2008-2-PHI130.Week02

PHI130 Week 2: Presocratics and Socrates

Lecture 3: Pre-Socratics

This course is about mind, meaning, and metaphysics.

Metaphysics is one of the main areas of philosophy. Ethics is another, and the third big area is Logic.

• Ethics deals with what is right and wrong, what are our duties and what are our rights.
• Logic deals with truth. What is true, what is a good argument, what is a bad argument, and what is falsehood.
• Metaphysics deals with reality beyond the physical.

As soon as you reflect on this world and what it's made of you become tempted to believe there is more to it than just matter. Metaphysics is the study of those things, typically in three areas of inquiry addressing the leading question: what is our place in the world?

• God. Origins of the world.
• Self or Soul. Is the self simply the sum of our experience, or is there something like a principle of unity, an identity, that is not reducible to our experience. An identity not just in a material sense, but a moral identity. Our sense of right and wrong, our learning and principles.
• World. Is there just one world? Is there just the world that we know? Are there more possible worlds? Chaos and order.

Why are we interested in what the Presocratics thought? Why should we study Socrates, or Plato, or Aristotle? Historical interest:

• A way of reminding ourselves that the way we approach the world today was not always taken for granted. Seeing "objects with properties", smell, sound, kinaesthetics, movement, forces, form, matter, materials, elements. Humanity did not always look at things in terms of these categories. We owe our contemporary categories to these philosophers. They were the first to separate out those types of reality that we take for granted. The Greek philosophers drew these distinctions for the Western/European tradition.
• It is widely held that Socrates marks a break in the history of thought in the West, even from the so-called Presocratics (who often lived at the same time as Socrates). This has historical relevance. The study of history is a part of the study of philosophy. Many of the words and notions we use today come from the Greeks: physics, economics, politics, psyche, eros, pharmacy, gymnastics, harmony, etc.

The Presocratics

There are many Presocratics and they have written extensively. This course will only cover them superficially.

Two early Presocratics: Pythagoras and Thales.

Pythagoras is held to have invented the term philosophy.

Thales thought of philosophy as one type of science among sciences. Pythagoras thought more of philosophy as religion.

Greece was the name of a culture or a civilisation. 600-400 BC Greece encompassed the south of Italy, Sicily to the west, the Greek mainland, all the western part of the middle east, i.e. Turkey, Syria, etc. The region Asia Minor was called Ionia. The first philosophers were called variously Ionians, Milesians and Physicists.

The first main centre for philosophical thought was the city in what is now Turkey where Thales and Pythagoras were born: Miletus.

In 494 BC, Miletus was destroyed by the Persians. The Ionian philosophers migrated to Southern Italy and Sicily.

The Presocratics weren't really concerned about the self, they were concerned about the cosmos. Cosmological stories concerning the world as a whole. First ideas about 'self' were implications of physical stories. At first they were concerned with planets, the place of the earth in the universe, what causes the wind, what causes an earthquake, what causes rain? What is the relationship between earth and water? They made a lot of theories about physicality, and then extrapolated by implication to the self. One of Socrates' revolutionary gestures was to ask the question of the self.

Cosmos: the ordered world. Contrasts with chaos.

A first fundamental distinction, the start of philosophy, is the distinction between explanation and story. Socrates picks up on this distinction. The Greeks did not tell stories, they provided explanations about the creation of the world (cosmogony) and the way it functions (cosmology). They moved from mythical terms to scientific or philosophical terms.

Cultures around and before Greek culture (e.g. Babylonian, Egyptian) answered questions by telling myths. Stories of supernatural beings, and the elements understood as gods. Material world inhabited by spirits, substantially divine in its essence.

Eventually the Greeks refused the natural elements as gods, and looked at the world in terms of matter. Prior to that Greek culture was like other cultures. They created an encyclopaedic explanation of the features of the world in mythical terms: supernatural beings, personified substances, and physical reality as personal relations between gods. For instance see Hesiod. "Extract" in Theogony and Works and Days, Hesiod; West, M. L., 1988, 6-8. The Greeks make the first attempts at rational explanations of the world.

