Top Banner

of 22

History of Ancient Philosophy

Apr 07, 2018

Download

Documents

Mate Kolak
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
  • 8/4/2019 History of Ancient Philosophy

    1/22

    First Lesson:

    Literature: A History of Philosophy by Frederick Copleston

    Philosophy 1st time used in Heraklit 500 b.C. ( ): The

    philosophical man should be a researcher of many things ( ).

    Beginning of philosophy. Characteristic marks:

    - Research

    - Theoretical (no need to prove, only for the sake of knowledge in opposition to practical;

    attitude still to be found in modern scientists like Edison (electricity), Siemens, Liebig)

    - Scientific (directed towards causes by which you can explain phenomena that cause

    problems. E.g.: Eclipse: Problem, examination, explanation. Moon is circling Earth, both are

    part of a solar system; Starting point of all modern sciences was in Greek philosophy,

    Science: Explanation of problematic phenomena by means of cause. While trying to explain

    the visible world, Greek philosophers eventually arrived at the theory of atoms)

    - Tradition (Study of foregoing philosophers, see what they have achieved, in order to avoid

    to make the same errors as others and to not discover truths that already have been

    discovered. This is serving progress and this is tradition (tradere). So valid truths made by

    others in earlier times are handed down as a treasure that is kept and should be kept. It is

    important to have an understanding of old philosophers.

    Philosophie = Philosophia ( ):

    Sophia = Wisdom

    = Originally the capacity to bring together the many aspects of human affairs to the necessary

    origin/divine principle; look to the last end or intention.

    = Expertise or acquaintance of an object, i. e. craftsmanship. The man who becomes master in

    one field is wise. All things are directed towards first causes

    Heraklit ( 500 b.C.): The philosophical man should be a researcher of many things

    ( ).

    Perikles ( 450 b.C.): We love the beauty with simplicity and we philosophize without

  • 8/4/2019 History of Ancient Philosophy

    2/22

    weakness.

    People in ancient times had more recollection and more concentration on the soul. Speak

    about inner relations of man with certainty, rich discovery of the conditions of the soul.

    Nowadays we do not have any thinker that reflects on himself, his inner conditions. Starts

    with Descartes, then Hawks, Locke, Hume, soul is abandoned as a thing without substance

    (materialism), then Kant finally contradicting the experiences and knowledge of the past by

    saying that an object can only be given when senses can pick it up. Psychology without

    soul.

    Connection between philosophy and religion

    Situation nowadays: Old philosophers very religious (Thales, Parmenides, Heraklit). Their

    philosophy is free from religious premises, is different from religion. Today philosophy is

    reduced to a mere metatheory, without vigorous arrival at truth, you already need an aid by

    faith to go further. Example: Cardinal Kasper as bishop wrote an essay about (Tbinger

    Schule; Geiselmann, Kaspers teacher: Heretics are as important as true believers in the

    dialectical course of truth) ber die Unentbehrlichkeit der Metaphysik fr die Theologie.:

    You cant go further back than Kant. Philosophy/Metaphysics can only rise the problems to

    which they cannot give answers, the answer will be given by faith. Philosophy and Religion

    are seen as two parts of one whole:

    Cardinal Kasper: Theology without metaphysics becomes speechless. Not true!

    and: Metaphysics without theology is without foundation. Not true!

    Edith Stein is directly speaking about supernatural philosophy. Not true!

    A second generation of phenomenology that is away from reality. Philosophy seems to be

    needing help by religion, so Christian philosophy is invented. Autonomy of philosophy is

    important! No use of Philosophy if it needs Christian faith to go on.

    Old Philosophers see the connection between philosophy and religion, but do not mix it.

    Religion from the very beginning is about God, whereas philosophy eventually reaches God.

    In ancient philosophy we have metaphysics which are on own grounds, nevertheless the

    origins of philosophy (Tales) were religious. The first pre-socratics started with a newentertainment called philosophy different from religion. Passage (from Mythos to Logos

  • 8/4/2019 History of Ancient Philosophy

    3/22

    (=Ratio, Reason)), in which philosophy becomes autonomous. In myth human soul is directly

    related to God(s), local cults (Athena in Athens, Sisyphus in Korinth), myths are coming from

    holy speeches.

    a) Myth: from holy words or speeches, telling something about local cults. Content remains

    religious, even if imagination of poets enriches it and turns it into a story, myth. Myths often

    are stories that start ( ) with the relationship of a tribe with a divine being.

    b) Philosophy. Also the question of an . Not as the beginning of a story but as a

    principle/cause, from which the phenomena of natural things can be explained. Beginning of

    science!

