather mixed. Explain whether the special talents required for each of these distinctive vocations is the same or even compatible.
3. Conclude whether virtue can be taught.

[DC]

Rather overwhelmed by this chapter, and I disapprove of some of its parts.

On Chapter 10: (view spoiler)[
*The allegory of the caves is interesting. I understand that there really do come times when we should look at things under a philosophical light. What I want to know about is the standard by which the "light" here is meant to be. Does this mean that there is only one kind of truth that we should all be aiming at, as opposed to Protagoras' relativism? (Mark seems to be mentioning something of this sort in his previous posts.)

*The myth of Gyges reminded me of Gollum :)

*Based on my understanding, the text is saying that everyone should be rational, because we cannot trust in our senses ("be a sensualist"). To live by pleasure and pain is the easiest way to live, I suppose. Thinking twice about anything needs a lot of mental power. Patience, responsibility, trustworthiness - these are difficult virtues to gain, and yet I believe that we respect the people who have these.

I suppose I understand how we should always keep that sensuality in check, and that's how we distinguish the "rational person" from the "irrational one". It just rather sounds boring to always live like that. I do remember, however, the thought on "striving for the mean". I suppose we will discuss this more with Aristotle later on? The golden mean?

*"To be exposed to discord is to condition the soul with discord." However, how can we know what is discord from what is not?

I also had to give a laugh with Socrates being concerned with the youth's taste in music, what with rock and all. Why? Well, just check out my personal tag cloud for the past three months: (view spoiler)[

(hide spoiler)]

*This thought about the people with "good stuff to begin with" is rather pretentious and presumptuous. Especially the marriage lottery bit, the whole "genetic theory of goodness", and exposing the unworthy to the elements.

I get that we want a kind of golden society wherein only the best and most good people thrive (and here I remember fondly [Atlas Shrugged's] valley of John Galt), but it is undoubtedly impossible. It also echoes of a kind of high-minded snobbery, especially for the people in "darkness", people in ignorance. I do not approve.
(hide spoiler)]

1. Bertrand Russell, in his History of Western Philosophy, regarded the Plato of the Republic as a garden-variety fascist. Explain whether this is a sound reading of the dialogue.

What I found regarding Bertrand Russell on Plato's Republic:

When we ask: what will Plato’s Republic achieve? The answer is rather humdrum. It will achieve success in wars against roughly equal populations, and it will secure a livelihood for a certain small number of people. It will almost certainly produce no art or science, because of its rigidity; in this respect, as in others, it will be like Sparta. In spite of all the fine talk, skill in war and enough to eat is all that will be achieved. Plato had lived through famine and defeat in Athens; perhaps, subconsciously, he thought the avoidance of these evils the best that statesmanship could accomplish.

My answer: (view spoiler)[
I agree with Bertrand Russell. Perhaps Plato was just too caught up in Athens' indulgence, and wanted this Spartan kind of government in place instead. However, this Republic by Plato is too much. It calls for, well, a kind of genocide by those who are "in the dark". That embodies a kind of fascism (... if we are going by the definition of "garden-variety fascist" as a kind of authority figure that has dealings with militarism and has almost indisputable power).

Nevertheless, it must be amazing to be in the company of great men and women, who themselves would be surrounded by great men and women. Then they'll keep all the enviable genes to themselves...
(hide spoiler)]

2. Conclude whether there has ever been a “philosopher king.” Marcus Aurelius comes to mind, and the record he compiled was rather mixed. Explain whether the special talents required for each of these distinctive vocations is the same or even compatible.

Note on Plato's philosopher king (from Wikipedia):
Philosopher kings are the rulers of Plato's Utopian Kallipolis. If his ideal city-state is to ever come into being, "philosophers [must] become kings…or those now called kings [must]…genuinely and adequately philosophize" (The Republic, 5.473d).

Note on Marcus Aurelius (from Pantheism.net): (view spoiler)[
The Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius was perhaps the only true philosopher-king in the history of the world. He was not an original nor a systematic philosopher, but in his meditations, a series of notes to himself, he formulated his pantheist Stoic beliefs with a passionate religious conviction.