Thales

The Greeks had revered seven great men. One of which was Thales, the founder of the 'physicist' stream of philosophy. Materialist, scientific.

"Thales said that the world is held up by water and rides like a ship, and when it is said to 'quake' it is actually rocking because of the water's movement."

-- Greek Philosophy: Thales to Aristotle, Allen, Reginald E., 1966, 1-17,28-33,36-43. p.15.

At first, it looks like a fantastic image of the world, not far from Hesiod's (although in Hesiod, the Earth is surrounded by the Ocean, not on top of it). We know also that this image is borrowed from Egyptian mythology.

But there is a crucial difference: the hypothesis is in fact purely materialistic, i.e. it attempts to explain the world in material terms. This was a revolution in human thought, and the same basic principle that everything is made up of some basic constituent is still held in science today.

Physicists disagreed about the nature of the basic stuff: Thales said it was water; Anaximenes said it was air; Heraclites, fire.

Second key idea: implied here is the idea of natural law. Since the different beings in nature are all made up of a primordial stuff, there are laws of transformation explaining how we get from the simple stuff to the great multiplicity of natural objects. A few simple laws can explain a great number of apparently unrelated natural phenomena. This will lead to the fundamental idea of studying the causal and temporal relationships linking things together. Again, this is a fundamental idea in the modern vision of the world.

Aristotle indicates that Thales drew his conclusions from "seeing", from the observation of nature. This is the beginning of empiricism in Western science -- i.e. the grounding of knowledge in experience.

For instance, Aristotle suggests that Thales arrived at water as the primordial substance due to observation:

"Thales, the founder of this philosophy, says it is water (and therefore declared that the earth is on water), perhaps taking this supposition from seeing the nurture of all things to be moist."

They then move to beginnings of rational deduction and logical implication.

Anaximenes, a disciple of Thales, attempted to give a systematic account of physical transformations:

"Anaximenes also says that the underlying nature is one and infinite like Anaximander but not undefined..." (p. 17).

Ionians vs Pythagoreans

The first two philosophers, Thales and Pythagoras, show opposite concerns that indicate two fundamental opposite attitudes in Western thought.

• The Ionians were dissatisfied with the religious explanations of the world. They were the first to move towards "scientific" explanations, akin to modern physics with observation, belief in causality, in physical properties, rational deduction, etc. Here philosophy is close to natural sciences.

• Pythagoras was a religious master, the founder of a sect, based in Italy. Pythagoreans are also called Italians in Ancient philosophy. His concern was primarily religious and his philosophical and scientific endeavours were driven by his concern with the ultimate questions. He wanted to answer the question: What is our place in the universe? Not for the sake of knowledge, but to better characterise the content and tasks of true religious devotion. This, however, was not a limit to his philosophical abilities. He was also a great scientist, a mathematician more important than Thales (see his famous theorem). However, his religious concern was driving his theoretical endeavours. Here philosophy is close to religion, a form of spiritual exercise beyond the natural sciences.

Pythagorean doctrines

• The soul (psyche) is immortal; it does not die when the body (soma) has died.
• Reincarnation
• Purification (catharsis)
• Theoretical philosophy
• See and emulate divine order
• World governed by mathematics (not physics or matter transformations)
• Music as mathematical ratios: same ratios, same note, even across instruments (i.e. substances)
• To know the world is to know its regularities and necessities
• Belief in number as substance
• Mystical interpretation of numbers, particularly the number 10. 1+2+3+4=10.

Cutting-edge physics today is Pythagorean in a sense. For instance, if you do astrophysics today, in order to discover the structure of the universe, you do high-level complicated mathematics.

If you learn music, i.e. the grammar of music, you learn about octaves and regular intervals, relationships between notes as mathematical ratios. All notes can be related to one ratio. To produce the same note one octave higher reduce the length of the string by one half. Three ratios are enough to analyse or understand all possible sounds: 1:2, 3:2, 4:3.

Door to academy: don't come in here if you are not a mathematician.

Lecture 4: Socrates

Socrates

There's not much debate about Socrates as a historical figure, but there is much debate about what he taught. He didn't leave any writings, and we know of him through his student Plato.