    Object: Religion: relationship of the soul to God / Philosophy: nature

    Method: Religion: faith devoted to divine being / Philosophy: reason

    Attitude of Subject: Religion: come into a relationship with God, salvation / Philosophy:

    acquiring knowledge

    Thales von Milet (around 580 b.C.): Water is the . No sources of Thales. Just

    fragments. First by Anaximander. Reason, why Thales determined water as the :

    Seed in human beings is humid, so everything comes from humidity. Geographically the terra

    firma is surrounded by water, so the reflection might have been, that everything comes from

    water. Methodical approach is interesting. Nature is explained by causes. All is coming forth

    from one principle. Thales saw water as divinely enforced. Obvious difference from religion,

    because of explanation of nature by causes. But still closely tied to religion. This imperfection

    of the first philosophy is the point which thinkers nowadays are taking as important.

    Heidegger is seeking the beginning of philosophy in religious sphere.

    Anaximander: His achae is the apeiron, das Unerschpfliche

    Anaximenes: His archae is air

    Heraklit: His archae is fire = logos

  • 8/4/2019 History of Ancient Philosophy

    4/22

    Second Lesson:

    Archae ( ): The first principle / cause (in order to explain natural phenomena

    Thales = water

    Anaximandros = apeiron (unlimited, infinite); from which things come to be and into which

    they perish

    Anaximenes = air

    Heraclitus (500 BC) = fire = logos

    Heraclitus: archae is logos

    Logos:

    1. Law of natural things

    2. Cognitive faculty: reason

    3. Discourse, communication of

    Logos as law of natural changes

    (Greek) Legein ( ): read, collect, gather

    (Latin) Legere: lex (law)

    Nature (=archae) loves to hide itself (=revealing in the phenomena of our intentions)

    Logos is common for (all things; all men)

    Heraklit of Ephesus (pantha rhe), denies that there is being, only becoming, all is in change,

    remaining things are only an appearance, pantha rhe is not only an observation, but already

    the result of an reflection. His Archae: fire, because it is the most vivid thing.

    Background is the problem of coming to be, of generation and corruption of things, from

    being to not being, from not being to being.

    not being coming-to-be being

    From nothing cannot come forth anything and what is doesnt have the need to come to be,because it already exists.

  • 8/4/2019 History of Ancient Philosophy

    5/22

    Heraklit and others werent able to solve this problem. Solution: He turns coming-to-be

    in a principle, that cannot be explained. Fire as principle of all is symbol for generation and

    corruption of all things. Being is denied. Also becoming exists.

    Third Lesson:

    Parmenides, of Elea, Southern Italy, Southern part of Salerno, before you come to Naples.

    He opposed Heraklit directly. Says that there is only being and becoming is an illusion. 200

    years later the problem will be solved by Aristotle.

    In the English language, we will substitute being (participle / infinitive) with entity =

    / ens

    Parmenides doctrines:

    1.) The being (entity) is, not-being is not.

    2.) It is the same: Thinking and being (the noetic (intellectual) act (of entity) (intellectual

    comprehension) and being (of entity)). (Es ist doch dasselbe: Das intellektuelle Erfassen

    des Seienden und das Sein des Seienden., nicht ontologisch gemeint, sondern intentionell.).

    Thinking and being are identical with reference to entity. The noetic (intellectual)

    cognition/comprehension and being is identical in the same reference to entity.

    New: Being is understood no longer as a sensible aspect, but as something that is grasped by

    another faculty: the intellect / nous. Being is not only a sensible thing, but also a feature,

    which is identical with another faculty of mind. The senses can err, the path to the truth is

    another one, by logos or by intellect. ( : intellectus, : ratio)

    It is the same: Intellectual grasp and that of which the object of this thinking is the noema

    (intellectum: the object of the intellectual grasp). Indicates an epistomolgical reflection on our

    knowledge.

    Subject = Intellect Object = Entity

    [Intellectual act = {concept}] (identity)

    The concept of the entity as grasped by the intellect is identical with the entity, not the

  • 8/4/2019 History of Ancient Philosophy

    6/22

    intellect itself.

    Parmenides falls into the extreme to declare the being as only one. There is only ONE being,

    THE one being. Common feature, which permits to look at the whole nature in a unitarian

    way, uniting it. The one entity as a sphere, like a geometrical body. The one being stands for

    all natural things which are material, looked at under the new understanding of being, which

    is no longer (only) sensible, but intelligible.

    Parmenides one being is not the Thomistic ipsum esse. His texts do not allow that kind of

    a conclusion.

    Parmenides being does not allow to look for an archae, because a first cause would mean

    becoming, not being.

    In Platos first principles or ideas, existing in an own world separate from the sensible world,

    you have a multiplicity of Parmenides being.

    Parmenides is struggling with the problem of becoming, tries to resolve it in opposition to

    Heraklit by declaring being as reality and denying becoming, because becoming would mean

    a plurality between things. So according to him there is only one being, every movement,

    every non-being, every becoming is excluded.

    Zenon, of Elea, (disciple of Parmenides) tries to prove the immobility of things by an indirect

    way (abduction in absurdum / reductio ad absurdum). If you cannot prove directly that

    something is so, not possible to make a prove with two premises and the conclusion there is

    no movement. Other way: Lets take for granted that there IS movement and then make an

    argument with premises concluding that the result is absurd.