He shared the basic Stoic belief in the divinity of the cosmos as an intelligent being with a soul, and stressed (perhaps too fatalistically) the harmony of all things and the importance of resigning oneself to whatever happened.

Marcus Aurelius reigned from 161 AD to 180 AD. He seems to have been a good and conscientious ruler who was magnanimous towards his enemies. He banned informers, stamped down hard on corruption, and freed slaves at every opportunity. Although he tolerated the circus, he ordered gladiators to fight with blunted points. Needing extra funds for his wars in Eastern Europe, he refused to raise taxes but instead held a public auction of his own golden tableware and of his wife's silk and gold embroidered dresses.

With hindsight Marcus' greatest omission was that he did not impose Stoicism as the imperial religion, with as much rigour as Theodosius later imposed Christianity. Had he done so, the history of the world might have turned out very differently. But the fact that he was more tolerant might be regarded as another of his virtues.
(hide spoiler)]

My answer: (view spoiler)[
I think that a philosopher-king has amazing responsibilities. He should be a great role model, while remaining just and fair to his constituency. He should be of amazing morals and consistency. It is darn difficult to not be corrupted, or to not allow corruption take place.

I am reminded of the benevolent dictator concept, wherein a leader would only step in - with all the powers a dictator could have - when utterly needed, and benevolently get off the throne when he is not. It is incredibly difficult for someone of this nature to exist. (Segue: I am suddenly reminded of [LOTR's] Tom Bombadil.)

This is not to say that people of that nature are not out there, but while it seems ideal to have all these great attributes in one man, I think it highly unlikely that such a man would prefer to step into a leader's shoes. This is especially so because everyone in society has so much dealings with all kinds of people, that it is almost impossible to get out of society - never mind the government - purely a "philosopher".

However, if there IS a man out there like that: oh, yes please, be my guest. Do try to rein in society, and keep a good line of heirs, too, in order to keep it in place.
(hide spoiler)]

3. Conclude whether virtue can be taught.
Answer: (view spoiler)[
I think that it can be, but it is up to a person to decide what kind of virtue they would like to exercise at a particular moment or issue. I think also that this kind of thing is developed through years of experience and looking towards models that we each believe have that virtuous spirit.
(hide spoiler)]

[Ycel]

Chapter 10: Plato's Republic - Man Writ Large

Notes on Plato’s Republic
Source: Plato, Socrates and the Dialogues by Michael Sugrue

(view spoiler)[Plato’s Republic consists of 10 books and is one of Plato’s longest dialogues. Book I establishes the main themes and problems to be addressed in the dialogue. Socrates asks his interlocutors to explain the meaning of justice. He refutes the arguments of Cephalus that justice consists in telling the truth and returning borrowed property, of Polemarchus that justice consists in giving to every man his due, and of Thrasymachus that might makes right. His refutation of Thrasymachus is less than fully convincing, however, which leads Glaucon to restate the argument.

Book I

The main themes of the Republic are set forth in the introductory frame scene. Socrates and Glaucon go down to Piraeus to view a religious procession and are stopped by Polemarchus’ slave. Socrates is “overpowered” by force. A dialectic of force and persuasion emerges in which the philosopher succumbs to the unknowing demos. Glaucon decides that Socrates will submit. This is an important first scene because it frames the main themes of the Republic, the dialectic between power and knowledge, the imbalance between the two, the interaction between force and persuasion, the relationship between the philosopher and the demos, are all represented here. Even Glaucon making the decision for Socrates to go with Polemarchus’ group is significant because it underscores the fact that in a badly organized state, inferior men make the decisions. It’s only the first page and already it is heavy with symbolisms.