The first of Plato's three periods is the Socratic period where it is held that he reproduced the teachings of Socrates. In Plato's later dialogues there is still Socrates defending the ideas, but the ideas change drastically and are presumed to be Plato's ideas.

The Apology of Socrates is taken to be an accurate account of Socrates philosophy: Plato, Apology of Socrates, in The last days of Socrates, trans. by H. Tredennick (London: Penguin, 1969), p.47-67.

Socrates mother was a midwife, and the "giving birth" metaphor is often used.

Famously ugly, never wore shoes, never left the city walls except in times of war, showed tremendous bravery in battle. He was subject to ecstatic trances. He would stand still for hours, buried in thought, forgetful of the outside world.

Two important sides to his character: both sly (eiron in Greek, hence his famous irony) and also mystical. He talks of his inner voice (Plato's Apology, pp. 63-64), a god warning him of some philosophical matter calling for his attention.

The key event is his trial, in 399 BC. He was 71 years old. This gave Socrates the opportunity to summarise his philosophy. For us, his "Apology", his own defence at his trial is an important document to learn about his ideas.

Socrates was accused of two things:

• heresy, the charge of teaching sacrilegious doctrines about the gods (a classical charge against philosophers at the time);
• corrupting the minds of the young. Socrates as a bad example, teaching the young to question accepted truths.

These charges were not serious and many in the tribunal were ready to support him. More probably, the real reason behind his accusations was his uncompromising attitude towards the rulers of the day. There is a political subplot in the trial (see the many references to the recent political events). His defiant attitude antagonised those who were in his favour so that, in a sense, he was responsible for his own death.

We should not fear death if our soul is in order.

The oracle at Delphi: Philosophy as Wisdom

A friend of Socrates' consults the oracle at Delphi: "Is there anyone wiser than Socrates?" The God answers through the priestess: "Nobody is wiser than Socrates" (Plato's Apology, p. 47). As always with an oracle's sentence, the problem is to interpret it.

How can this be, says Socrates, since he knows that he is not wise? What does "wise" mean?

Socrates interviews different types of people who all pass for being wise in some way: politicians (the highest occupation in Athens was politics), poets, tradesmen. In all cases, he comes to the same conclusion: although they appear to be wise in the eyes of others and in their own eyes, Socrates finds that they are not.

In what sense are they not wise? In two different senses:

• They claim to know more than they actually know (for example the tradesmen believe that their particular knowledge makes them knowledgeable of all things);
• When pressed by Socrates, they cannot really account for their own knowledge (example of the poets).

This amounts to the same negative definition of wisdom: to be able to give reasons. Philosophy as rational inquiry. Philosophy as the way to wisdom. Philosophy as a justification of claims to truth.

This defines philosophy as the questioning about the reasons behind particular claims and practices.

Philosophy is the way to wisdom, first of all in the sense that it questions all established discourses and demands that they justify their claims.

With Socrates philosophy becomes very close to logic. Logic allows you to test arguments.

Socrates did not have a technical logic, but he gave the inspiration for further works into logic. The most famous Greek logician was Aristotle, and Aristotle's logic was the science of logic for more than 2,000 years. Not before the 19th century was Aristotle's logic surpassed by other works.

The Socratic method: Dialectic as philosophical method

There is no argument of authority in philosophy.

Socrates tricked wise experts with his specific method, this method is known as dialectic.

The Socratic method, the dialectic, is a form of questioning, essentially a dialogue. The aim is to draw out the reasons behind claims.

The supposedly wise person will be asked about their wisdom. The poet, What is beauty? The pious man, What is piety?

Questioning to the point of contradiction. This is held to show to the questioned that they don't really know what they think they know. What is the implication? That they should look for themselves instead of relying on what they "know".

This often ends up in confusion. A claim may be shown to lead to a contradiction. The Socratic dialogues are often aporetic, meaning that the conversation leads to an inconclusive impasse. A false claim to truth isn't replaced with a truth, but rather drawn out to suggest that people should look for the truth for themselves. All that is shown is that what you think is true in fact isn't.