    Zenon: If you take an object in movement (Arrow), which travels a certain distance, the arrow

    has to have passed half the distance first. And before that half the distance of that half

    distance. And so on. Since you have the possibility to split the distances infinitely, movement

    is not possible, because nothing can move across an infinite number of distances. Sounds

    good, but isnt. Because infinity is a mathematical consideration that does not apply to thenature of things.

  • 8/4/2019 History of Ancient Philosophy

    7/22

    Aristotle states that there is no actual infinity in nature. There is a relation between matter and

    space. Where matter is limited, space must be limited, too. Aristotle wants to start from

    obvious phenomena in nature, rejects Parmenides for not doing so. Physics: dealing with the

    things in motion, generation and corruption. Metaphysics: with a first introductory part called

    ontology about things that are as being.

    Connection between Monists (only one principle/being) and Pluralists (Anaxagoras /

    Empedokles).

    Empedocles, Sicily(450/440 BC): One of the natural elements as principle, why not earth, if

    we already have air, fire and water? Empedocles does so. By accepting not only one but more

    principles, you get a big advantage in explaining the natural phenomena of becoming and

    passing away. Composition and separation of elements.

    His theses are,

    1.) that there are four elements: Earth, water, air and fire. This contains the imagination:

    2.) that there are two forces in the elements: friendship and enmity (attraction and repulsion)

    3.) that the elements exist in things in proportions (hard things: more earth, soft things: more

    water etc.)

    Aristotle: Composition of elements in things, but the composition does not explain the comingforth of things (Why a cat, not a monster?). Coming to be is only accidental as described by

    Empedocles and Anaxagoras. Trees and cats and dogs are only accidents to these elements.

    Coming to be only accidental not substantial (Substance and accident). The becoming of a

    thing is taken seriously.

    New feature: Empedocles endowed elements with forces. To explain the attraction and

    repulsion of the elements he called these forces the friendship and enmity. Other thought of

    course is introduced, which explains movement.

  • 8/4/2019 History of Ancient Philosophy

    8/22

    We have Sensible phenomena and principles, which are no longer accessible to the eyes.

    Always to be concluded by reason, even if the principles are material. A principle needs

    reason.

    Love/friendship and strife/enmity are introduced as the two forces that move elements and

    things.

    Empedocles explanation (in regards to nothing can come out of nothing and what already is

    has no need to become): The elements already are and from them things come forth and to

    them things will perish. Explains the becoming by mixture of elements.

    Anaxagoras (contemporary of Empedocles and pluralist): Plurality of elements, archai not

    archae. From Minor Asia.

    1.) Elements as homoeomeris. Start from complex things and divide. The more you go ahead

    in the division, the more parts become similar. We arrive at principles. Homoeomeris have the

    same qualities as visible things for Anaxagoras. In the concrete things from which we start in

    our research of natural things, there are homoeomeris of all qualities, even if the concrete

    from which we start have only some basic qualities, e.g. blood has red color, because the

    presence of this homoeomeris are present in a very massive way, but in itself every concrete

    thing has all homoeomeris of all qualities. Important is the pluralist- and many-elements-

    thingie.

    2.) Introduction of a moving-final cause. Explains the movement between elements and the

    order that comes forth. A divine nous/intellect for the whole cosmos. The intellect is alone

    and itself and stands before other things. For if it were not by itself, but mixed with

    something, it would have to share all things and things mixed together with it would hinder it

    and keep it from ruling.

    Features that Anaxagoras gives the nous/intellect:

    a) All-ruling, not mixed with anything

    b) has all judgment about everything

    c) omnipotent

    d) omniscient

    e) bringing all things in order/final end

  • 8/4/2019 History of Ancient Philosophy

    9/22

    Introduction of a new principle. Plato was the first thinker who succeeded in grasping the soul

    as an immaterial principle. The early thinkers didnt succeed in that. Nowadays philosophy

    does no longer speak of the soul as an immaterial principle, almost fallen back to pre-socratic

    times.

    These early thinkers testify the presence of intellect, it is a reality given to itself, self-presence

    of mind. Before this human mind is reflecting as subject it testifies to itself to be in reality.

    Human spirit is familiar with itself. self-present, self-aware.

    St. Thomas: Before the intellect intellectually grasps that it grasps intellectually, it

    intellectually grasps that it is.

    antequam intellectus intelligat se intelligere, intelligit se esse

    Fourth Lesson:

    Pre-Socratics deal with nature, are also called natural philosophers. Heraklitus / Parmenides =

    Opposition. Repetition of third class.

    No modern thinker is aware of Parmenides great discovery (It is the same).

    Recognizing that the material things themselves have an intelligible (no longer only sensible)

    aspect in them simply being there, seeing the sensible things as intelligible, is the entrance

    door to Ontology.

    Empedocles: Knowledge only between equals. According to that, also the soul must be

    composed of all elements, because all objects are.

    Anaxagoras: Knowledge only between inequals. Reaction cannot develop between equals.

    The process from not-knowing to knowing has an active and a passive part.