Socrates and Glaucon go to the house of Polemarchus, son of Cephalus. Aged Cephalus is erotic, avaricious, superstitious, philistine, and pious. As an old man, he is more interested in speeches than he had been during his passionate youth. He has just finished sacrificing. He needs wealth to buy off the gods to forgive youthful sins. Socrates refutes his argument that justice equals truth-telling and the return of property. Polemarchus inherits the argument when Cephalus returns to the sacrifices. The dialogue moves symbolically from old piety to living philosophy. This little exchange between Socrates and Cephalus is funny but also symbolically significant because at the heart the Republic is the organization and direction of human desires.

Polemarchus tries to justify old piety to living philosophy and invokes the authority of Simonides. Polemarchus asserts that justice is “giving to every man his due,” i.e., that justice consists in doing good to one’s friends and evil to one’s enemies. Socrates responds that justice is incompatible with doing harm to another.

Thrasymachus, the beast of discourse, breaks in. He demands that Socrates define justice, but not abstractly as “the advantageous” or “the needful.” (Thrasymachus is a Sophist, so he is after concrete, specific things. He doesn’t like airy Platonic abstractions.) Socrates uses multilevel irony; he cannot answer since Thrasymachus has prohibited abstraction. Thrasymachus demands money; Glaucon and others guarantee it. (Thrasymachus acts as if reluctant to speak, but he really wants to speak in order to enhance his reputation.) Narration makes it impossible to enact a Platonic dialogue. Unlike other drama, Platonic drama is a spectacle which appeals to the ear and eye, and perhaps to the brain.

Thrasymachus’ argument is as follows. Justice equals the advantage of the stronger---a position that will be taken later on by Machiavelli, Nietzche and Hobbes. Thrasymachus is the spokesman for the status quo (all existing regimes formulate the laws according to their own advantage; therefore justice is obeying the law). Justice equals legality (understood as legal positivism). The tyrant is in the best situation, as he can make laws that gratify his own desires.

Socrates engages Thrasymachus in dialogue. What if the rulers do not know what is good for them and thus make mistakes? Then justice becomes the disadvantage of the stronger. Thrasymachus agrees that really existing rulers make mistakes, but he asserts that the true ruler qua ruler is infallible. Thrasymachus thus moves from positive to normative—the rulers should rule with perfect knowledge of their interests. Socrates responds that all arts (techne) serve the object of the art, not the interest of the artist. Medicine is to bodies as horsemanship is to horses. Thrasymachus goes ad hominem: “Do you have a wet nurse? She should wipe your nose.” He holds that injustice is more profitable than justice on the largest scale (i.e., tyranny).

Socrates argues that the artist or technician wants to get the better only of those who do not properly practice the art, while the ignorant man wants to get the better of all others, even if the object suffers harm. The shepherd, for instance, gets paid because he is interested in the good of the flock, not in his own good. Thrasymachus blushes, then turns petulant, then argues that even unjust men need some justice, in order to be able to act together. Complete injustice would leave them utterly impotent. Socrates holds that justice is the virtue of the soul, which allows it to perform its telos. Thrasymachus has grown gentle; Socrates has silenced but not convincingly refuted him. Socrates wants to draw Adeimantus and Glaucon into the discussion.

Books II-V

Responding to Glaucon’s challenge that he defend justice on its own merits rather than any practical consideration, Socrates suggests that the group examine justice in the city as an analogue of justice within the individual human soul. He then describes the educational regimen of the ruling class in his ideal city, and he explains that justice in the individual, as in the city, consists in the proper and harmonious ordering of the parts that constitute the whole. Finally, there is a discussion of the three “waves” of revolutionary change that characterize Socrates’ ideal city: political equality of women, abolition of private property and the family, and rule by philosophers.

Socrates has silenced but not refuted Thrasymachus. Socrates’ arguments offered in Book I are weak, as he realizes. Socrates offers weak arguments in order to provoke Glaucon and Adeimantus to enter the discussion.

Book II of the Republic examines Socrates’ analogy between the just man and the just city.