Socrates regards knowing that you don't truly know as true wisdom. It is better to know that one doesn't know than to claim that one does know.

There are two implications:

• You must trust the Gods. You will never reach 'reality'.
• You must take up the task of questioning what you think is true.

Dialectic is conducted through conversation, but it is a rigorous method. The two methods of dialectic are analysis and synthesis.

Through analysis, a first definition is evaluated. The different implicit notions in it are brought to the fore through the use of questions and answers. The rules are strict. Answers must be as short as possible and strict logical consequences of the question.

Through synthesis, a new definition including the new elements is propounded and compared to the first.

The dialogue with Meletus, the principal accuser of Socrates, is a good illustration of Socrates' technique. Meletus is asked to answer a series of simple questions (Plato's Apology, pp.54-58)).

• Socrates asks him to answer rationally, whether he likes the answer or not, whether or not some people might have an interest in speaking differently. This suggests that philosophy considers reasons with indifference to received wisdom, tradition, and questions of interest.
• Each question can be answered by anyone with good sense (analysis). This is the power of reason: it doesn't take any special skill to follow a logical argument. Good, common sense, is all it takes.
• When all the consequences have been made explicit, the only possible conclusion (synthesis) is that the first claim could not be made since it contradicts the conclusion when all the implicit premises have been clarified.

(For example: it is impossible to claim with good sense that Socrates would wilfully attempt to corrupt the minds of the young, if one also accepts two other premises: that nobody would wilfully embrace what harms them and that, by intentionally harming the young, Socrates would thereby also harm himself. Meletus' claim is too strong to support the inquiry of truth.)

Dialectic and morality

Wisdom attained through dialectic has moral significance, indeed this is its primary significance. Socrates has no specific metaphysical doctrine to defend, unlike his pupil Plato. What he strives to achieve is that everyone interrogate themselves to discover who they truly are.

Socrates' inquiries are consistently about moral virtues (courage, justice, etc.). He questions an interlocutor who claims to represent a particular virtue. For example: Euthyphro the pious. He then asks that person to define their particular virtue, in Euthyphro's case, piety. Socrates then proves to them through dialectic that they don't know what their own virtue truly is. Socrates does not want to suggest an alternative definition of that virtue. He simply proves to this person that they don't really know themselves. His goal is not scientific but moral. He wants to be faithful to the commandment of the God at Delphi: "Know thyself". With Socrates, the search for truth, the love of wisdom defined as love of knowledge, is an instrument in the quest for moral wisdom, the knowledge of oneself that will enable us to lead a good life.

This is linked to Socrates' view that evil is ignorance, that nobody does evil wilfully. Evil acts spring from lack of a clear view of oneself. The evil person actually knows not (not really) what is good for them. Consequently, dialectic, philosophy, by helping people know who they truly are, helps people be better.

Virtue is knowledge and knowledge leads to virtue.

Secondly, since the better person knows what is truly important and what is not, since this knowledge is the basis for her superiority compared to the unjust person, Socrates can claim "I do not believe that the law of God permits a better man to be harmed by a man worse than him" (Plato's Apology, p.62). The just man cannot really be hurt by the unjust man.

Socrates wants to be faithful to the god at Delphi. Gnothi seauton: inscribed in the forecourt of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi.

Know thyself: held to be the beginning of western philosophy.

Readings

Hesiod, extracts from Theogony

Hesiod, extracts from Theogony, trans. M.L. West (Oxford University Press, 1988) p.6-8.

Greek philosophy: Thales to Aristotle

Greek philosophy: Thales to Aristotle, (ed) R.E. Allen (London: Collier McMillan, 1966), Introduction p.1-17; Chapter 1, p.28-33, 36-43, 50-56.

Miletus, an Ionian city on the Mediterranean shore of what is now Turkey. Cultural context: Greece, Babylonia, Egypt

Milesians 600-400 BC: Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes.

Aeschylus (~525-455 BC), a playwright of the time, often recognised as the father of tragedy.