    Aristotle says that the passion of the soul when encountering an object is suffering (Anax)

    but also confirms Empedocles, by saying that as soon as the form of the object is actual in the

    soul, there is equality. Before the knowing, there is inequality, but if the knowledge has takenplace, then there is equality, the subject has been equated to the object.

  • 8/4/2019 History of Ancient Philosophy

    10/22

    Aristotle: The starting point is from inequals and the end point is between equals.

    Knowledge is the process of adequation => St. Thomas: Veritas est adequatio intellectus et

    rei (ad rem). (Realism: Our knowledge must be informed by the things, not v.v.)

    In Empedocles and Anaxagoras we find a reflection about the knowledge, so the pre-socratics

    do have subjectivity. Many say that pre-socs only have cosmology, its not true.

    Zenon of Elea: No movement. (reductio ad absurdum, the arrow-thingie with the infinity).

    This method has been taken up by Kant (criticism of the pure reason). In the dialectical part

    he formulates the antithesis. The world has no beginning and no limitation in space. Then

    he goes on with reduction ad absurdum. The two theses cannot be proven directly, so Kant

    tries to use the indirect method. Thesis is proven indirectly: Take that there is no limitation,

    leads to an absurdity, we wouldnt have a world at all. Let us take that there is a world with a

    beginning and a limit in time and space. Is contradicted by the fact, that in the continuum we

    can always add something without making it stop. In any beginning you could always go to

    an anterior point.

    Democritus (380, 2nd half of the 5th cent, beginning of 4th cent.):

    Most fundamental doctrine is, that there are atoms, indivisible elements, only with

    quantitative properties, no qualities, by which the things are made up and pass away by

    composition and separation. Analysis of natural things by taking them apart. The differences

    in quality in the visible things are explained with great fantasy, i.e. in liquid matter the atoms

    are small and fine, in heavy things the atoms are hard, if something is hard and dense, the

    atoms have hooks by which the are attached to each other. Democritus speaks of the atoms as

    the full and takes in opposition to the atoms the space, the void. Atoms move in the

    space. The terms of being/entity/Seiendem (atoms) and not-being/non-entity/Nicht-Seiendem

    (void) are also used. Being and non-being were only used from Parmenides onwards. But in

    this pure materialism the discovery of Parmenides is lost. Tree comes into the eye as a mini-

    tree with little icons.

    There is a little truth in this pure materialism. In sense perception we have a material and a

    psychic part. In everything you have a sensible part, which is composed of matter and form.In the sense organ you have the matter, as the retina in the eye, and the medium. The medium

  • 8/4/2019 History of Ancient Philosophy

    11/22

    is the transporter of the form. The form must be transferred to the medium. And from the

    medium the matter of the sense organ takes the form with its sense faculty. The eye does not

    receive the concrete thing but only the form. On the level of sense perception you already

    have abstraction. How is it then possible, that we perceive in a sense perception this

    individual unique nuance of a color. How is it possible although there is an abstraction in

    sense perception, it is on the level of sense perception, that we experience concrete things?

    Because the form that we see remains always in contact with the matter, the concrete, even if

    the form-transport happens by abstraction.

    TheSophists

    They have made a turn in philosophy by dealing with politics, education, rhetoric. They

    discluded the rank of man and of arts. They interpreted the poems. An outstanding feature of

    the sophists is that they gave public teaching or instruction. Formerly in the aristocratic-

    archaic epoch we ha the education in the houses of the nobles. In the democratic area in

    Athens we have a turn towards public instruction for every citizen. The sophists took money

    for the education and promised the young generation to make them capable for the political

    career. They dealt with many questions of the human life. Also questions about justice and

    moral behavior.

    One outstanding figure is Protagoras. Characteristic for him is the relativism. The human

    being is the measure of all things - of things that are, that they are, and of things that are not,

    that they are not. Here we already have a subjective turn.

    The sophists de-mystified the myth of Prometheus and Epimetheus. Explained everything by

    natural causes.

    Protagoras belongs to the elder generation of sophists. The younger generation was more

    radical, more atheistic.

    Sophists comes from sophos: wise. They claim to have knowledge and present themselves

    as teacher. After the two generations of sophists, we have Socrates. He also was a Sophist, but

    overcame the negative sides (relativism, subjectivism, nihilism). He established a dialogue.He was condemned to death by sophistic enemies.

  • 8/4/2019 History of Ancient Philosophy

    12/22

    Gorgias

    Empericism means starting from experience but also finishing with experience.

    Fifth Lesson:

    Pre-Socs (again):

    Coplestons summary of the Pre-Socs:

    - The problem ofthe one and the many. This is in Copleston explained with the many

    principles, the many and the one, assumed by the philosophers.

    - - From the fact of becoming the philosophers try conclusions of physical science in

    scientific hypothesis. As if all is water is a first primitive scientific hypothesis.

    - - - In fact they only offer a metaphysical intuition, expressed / summed-up / finishing in

    the

    metaphysical doctrine that everything is one.