Glaucon asserts a social contract theory—justice is the advantage of the weaker. He recounts the myth of Gyges to demonstrate that all men will practice injustice if given the chance. He demands that Socrates demonstrate that justice is good as an end, not as a means; i.e., he demands that Socrates remove all accidental considerations and show that justice is essentially good. Adeimantus anticipates Machiavelli in asserting that it is preferable to have a reputation for justice while practicing injustice. He notes that men can be fooled, and the gods either do not exist or can be bribed. Glaucon and Adeimantus want to seem just, but they are tempted to be unjust; they assert the disclaimer: “I have heard this, but don’t believe it.”

Socrates asserts a parallel between man and city; he suggests that the group seek justice by examining the city. Socrates and Adeimantus construct a “city of utmost necessity” in which there is a basic division of labor—one job for each man. The arcadian simplicity of this image leads Glaucon to denigrate it as a “city of pigs." Glaucon prefers a more luxurious city. A philosopher-king and a guardian class are needed to order desires in this “feverish city.” The guardians must behave like “philosophical dogs,” knowing and loving their own and showing antagonism toward strangers and toward change. The education of the guardian class will consist of music (to soften their hearts and promote harmony in their souls) and gymnastics.

Book III of the Republic constitutes an attack on Homer. The poets are inspired but ignorant; the apparent beauty of their poems hides moral corruption. Homeric heroes cannot be the ideal of men who would be wise, courageous, moderate, and just. Homer and his ideal, Achilles, must be demoted and censored (in favor of a new poet, Plato, and a new ideal, Socrates—the philosopher-king). This is the point of the myth of metals—the different parts of the soul correspond to gold, silver, and bronze. The education of the guardians harmonizes mind with body, gold with silver, Doric with Ionic. Comedy and tragedy also produce bad (i.e., corrupting) imitations; thus they–like epic–must be censored in favor of the morally good. Truly educational poetry is Platonic dialogue.

As befits one who is oligarchically inclined, Adeimantus objects that rulers will be unhappy if deprived of property. Socrates retorts that a good ruler seeks the good of the whole city. Sharp distinctions between wealth and poverty harm the polis by creating faction. Unity of soul implies unity in the city.
1. Different virtues correspond to different parts of the soul, just as they do to different sorts of cities. Justice consists in the harmony that prevails among reason, spirit, and passion in the well-ordered soul.
2. Justice consists in each element pursuing its own telos and not trespassing into the sphere of the other elements.
3. Plato uses these logical ideas to distinguish silver from bronze. Only through justice can a city harmonize classes and can a man harmonize his own soul—justice is to the soul as health is to the body. The good ruler resembles a doctor, just as the tyrant resembles a quack doctor.

Adiemantus breaks in, demanding that Socrates explain his proposals for eugenic breeding and abolition of the family. Then all chime in, and the framing scene of Book I is reprised. Socrates is arrested again by a suddenly bold Adeimantus. Socrates fears being drowned by three “waves” of his argument.

The first wave is feminism; women should have the right to rule. Female guardians receive the same gymnastic and musical education as men. Socrates compares the difference between the sexes to accidental differences among men (e.g., long versus short hair). He distinguishes accidental and essential differences (which are analogous to the difference between body and soul). Plato’s position on feminism is truly remarkable and makes all feminists proud.

The second wave is communal possession of property and abolition of the family.
1. Sex is a necessity. The rulers will arrange eugenic marriages, by contriving phony lots. Beyond reproduction, the guardians have complete erotic freedom.
2. Children are reared apart from parents, so the parent-child bond is generalized among all the guardians.
3. Guardians are all one family. Eros is used in the service of war.

The third wave is rule by philosophers, but is such a regime possible? The impracticality of the good city shows that there is something wrong with the world, not with the theory.

Books VI-X
To follow because there’s a lot to chew on.
(hide spoiler)]

[DC]

Ycel wrote: "Chapter 10: Plato's Republic - Man Writ Large

Notes on Plato’s Republic
Source: Plato, Socrates and the Dialogues by Michael Sugrue

Plato’s Republic consists of 10 books and is one of Plato’s lon..."