Aristotle records Anaximander as holding out qualitatively different types of matter, whereas Anaximenes held that qualitative differences in material were the result of 'thickening' or 'thinning out' of a single substance.

teleology

(philosophy) a doctrine explaining phenomena by their ends or purposes

Pythagoras, interested in mysticism/religion, as compared with the Milesians. Interested in the soul and form and mathematics. Considered the world as a harmonia. According to Aristotle they were still nevertheless concerned with accounting for what is sensible. There is difficulty in reconstructing and interpreting the history of the Pythagoreans, due in most part to the little documentation they left, owning to their secrecy. The Pythagoreans regards numbers as things, although their specific intention is lost to time; they were also intrigued by the tetractys of the decad; and they are credited with various mathematical discoveries, not least Pythagoras's Theorem, but also the gnomon, literally the carpenter's square. Pythagoras is also likely to have conceived the table of opposites described by Aristotle.

Heraclitus, a younger contemporary of Pythagoras, an older contemporary of Parmenides, born in Ephesus. Established the concept of logos. Like Anaximander's Time, the logos is a principle of isonomy, maintaining proportion in the world process; but where Anaximander's Time sought equilibrium in cycles of excess, Heraclitus' logos maintained equilibrium in every moment. Plato and Aristotle ascribed to Hericlitus the notion of perpetual flux, that "all things change, and nothing remains at rest."

The Eleatics: Parmenides the founder, and Zeno his pupil.

Parmenides -- author of two poems, The Way of Truth, and The Way of Opinion -- was concerned with Being vs. Not-being. "It is, or It is not." He rejected statements concerning Not-being, based on his assumption that they were negative existential statements, as compared to negative predictive statements as such statements come to be regarded. The trouble seems to be that to make a claim of non-existence one must have an intelligible conception of existence.

Zeno typically involved himself in refutation via reductio ad absurdum. Zeno tended to indicate that a plurality were more ridiculous than a singularity.

The Pluralists -- Empedocles, Anaxagoras, and the Atomists, Leucippus and Democritus -- endeavoured to resolve Parmenides' rejection of change with the contradictory sensation of change. Ultimately they all accepted Parmenides' denial of generation and destruction, but rejected his denial of plurality.

Empedocles, born in Acragas, essentially endeavoured to restate the world-view of Anaximander and Heraclitus while taking into account Parmenides' criticisms. He takes from Parmenides the idea of immutable substance, and the Sphere of Being, but he imbues the Sphere with four sensible opposites: the hot, the cold, the wet and the dry; which are combined within the Sphere and mediated by cosmic forces of Love and Strife. By distinguishing between simple elements and their compounds he justified the change that Parmenides threatened. Like Anaximander and Heraclitus he made qualities primitive constituents of nature, and his cosmic forces echo Heraclitus' logos and Anaximander's Time.

Anaxagoras, born in Clazomenae, taught in Athens. His contradictory notions that the parts of everything are like the whole, and that the parts of everything contain a little of everything else, are difficult to interpret. Under one interpretation he may have anticipated Plato. He did anticipate Plato and Aristotle by ascribing Mind as cause of motion.

Little is known of Leucippus, and what we do know comes mostly from his younger contemporary Democritus who founded a school at Abdera in Thrace. The Atomists accepted Parmenides' argument, that Not-being is invalid, but rejected his conclusion. Implicit in this was the distinction between existence and material existence, which is eventually drawn out by Plato. The Atomists paradoxical claim is that: material bodies are not the only things that exist, since space exists as well.

The universe of Leucippus and Democritus consists of atoms, physically indivisible material particles that differ in size and shape and move about at random in empty space. The characteristics of these particles are geometrical, not perceptual; the colours and sounds and tastes of the world are secondary qualities, which arise in virtue of the interaction of certain kinds of physical objects (such as eyes and ears) with others (such as tables and chairs).

Aristotle heavily criticised this description for its lack of account of the cause of motion. There was no force as the Love and Strife of Empedocles, or Mind of Anaxagoras. That said, the Atomists treatment of motion closely anticipated the modern theory of inertia.

Plato, Apology of Socrates

Plato, Apology of Socrates, in The last days of Socrates, trans. by H. Tredennick (London: Penguin, 1969), p.47-67.

Discussion

Andres links to this article about Heraclitus.