    Seidl says, that this is not quite according to what we learned, so he proposes:

    - Study the phenomena with the endeavor to explain them by causes. So instead of the

    problem ofthe one and the many we have the problem of the principle of cause for the

    explanation of the phenomena of natural things. Here you have reason not only

    metaphysical intuition.

    - - You have the problem of becoming, not the fact of becoming. (Remember: Out of

    nothing, nothing can become and what is does not have to become because it already

    is). Empi and Anax explain becoming by the composition and separation of elements

    Aristotle says: Yup, but not enough (see the cats and dogs and monster thing).

    Aristotle pointed out the substantial change, whereas Empi and Anax do point towards

    accidental changes.

    - - - They had more than just metaphysical intuition. They were serious researchers.

    The Pythagoreans introduced the explanation of elements by numbers. Pythagoras taught that

  • 8/4/2019 History of Ancient Philosophy

    13/22

    the essence of natural things are numbers and numerical proportion. This makes them as

    much predecessors of the modern sciences as Democritus.

    Back to Sophists:

    Two generations of Sophists: 1st are more moderate (Gorgias, Protagoras), 2nd is more

    radical.

    One of the moderate sophists, Gorgias, uses the terms of being and not-being (Parmenides).

    But after Parmenides the term being was used without the intelligible aspect. The Sophists use

    the terms being and not being.

    Protagoras: The human being is the measure of [the knowledge of] all things - of things that

    are (beings/entities), that they are, and of things that are not (non-beings/non-entities), that

    they are not. Protagoras uses as examples sensitive observation: Wind is felt warm for one,

    cold for the other; so as if feels to them, so the things are. These terms are used without

    looking at the intelligible aspect of the things but only at the sensible aspects.

    Gorgias: Gives us a lot of crap about how nothing exists, almost as if he want to refute

    Parmenides, when actually he just seemed to not have understood Parmi correctly. He is

    totally lacking the discovery of the intelligible aspect of things/being.

    Radical sophists are dangerous, because they not only argue with knowledge but also with

    morals. They are relativists and see only instants in human nature and therefore offer a moral

    of instincts. Intellect is in service of sensual pleasure. The relativism is relying on empiricism

    or (even worse) sensualism. From there they cannot come to another result but relativism. For

    the radical sophists every human being has subjective sense experiences. Plato is pointing out,

    that human knowledge does not finish on this level and develops his own theory of

    knowledge, stating that we have different degrees of knowledge. It is a progress of knowledge

    from sense perception to science. You start with sense perception, go on with reminiscences,

    go from there to imagination, to opinion, to experience to finally reach science. For the radical

    sophists, there is nothing but sense experience, which is very dangerous. From the

    empiricism/sensualism we can understand that everything ends in relativism. Everybody has

    rights, what he feels is true for him. but you cannot stop there, because we have senses ANDintellect. And by the cognitive progress from sense perception to science, intellect will arrive

  • 8/4/2019 History of Ancient Philosophy

    14/22

    at his own level, when science is reached, whereas, when you stay on the level of sense

    perception, you only use your senses. When you use senses AND intellect you are able to go

    from simple phenomena (sense perception) to intelligible essentials (science).

    Socrates (the last sophist 470-399 B.C.)

    He overcomes the sophistic relativism. Socrates attests two merits to the historical Sophists.

    The first is to have introduced into philosophy the dialogue in universal terms. The

    second is the introduction of the method of definition. Definition is the way to the essence

    of the things, according to the question What is?. Socrates speaks of the universal as an

    instrument by which we are able to grasp the essence of things. Socrates knowledge-theory:

    His utterance of not knowing is very famous. He does not mean, that we cannot know

    anything. Socrates is in fact the start of scientific research. Even today in chemical or

    mathematical books we find in the beginning a chapter on the axioms with definitions of the

    terms. What does his famous not knowing mean? The progress of knowledge from sense

    perception to science makes clear, that the intellect is in function from the beginning. It is not

    the senses alone, that perceive. It is the intellect with the help of the senses. In the first stage,

    intellect is alienated/externalized, though, because it is not yet its own object. It merely

    anticipates the aim. If you ask what is? you already have an anticipation that things have an

    essence. So not knowing means, that in the beginning you are not in possession of what you

    are seeking. So you have to say you are not knowing in regard to what you are looking for,

    when you on the level of sense perception, because you still have all the way to go to reach

    science/intelligible essentials. Here again we return to the level of Parmenides (there is not

    only a sensible but also an intelligible aspect to things). Socrates takes Parmis entity as

    starting point (ens qua ens). But it is no principle. Socrates looks at things according to the

    intelligible aspect and discovers that the adequate form of intellectual knowledge is universal.

    Intellect cannot deny his form, which is universal. But the universal knowledge is pointing at

    something intelligible in the things. Recognizing the simple being there is a starting point for

    knowledge. This is no longer recognized since Descartes who puts it in doubt. And after Kant

    the existentialists try to regain the existence against the essentialists, but do not have other

    possibilities than recognize it by religious feeling. St. Thomas talks about the simple

    apprehension as the presence of the things before the intellect.