Ycel, this is amazing. We can spend months on this alone. I'll have to go over this, and digest it very thoroughly. Thanks for the infoload! :)

[Ycel]

DC: Sowee, so slow with this one. Plato is such an enigma.

[Ycel]

Chapter 10: Plato's Republic - Man Writ Large

Notes on Plato’s Republic, continued
Source: Plato, Socrates and the Dialogues by Michael Sugrue
With additional commentary from Julia Annas’ Plato: A Very Short Introduction

Books VI-X
Part I
(view spoiler)[
These books tackle three of Plato’s most famous metaphors: (1) the ship of state,(2) the divided line, and (3) the cave. The first of these depicts the negative consequences of misrule, while the latter two illustrate Plato’s ontological and epistemological teaching that with the right education, one possessing the proper constitution can advance from mere opinion of sensible particulars to true knowledge of the eternal, unchanging Forms—i.e., of ultimate reality. Also included are Plato’s theory of the degeneration of good regimes into their vicious counterparts, and closes with the “Myth of Er,” intended to encourage just behavior among the unwise demos.

Book VI extends the discussion of the third “wave”—rule by philosopher-kings. This discussion foreshadows the epistemological and ontological doctrines to be considered next (light vs. darkness, sight vs. blindness). The philosopher is called the lover of Forms, but Adiemantus is unconvinced. Socrates offers the parable of the state. Only the ignorant and vicious pursue political power. The philosopher’s eros is for knowledge, not power. The philosopher desires the good, not merely the pleasurable. It is said that philosophers are corrupt and corrupting, but the opposite is true. The best natures, when corrupted, become tyrannical. Thrasymachus is thus an inverted philosopher-king who has suffered from a bad education. The best natures need the best education. They must go beyond mere opinion to knowledge, particularly knowledge of the Form of the Good, which is analogous to the sun. Plato uses the simile of the divided line to clarify this analogy. The dividing line is a schematic diagram of the progression from apprehension of images and sensible objects, of which one can only have opinion, to the knowledge of intelligible objects and ultimately of the Forms.

Book VII includes the Myth of the Cave. Most human beings are “imprisoned” in the realm of sensible particulars, which Plato analogizes to shadows projected upon the wall of a cave. The representations produced by deceptive poets and sophists are regarded as real by most men, when in fact they are illusion. The philosopher uses dialectic to free himself from the sensible realm and to progress upward out of the cave and into to the realm of the sun (i.e., ultimate reality, the Form of the Good). The upward way is painful and difficult; the eyes take time to adjust. Glaucon asks if the philosopher-king will be compelled to go back down into the realm of opinion, for the sake of the general good.

The education of the philosopher-king, like other guardians, begins with gymnastic and the muses. The guardians study Pythagorean arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and harmonics between ages 20 and 30, followed by five years of dialectic. After fifteen years of practical politics, one can become a philosopher-king. Dialectic is an asymptotic journey, the end of which is knowledge of the Form of the Good, which cannot be articulated.

The City of Speech can be constructed only if true philosophers come to power and exile all citizens more than 10 years old. Its establishment requires coercive power (the good city is a yardstick, not a practical possibility). It has profoundly conservative and anti-utopian implications. The City of Speech illustrates the limits of politics. Our progression toward it, like or movement toward the Form of the Good, is asymptotic.

Book VIII examines the degeneration of regimes from rule by philosophers ultimately to tyranny. Having reached the symbolic and conceptual high point with the Form of the Good, we descend through the degenerate regimes. The organic progression downward through the four degenerate regimes parallels that through the degenerate forms of the soul. History (i.e., change) has been abolished in the good city, but it returns as a dialectic of depravity (an inversion of Hegel). This process resembles the Nietzschean genealogy of morals.

