by Roy Jackson
Doxography: In this case, an account by a historian or philosopher of the thoughts of the Presocratics.
Empirical method: A way of understanding our world by using our senses.
Fragment: A term used to describe the remains of original writings of the Presocratics.
Induction: Induction is to consider a number of pieces of evidence and to reach a conclusion based upon this evidence. The conclusion may ultimately be wrong, but is considered the most likely given the evidence available.
Logos: The Greek word can be variously translated as ‘speech’, ‘word’, ‘discourse’, ‘account’ etc., but, more broadly, is a term used to apply to the animating principle for the cosmos.
Materialist: Also known as physicalists. Those believing that the world is made up of nothing but matter and that it is possible, therefore, to reduce all things to the basic fundamentals of matter.
Ontology: The philosophical study of ‘Being’ in the sense of what it means for something to have existence.
Philosophy: Broadly, the pursuit of knowledge, although – starting with Plato especially – it developed into a more rigorous and precise discipline.
Polis: Greek for ‘city-state’.
Presocratics: A collective term for those philosophers who lived before the time (or at the same time) of Socrates.
Dig deeper
Barnes, J. (1982), The Presocratic Philosophers. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Kirk, G. S., Raven, J. E. & Schofield, M. (1983), The Presocratic Philosophers (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nicolson, A. (2014), The Mighty Dead: Why Homer Matters. London: William Collins.
Osborne, C. (2004), Presocratic Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Roochnik, D. (2004), Retrieving the Ancients: An Introduction to Greek Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.
Shields, C. (2003), Classical Philosophy: A Contemporary Introduction. London: Routledge.
West, M. L. (trans.) (2008), Hesiod: Theogony and Works and Days. Oxford: Oxford University Press
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) is an excellent website, especially for material on the presocratics (but also good on Plato and Aristotle): http://plato.stanford.edu/
The Hanover Historical Texts Project is also a good website for providing fragments with commentary of the works of the Presocratics: http://history.hanover.edu/project.php
Fact check
1 Who were the ‘Presocratics’?
a Disciples of Socratics
b Philosophers who, chronologically, came before Socrates
c Ancient Egyptian thinkers
d Writers of Greek myth
2 Which one of the following is the name of an epic poem attributed to Homer?
a Iliad
b Enterprise
c Achilles
d Theogony
3 Which one of the following is attributed to Hesiod?
a Theology
b Philosophy
c Theogony
d Odyssey
4 Who, philosophically, are the ‘materialists’?
a People who like to collect physical things
b Rich philosophers
c Philosophers who attempt to look for a material, rather than a spiritual, explanation of the universe
d Philosophers who like to make lists of physical things in the world
5 What is the polis?
a An Ancient Greek police force
b The Greek word for a city-state
c The Greek word for ‘Greece’
d The study of politics
6 Which of the following is a definition of an account by a historian or philosopher of the Presocratics
a Doxography
b Biography
c Hagiography
d Autobiography
7 What, for Thales, is the fundamental element from which all things derive?
a Fire
b Water
c Air
d Wind
8 What, for Anaximenes, is the fundamental element from which all things derive?
a Fire
b Water
c Air
d Wind
9 What is meant by the term apeiron?
a The ‘boundless’ or ‘indefinite’
b Chaos
c The gods
d The Greek city-state
10 What is the study of ontology?
a Ancient Greek monuments
b Presocratic texts
c Origin of words
d Philosophical study of ‘Being’
2
Who was Socrates?
In the previous chapter we looked at the Presocratics, those who, in most cases, came before Socrates and who started the ball rolling in terms of philosophy as a distinct discipline. A much more rigorous approach to philosophy, however, usually begins historically with Socrates himself, as perceived through the writings of Plato. Plato was hugely influenced by his teacher Socrates, and it is not possible to appreciate Plato’s teachings without first considering those of his mentor.
Socrates the man
Socrates (c. 470–399 BC) was born when Athens was at its peak. It was the greatest power in the Mediterranean, a major trading centre, one of the world’s earliest democracies (to call it the world’s first democracy, as some books do, is probably being somewhat Eurocentric) and the centre of a mighty naval empire. Its ruler of the time, Pericles (c. 495–429 BC), embodied all of Athens’ achievements: a self-made man and a hero who had defeated the mighty Persians. Gathering the finest sculptors and craftsmen from around the Greek world, Pericles invested in a massive reconstruction programme that included the building of the Parthenon. This remarkable temple was completed in only 15 years. In the main auditorium stood a 40-foot-high statue of the goddess Athena, made of gold and ivory and studded with precious jewels. The Parthenon, which can be visited today, became the spiritual heart of the city and a symbol of the power of Athens.
Yet at the death of Socrates, the city of Athens was ruined by war, its people had lost everything, Pericles had died from the ravages of a plague that had killed a third of the city’s population, and what was supposedly an enlightened city was responsible for the execution of its greatest mind, Socrates himself. How could such a thing have occurred?
We know so little about the real Socrates, other than he really was a historical figure and that he was executed in 399 BC. Socrates did not, so far as we know, write down anything himself, and so we must rely upon other sources, especially Plato. However, Plato is not our only source. Xenophon (430–354 BC) was a historian and a student of Socrates and he also wrote in the same form as Plato, that of Socratic dialogues. These include Memoirs of Socrates, in which Socrates is portrayed in a somewhat comic way at a symposium, and Apology, which is an account of the defence speech that Socrates gave at his trial. Xenophon, however, is not as poetic as Plato, nor is he as well-versed in philosophy, and what he gives us is a picture of a wise man, but somewhat difficult to distinguish from other wise men. It is something of a pedestrian view, as a man more conventional and ascetic who happily dishes out advice about exercise and diet, or finance and family relationships, but fails to portray any degree of the philosophical subtleties of the Socrates portrayed by Plato. Xenophon does tell us that Socrates was married to a strong-willed wife called Xanthippe, and that he had three sons named Lamprocles, Sophroniscus and Menexenus.