    Sixth Lesson:

  • 8/4/2019 History of Ancient Philosophy

    15/22

    none

    Seventh Lesson:

    Plato: Lived in the time of war between Sparta and Athens (427-347 B.C.), the decline of the

    Attic democracy and the appearance of tyrants. Plato was of noble origin and did not have the

    chance to enter a political career. Execution of Socrates influenced him. He retired, in order to

    survive. His writings from that time leave us well informed. He founded a circle of friends to

    continue the dialogical style of philosophy introduced by Socrates. He dedicated himself to

    gain certain knowledge of humans and life. His main dialogue is the Republic. It is dealing

    with justice individually and politically.

    He founded the so-called Academy (approx. 388). It was located in a forest he called

    academos, hence the name. Philosophy in written form has no worth. It is like a joke. You

    need to live together in order to transfer the knowledge and to bring the others to insight, so

    that a sort of spark jumps over and enlightens the other. This can only happen in a dialogue.

    Modern philosophers tried to reconstruct the true doctrine from a later tradition. The

    Academy continued after Platos death and modern philosophers doubted that the documents

    available today represent the teachings of Plato. But Aristotle quotes As Plato said as did

    other philosophers from that time, so the written sources were always seen as true testimony.

    Plato met the tyrant of Syracuse in Sicily. There was hope for Plato that this tyrant would be

    in favor of his theory of the state, so that he might be able to install the ideal state. He was

    later deluded and disappointed. The tyrant was simply ambitious and wanted a philosopher.

    The tyrant stole some ideas of Plato. Plato: If somebody tries to put down my philosophy in

    written form, it is not authentic.

    Philosophers of that time made exposes in the form of a thesis and laid down in public for

    others to read. For Plato this is not philosophy. It can develop only in dialogue, where you are

    not left with an offered thesis, but are able to discuss it and present an antithesis. Plato

    introduces a new genre of literature, creating the written dialogue, fixing the situation of

    conversation, the pro and con of participants and putting it down in written form.

    A dialogue between Socrates and a sophist: The sophist is not interested in dialogue. He does

    not answer questions like Why are you doing this?. This is why Socrates was put to death.The sophists, who were in power at that time, wanted the uneasy questions to stop.

  • 8/4/2019 History of Ancient Philosophy

    16/22

    Dialogue has become rare in modern philosophy. Lobbies are formed, others are kept out,

    dialogue is missing and criticism or critics are removed. Criticism is not seen as useful.

    Platos main writings are from the time after his three travels to Sicily. There are three

    periods of Platos dialogues. A criterion is the presence of Socrates in the dialogue. First, the

    aporetic (with no solution to the problem yet) dialogues, with definition of virtues. The lack

    of a solution is seen as weakness by modern philosophers, but Socrates always gives enough

    hints into the direction of a solution, but it is the sophist who blocks. Another criterion for the

    first phase is the absence of the theory of ideas (Apologia: Socrates is defending himself,

    Crito). The second phase consists of the dialogues with the theory of ideas (Phaedo,

    Republic). The third phase is the elaboration of the theory of ideas (Theatetus: on knowledge,

    Philebus: on moral good life, Sophistes: on not-being, Timaeus: on nature, Symposium: on

    eros).

    The theory of ideas: Plato is looking for the causes by which natural phenomena can be

    explained. He goes beyond the pre-socratics, who stopped at material causes. There hardly is

    any approach to another course (Anaxagoras: cosmic intellect). Plato introduces the formal

    cause for the first time:

    1.) Ideas (Idea from Greek eidos = Form, from idein = see; corresponding Latin form is

    a.) species, from spicere = see, we have here a universal concept, exactly what Socrates

    introduced and

    b.) essence, the formal and final cause by which natural things are specifically what

    they are.)

    are formal and final cause of the natural things, including man. Plato introduces the

    ideas by way of universal causes. Think of the natural things: We have the sensible data,

    the phenomena, to which the senses correspond. We also have the formal/final

    causes/ideas/principles to which the intellect corresponds. The connection of the formal

    cause and the universal form (the two meanings of eidos in Greek (dont confuse,

    though!)) can be seen here. Modern philosophers tend to not keep the two meanings

    apart and accuse Plato of doing the same. Platos universal knowledge is of intellect and

    in opposition to sense knowledge, which is particular. There are parallels to Parmenides,

    although he taught just one being, whereas with Plato we have many ideas, allpossessing the universality. In the dialogue Parmenides, Plato distinguishes between

  • 8/4/2019 History of Ancient Philosophy

    17/22

    the species as a content of the intellect (universal concept) and their reference to

    formal/final causes and thereby material things. There is a common ground thought: In

    order to define the essence you must employ universal concepts, so the individual things

    can only be defined under the collective term of the species.

    Phaedo: What is the soul by its essence? or Is the soul immortal or not? or: Is the soul

    immaterial or not? Because: Corruption only in material things, that fall into several parts.