Good regimes follow a natural course of degeneration.
• The good city, led by the philosopher, degenerates into the timocratic city as a consequence of bad breeding and disagreement among the guardians. In the timocratic city, the desire for honor supplants desire for knowledge.
• Disorder in the warlike timocratic soul causes wealth to supplant honor. Thus the timocrat becomes an oligarch, concerned with wealth and necessary desires.
• The few among the bronze (i.e., the oligarchs) are overthrown by the many, who are unable to discipline their desires, giving rise to democracy.
• Class conflict between oligarchs and democrats forces the democratic regime to elevate a tyrant to protect the regime. The tyrant eventually undermines the democracy and establishes a tyranny.

Symbolically, Socrates represents the philosopher-king, Glaucon the timocrat, Adiemantus the oligarch, Polemarchmus the democrat, and Thrasymachus the tyrant. This decline can be reversed through the journey of dialectic, as all characters rise one level.
• Thrasymachus the tyrant becomes a democrat; he votes for the re-arrest of Socrates.
• Polemarchmus as spokesman for demos becomes an oligarch; he asks about property.
• Adiemantus the oligarch suddenly becomes spirited and brave; he arrests Socrates.
• Erotic Glaucon, “brave in all things,” admits the attractions of tyranny are ridiculous. The unjust man wrongs himself involuntarily, and he learns through education to practice justice for its own sake.

Book IX compares the condition of the tyrant and the philosopher.
• The tyrannical man, a completely heteronomous bundle of insatiable desires, is the most miserable of men.
• The philosopher, who has the greatest knowledge, knows pleasures best. Pleasures of the soul are greatly superior to pleasures of body; virtue equals knowledge, and virtue is its own reward.

{Commentary from Julia Annas in Plato: A Very Short Introduction:

For Plato there is no boundary between the cultural and the political. His ideas on how states should be organized reject the idea that politics provides a framework within which individuals can develop as they see best in pursuing their own goals. Indeed, Plato’s political ideals are throughout driven by the thought that it is competitive individualism which is the main political problem. People want to “drag” things down into their own houses and enjoy whatever they achieve privately, instead of wanting to cooperate in the production of shared goods, which all can enjoy publicly. In an avowedly fantastic sketch of an “ideal state” in the Republic, and in a more detailed account in the Laws of how a new Greek city could be organized on idealized lines, Plato reforms both political and educational institutions to produce a person whose self-conception will be primarily that of a citizen, someone whose life goals are shared with those of his fellow-citizens-and her fellow-citizens, for even in the Laws Plato thinks that women should think of themselves as citizens, sharing in public space rather than trapped in individual domestic drudgery. In the Republic fantasy these ideas go to the lengths of abolishing the nuclear family altogether; in the Laws Plato moves rather to strengthening it as a basis for educating a communally minded citizenry.

What does Plato think is the justification for such radical ideas, which would alter institutions relentlessly in the interests of producing more socially minded people? This is, he thinks, the only rational way of organizing society so as to function as a whole rather than consisting in a bunch of conflicting individuals. These ideas are always presented as an expert’s solution, and constantly compared with the authoritative pronouncements of the expert navigator or doctor. In contrast, democracy, the accepted position in Plato’s Athens, is presented as a chaotic scramble of competing voices, each shouting for a selfish individual claim with no expert grasp of the needs of the whole.

As Plato sees it, democracy is a menace because it rejects the idea that society should be directed by expertise, and thus blocks changes that would encourage people to think less individualistically. It drags gifted people down to the lowest level of shared understanding. On the other hand, in the world as it is, the bureaucracy and splitting-up of power that democracy encourages do prevent abuse of power by uncontrolled, misguided individuals who merely think that they are experts. In the Republic fantasy, absolute power is given to perfect people. But in other works where Plato is thinking more about actual conditions the expert ruler remains an ideal, but democracy is accepted, unenthusiastically, as the best working option. In the Laws the institutions of Athenian democracy are taken over as a basis to be modified in a community-minded direction; no other kind of institution is envisaged as a place to start. For Plato, democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others. Only in an ideal world could we do better, and live not merely alongside one another but together, with shared lives and ideals. Plato is, as we have seen, utterly uncompromising about the individual’s commitment to virtue, whatever the state of the actual world. But he also thinks, more or less hopefully, that the actual world could be improved in the interests of virtue.}
(hide spoiler)]