    Immaterial being can therefore neither corrupt nor die. One argument introduces the ideas:

    Ideas as formal cause are immaterial. If the object of intellect is an immaterial formal cause,

    then also the knowing faculty of these causes must be immaterial. Hence the soul as

    intellectual soul is immaterial and immortal. How are the formal causes introduced as

    immaterial? Simple examples: Two pieces of whatever that are equal. From where does

    intellect have the universal concept of equality (because the sense perception doesnt offer

    that notion)? It comes from another cause, not from the material cause, but an ideal formal

    cause. Plato draws attention to the fact that on the level of sense perception we grasp

    something universal. Where does this come from? Kant says that the subject imports the

    universal knowledge a priori so that afterwards the subject recognizes the imported. Plato says

    it comes from essential causes on the side of the things themselves. Kant is an idealist, Plato a

    realist. Since we have a universal on the side of sense perception, there must be something

    universal going on on the side of individual things. The relation between intellect and the

    senses according to Plato lead to the conclusion that it is the intellect WITH the senses, that

    takes in the sensible data.

    The universal is always in opposition to the individual. The universal is always one (i.e. one

    species of man, but a multiplicity of individual men), the individual are many. Universal is

    intelligible, individual is sensible. Universal is immutable, individual is changeable.

    [Aristotle assumes as Plato that there are formal causes, but he puts them into the natural

    things, not separately. Aristotle is aware that we can come to know the essential causes only

    by universals.]

    Platos introduction of the ideas in the very first sense is a continuation of the philosophy of

    nature of the Pre-Socratics. He does not introduce idealism, but is realistic as the Presocs. He

    comes to these formal causes by reflecting on this form of knowledge. We can grasp formal

    causes only through universal concepts.

    [Realism: 1.) Priority of the things (res) over the intellect and its knowledge and 2.) the thingsare determinative/the measure for the intellectual knowledge.

  • 8/4/2019 History of Ancient Philosophy

    18/22

    Plato puts the essences on the side of the material things, not on the side of the intellect. For

    him intellect is receptive and determined by the things.]

    Ideas of sensible things and the position of intelligible and sensible world leads to the

    question of their relation. Plato comes up with participation. Participation here means a causal

    relationship. It is a dependence of things being caused on causes.

    Plato develops the theory of ideas for all things which are defined as species. Because of the

    different degrees of the universality of concepts, there is a kind of pyramid with many species

    on the basis (cats, dogs etc.) and the genus (animal) on the level above, then the five upper

    genera on the level above that (identity, diversity, entity, movement and rest). Why these?

    Because all things on lower levels are sharing in them. On the highest level there is the one

    or the good.

    Introduction to Ideas, Republic, fourth to sixth book: Plato tries to define justice and talks

    about the difficulties. It is hard to define justice in the human soul. Look at it in larger

    dimensions (state) and transfer to smaller dimensions (soul). Plato deals with the state, but

    finds himself troubled again. It is easier to come to the essence of a thing if you look at it in

    its generation. He looks at original state of men as separated and coming together in a state

    step by step. Men by nature are social beings. Human beings have different talents, are adapt

    to different functions, they divide their work to help each other to survive. When material

    needs are satisfied and people are in a state of certain welfare, you have in Platos eyes only

    arrived at the state of pigs. So the end of the state is a higher one. You have to develop a

    higher faculty of the soul, come to a moral good life, which is the aim and end of the state.

    Therefore you need education of those who guide the state.

    Three classes of men: Farmers and workers, soldiers, governors. Each class has to fulfill its

    function with their virtues. Workers need moderation, soldiers need bravery and governors

    need prudence or wisdom. Where is the virtue of justice? It is in the co-ordination and

    harmony of the three virtues mentioned before. Justice is when everyone (every part) does his

    own duty (activity towards the end of totality).

    Three principles of the soul: The instinct, the moods/affection and intellect/reason with

    corresponding virtues moderation, bravery, prudence. The lower principles are to be guided,

    have to obey by nature, the higher principles govern or lead the lower ones by nature. So we

    have a co-ordination by nature that leads to justice.

    Back to the text about ideas: Governors have to be taught to come to justice. Sixth book:Doctrine of the highest idea of the good. Plato uses an analogy. In the field of sensible

  • 8/4/2019 History of Ancient Philosophy

    19/22

    knowledge we have the senses and their objects, the sensible things. Then we have the sun,

    which is the condition for the senses to see se sensible things in the light. On the other side we

    have the intellect and the ideas (intelligible things) and above that the good, in which light

    (truth) the intellect grasps the ideas. This means the good is the cause of the intelligibility of

    the things and of their being. Plato concludes that the good is beyond the ideas (on the other

    side of the entity). The good transcends everything.

    [According to Plato the ideas are on the side of the entities not on the side of the intellect.

    For Aristotle the essences of things are in the natural things.]

    Eighth Lesson:

    When asking about the nature of things you cannot stop at the elements and atoms. There is a

    kind of formation/organization to it, that is not accidental. There must be an answer not only

    to the question what a thing is, but also why it is, what it is. Which cause forms and organizes

    the matter in such a way, that there are always specific determined things? Plato with his

    ideas is the first man in the occident who tries to answer that question. His ideas do not have

    anything in common with idealism.

    Platos Republic:

    Phaedo (about the soul, no attempt to prove the existence of the soul, the existence is pre-

    supposed): The faculty grasping the immaterial (formal) causes (ideas) of the things must be

    immaterial as well (intellect). For the first time in occidental philosophy the soul is explained

    as immaterial and therefore as formal cause of man.

    The theme of the Republic is justice. Plato admits, that it is difficult to determine justice.

    He says it is easier to study justice in natural dimensions of the state and then transfer it to the

    smaller dimensions of the soul.

    Guidelines in the Republic are species and genera. The build-up is like a pyramid. On the

    bottom you have the species, then higher species, then lower genera, then five highest genera

    (in the dialogue Sophist: identical, diverse, entity, movement, rest). There is always adependence of the lower on the higher and everything depends on the five genera. On the

  • 8/4/2019 History of Ancient Philosophy

    20/22

    highest level we have a first principle, which is the good or the one. The Good or the One

    is the topic of Republic, book six. In the dialogue Parmenides we also have the One.

    Theory of ideas: Of the communion and separation of ideas: The dialectic, dealing with the

    relationship of ideas. In Parmenides Plato says, that if we look at the one we can separate it

    from the status of being an entity, because an entity already has a plurality of aspects is

    among others and has being, diversity etc. So the One is not an entity among others, but a

    thing beyond all others.

    Ninth Lesson:

    Nope

    Tenth Lesson:

    Platos writings:

    First/early period: Ethical level The Socratic (small) dialogues. They are called aporetic,

    because they do not seem to come to an end because the Sophist interlocutor doesnt seem to

    want to understand. They attempt to define single virtues but dont succeed

    Second/middle period: Epistemological level Phaedo, Parmenides, Sophistes, Symposium,

    Republic, Doctrine of the ideas = the essences of things

    Third/late period: Anthropological level Treating systematic themes like the Pheaetetus on

    knowledge or Philebus on morally good life

    Gorgias: Theme is justice (as in the Republic). It belongs to the early period. The dialogue is

    composed of three discourses. The first is between Socrates and Gorgias, the second between

    Socrates and Polos (Gorgias disciple) and the third between Socrates and Callicles. All these

    dudes are historical personalities. There is an evolution of the theme in these discourses. On

    the first level the conversation is more on the ethical level. The second is on the

    epistemological level. The third is on the anthropological level.

    In the first (ethical) discourse Plato reveals, that Gorgias (who was very celebrated) does notresolve his promise to be the master (sophists) of wisdom. Georgias reveals ignorance, is

  • 8/4/2019 History of Ancient Philosophy

    21/22

    ashamed and his disciple comes to his aid.

    Plato: What is your activity?

    Gorgias: I am educating the citizens to become good and just.

    Plato: But what is justice and goodness?

    Gorgias: . (tumbleweeds rolling by, cobwebs forming)

    Rhetoric vs. Philosophy

    A corresponding science to philosophy would be a kind of political philosophy, but the

    Sophists only offer Rhetoric.

    Socrates: philosophical politics; the moral good, justice

    Gorgias: persuasion, rhetoric; individual advantage, utility

    In the second (epistemological) discourse, Polos jumps in and takes over for his master. He

    tries to make a virtue of the vice of ignorance, says we do not knowledge. Polos: We do not

    dispose one other kind of knowledge than opinions. Forget science.

    Opinion vs. Science

    Today ethical discussions want to be autonomous and circle around the meaning of words,

    whereas the classical ones were seen in a context on which the relied. The ethics referred to a

    foundation in human nature.

    In the third (anthropological) discourse, Callicles comes onto the scene and risks a lip. Says

    you have to live according to your instincts for power, have to overcome the other, do not let

    yourself be submitted by laws, dont pay attention to weaker ones but use the power you are

    given. Socrates is attacked by Callicles (old man, bugger off, let the kids take over!).

    What is good and just by nature? The question of the natural right is raised and leads to the

    human nature, which is supposed to be instinct. Socrates says, that the nature of man is

    rationality. This does not exclude instinct, but adds to it. Ergo the human nature is complex.

    Callides: Human nature is instinctive

    Socrates: Human nature is rational

    When only instinct is in man, there is disorder/anarchy with which reason cannot be content.Reason is not allowed to submit to instinct. The reason has to guide and rule, so that there is a

  • 8/4/2019 History of Ancient Philosophy

    22/22

    natural order.

    Order stands for good, good is a final end. If theres a complex unity there has to be an order

    with the lower submitted to the higher. In the society of the Republic it says that justice is,

    if every part performs its duty.

    So if man is a complex unity, there has to be co-ordination and order. Reason has to govern

    instinct.