[Ycel]

Chapter 10: Plato's Republic - Man Writ Large

Notes on Plato’s Republic, continued
Source: Plato, Socrates and the Dialogues by Michael Sugrue
With additional commentary from Julia Annas’ Plato: A Very Short Introduction

Books VI-X
Part II
(view spoiler)[
Book X discusses the usefulness of poetry and myth in reinforcing the imperative to behave justly. Socrates criticizes epic, tragedy, and comedy as imitations of imitations of Forms. Good poetry must edify with true opinion, if it cannot instruct with true knowledge.
• The poetry of the good city will not allow epic/comic/tragic heroes to make bad (ignorant) men worse.
• A new poetry and new hero are needed. Instead of tragic crime, comic foolishness, and epic slaughter, there must be a new poetry of education, with a virtuous (knowledgeable) hero who is a benefactor and educator.
• The poetry of the good city is Platonic dialogue. Socrates is the new Achilles of reason without hubris. He embarks on a spiritual odyssey of dialectic. He is an Oedipus without a tragic flaw in a city in which everyone else is blind; a comic hero where the joke is on everyone else.

{Commentary from Julia Annas in Plato: A Very Short Introduction:

Plato is the first to emphasize the importance of what we call the arts in forming the values of the members of a society. The role played in our society by films, television, and books was played in Plato’s Athens by the performance of dramas in the theatre, festivals, and by the learning and performance of various kinds of poetry – epic (notably Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey) and lyric. Plato takes these very seriously, refusing to regard them as mere harmless entertainment. Plato insists on radical reforms of his community’s culture, in the interest of the moral growth its members. The content of traditional culture, notably poetry, is to be thoroughly reformed, and purged of passages which encourage selfish and uncooperative behaviour (view spoiler)[(no doubt in reference to the petulant Achilles in the opening scene of the Iliad). (hide spoiler)] And Plato is suspicious of the very idea of dramatic representation. He thinks, as have puritans in number of traditions, that acting parts makes the actor’s own self weak and pliable. Moreover, he distrusts the effect of drama on the audience; it encourages them to feel serious emotions lightly, weakening their control over their own emotions. (view spoiler)[(Hahah, my mother in law will not like Plato at all.) (hide spoiler)]}

Since it is clear that justice is an end in itself, let us restore reputation and divine retribution in the Myth of Er. Not all can be wise; Cephalus and the demos are deterred from vice only by good myths.

In the end, if one tries to summarize the Republic, it’s like those TV tricks they show on TV, when they say “kids, don’t try this at home.” Essentially, what Plato is saying is this: if one didn’t understand the 300 or so pages of the Republic (the Forms, aaargh!), don’t try any of what he said at all. Plato’s big joke and he has the last big laugh.
(hide spoiler)]

[Ycel]

Answers to Guide Questions:
(view spoiler)[
1. Bertrand Russell, in his History of Western Philosophy, regarded the Plato of the Republic as a garden-variety fascist. Explain whether this is a sound reading of the dialogue.

Kallipolis is Plato’s ideal state, and in his work he reveals to us his own thoughts about divine perfection, which is the idea of good—like the sun in the visible world; about human perfection, which is justice. By modern standards, Plato’s Ideal State is highly unrealistic. How he came up with such schemes, such as marriage by lottery and the abolition of the family, is a fascinating subject in itself. We moderns surely are prone to dismiss the Republic as trash, but I’d like to think that it has its own merits because Plato is thinking through a set of problems in his time, i.e., why did Athens lose the Peloponnesian War? His solution may be off-tangent, but one cannot ignore that he is the first one to insist on equality of the sexes (we can have philosopher-queens). When reading works such as these, I always find it helpful to view it within its historical context. When I do this I don’t vilify the work so much, and Penn State University puts it quite perfectly:

“Every shade of light and dark, of truth, and of fiction which is the veil of truth, is allowable in a work of philosophical imagination. It is not all on the same plane; it easily passes from ideas to myths and fancies, from facts to figures of speech. It is not prose but poetry, at least a great part of it, and ought not to be judged by the rules of logic or the probabilities of history. The writer is not fashioning his ideas into an artistic whole; they take possession of him and are too much for him. We have no need therefore to discuss whether a State such as Plato has conceived is practicable or not, or whether the outward form or the inward life came first into the mind of the writer. For the practicability of his ideas has nothing to do with their truth; and the highest thoughts to which he attains may be truly said to bear the greatest “marks of design”—justice more than the external framework of the State, the idea of good more than justice.”

2. Conclude whether there has ever been a “philosopher king.” Marcus Aurelius comes to mind, and the record he compiled was rather mixed. Explain whether the special talents required for each of these distinctive vocations is the same or even compatible.

Hmm, I have to find out more about Marcus Aurelius to be able to comment properly.

3. Conclude whether virtue can be taught.

Plato concluded that no, virtue cannot be taught but Plato does allude to the idea that virtue is inborn (endowed by the gods). But I think asking whether virtue can be taught is the wrong question. Perhaps a better question is, can virtue be learned? We have moral teachers surrounding us from childhood, but as we grow we learn that although they know the moral rules, they don’t necessarily practice it. As far as I can recall, I have been presented these double standards while growing up and I had to figure out for myself how to live with integrity. For instance, in high school, we were asked to compose a short story. Being a lazy git, I forgot about the assignment and only remembered the day before the due date. So I “wrote” a story recycled from a magazine that my mother brought to the house. Of course, as fate would have it my English teacher had read the magazine and knew about the story. She gave me the most unforgettable sermon, clearly communicating her displeasure and disappointment. I carried my guilt for most of my adult life; attending a short fiction writing seminar saved me. I wrote my short story and sent it to my English teacher. My teacher’s disappointment and my shame were powerful impetus that guided me to be truthful, because when you tell the truth life is a lot less complicated. So life experiences like this are powerful teachers, if one pays attention and reflects on their significance.
(hide spoiler)]

[Miles]

Hi! I think what you're doing here is Quite Interesting. Though my "philosophy" is very rusty, I was hoping to share a little bit of what I know, if it isn't too late in this discussion.

[Ycel]

Hullo, Miles! You're most welcome to contribute :) The link to the lecture materials is on the first thread. Are you a Philo major? Because we're not so you'll have to excuse our ignorance :)

[Miles]

Thanks. Anybody can do philosophy. lol

[DC]

Hello, hello! I think I scurried away after delving a little too deeply at Plato's thoughts, haha. I apologize for this.

Welcome, Miles! It's always great to read about fresh perspectives of old-school philosophy. Please do lend us your own thoughts :) You can check out the first post for an intro, and you can go over the chapters in another post.

Ycel and I have talked briefly over this, and we believe that we could move on from Plato soon. If anyone has anything more to say, do go ahead. (I know I will, albeit briefly!... Maybe.)

I'll post up the links and what not for Chapter 11 by next week, when we can talk about Robinson's take on Hippocrates :)

[DC]

Hello to all! I apologize for not being able to post again since the last time, but Ycel & I have been preoccupied with TFG's July 2014 discussion of Charles Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities.

Thus, we may not be able to post much here until August, maybe.

If you're interested about A Tale of Two Cities, and would like to join our online discussion, check out the thread here. We'll also be meeting up in July to talk about ATO2C, and here's the thread for that meetup.

FYI, and thanks!

[Miles]

This might interest you too.
http://www.reddit.com/r/EthicsReading...

[DC]

Miles wrote: "This might interest you too.
http://www.reddit.com/r/EthicsReading..."

Miles, this is awesome. Plus reddit? +1. Thanks for the link :)

[DC]

Hello everybody!

Re-awakening this thread, especially since Ycel & I just finished our ATO2C discussion :)

We'll probably start on Hippocrates (BYE PLATO) this August. I'll have the links and what not posted up within the next (two) weeks :D

Time to get the Philo hat back on, rah!