Socrates’ wife
One follower of Socrates, called Antisthenes, asked him why did he put up with such an argumentative and resistant wife, to which Socrates responded: ‘If I can put up with her, I shall find it easy to get along with any other human being.’
Xenophon’s Socrates comes across as pleasant enough, with a high degree of common sense, and always willing to give advice on the importance of children honouring their parents and not overeating, but this is hardly an inspiring figure that legends are made of. For this we must look to Plato,
who can perhaps be accused of going too far the other way: of transforming Socrates into a new and higher ideal of what humans can become but, consequently, divorcing the true man from the superhuman ideal. The truth is we do not know if Socrates was even a philosopher at all, and it is largely due to Plato who creates Socrates the philosopher. The extent to which we are given a true picture is such a debatable one.
The French philosopher Jacques Derrida (1930–2004) once wrote a series of talks called The Post Card: From Socrates to Freud and Beyond (1980), and here, inspired by a card reproduction of a medieval depiction of Plato standing behind Socrates (a drawing by Matthew Paris, 1217–59), he imagines Plato hovering over Socrates’ shoulder and dictating his philosophy to Socrates rather than the other way around. The point is well taken, for to what extent is the mouthpiece of Socrates the philosophy of Socrates, or that of Plato?
What we do get from Plato’s Socrates is someone much more interesting, contentious, philosophically intense, and entertaining; certainly much more the kind of person you would like to share a drink with in a symposium than Xenophon’s somewhat boring and sensible version.
The teachings of Socrates
As the British philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) said of the time of Plato and Socrates in Ancient Greece: ‘It was possible in that age, as in few others, to be both intelligent and happy, and happy through intelligence.’ (Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy, 2nd ed. London, 1961, p. 77) Though perhaps an over-romanticized vision, it nonetheless has an element of truth. Philosophers, scientists, physicians, mathematicians, astronomers, artists and architects all flocked to Athens to network and discuss their theories with their peers. If the Hellenic League were the United Nations of its day, Athens was its New York.
Athens, during its renaissance, was enjoying a time of relative peace and prosperity, when many Athenians, bathed in self-confidence, were garbed in expensive robes and enjoyed luxurious food and wine. However, there was one man who would wander the streets of the Athens marketplace, known as the Agora, in his bare feet and dressed in unkempt and dirty garments. This man, known as Socrates, was considered the ugliest man in the city, for his head was too big, his nose misshapen, and his eyes bulged. In every sense, he seemed the very opposite of the fine classical lines of Greece. In itself this tells us much, for his followers were not concerned with superficial looks, but what lay behind: the beauty of his mind.
Plato’s early dialogues deal with subjects that were of interest to Socrates. Although it is difficult to know where Socrates’ philosophy ends and Plato’s begins it is nonetheless helpful to place the combined thought of these two great thinkers into three main categories:
• Rejection of traditional beliefs. Socrates was always prepared to throw out coveted traditions and beliefs if he believed them to be wrong, and he encouraged his followers to do likewise.
• Concern for ethical issues. Socrates was mostly concerned with morality and the belief that there can be universal definitions for such terms as ‘goodness’.
• Conversation as a practical method to acquire knowledge. People learned from Socrates through conversation. Conversation was a means – a logical process – by which definitions are attained and truths acquired.
As we do not know whether this really is what Socrates believed, future references in this book to Socrates (of which there are very many) have to be understood in the light of Plato’s Socrates.
In Plato’s work, Apology, it is recorded that Socrates experienced a ‘conversion’. Socrates’ friend Chaerephon had visited the famous Delphic Oracle to ask its priestess whether there was anyone wiser than Socrates. The priestess replied that there was none wiser. Socrates took this to mean that the truly wise man is one who recognizes that he is really ignorant. Socrates adopted this as his own philosophy based on the pronouncement of the Delphic Oracle – ‘Know thyself’. Socrates was a great believer in the power of human reason to learn absolute truths. To discover the truth is to know what it means to live the good life and to live it virtuously.
In one of Plato’s other works, Meno, the character of Meno asks Socrates the following question: ‘Can you tell me, Socrates, whether goodness is a thing that is taught; or is it neither taught nor learned in practice, but comes to men by nature, or in some other way?’ In this one question we have the very essence of what was both Plato’s and Socrates’ concern: what is the right way to live? For ‘goodness’ can be variously translated as ‘virtue’, ‘excellence’ and so on, and is from the Greek arete. And so, what does it mean to be ‘good’, and how can we know this ‘good’ and teach this to our children? This is as much a concern today as it was in Plato’s time; and we can see how it encompasses not only moral philosophy, but also politics, education and the question as to where our knowledge comes from.
Concern for ethical issues
At the time of Socrates, Greek mathematics was making great strides, and Socrates was influenced especially by Pythagoras (see Chapter 3) to the extent that a cosmology is presented of an ordered cosmos governed by universal laws. However, while we should recognize the important contribution the Presocratics made to the philosophical tradition, Plato’s Socrates comes across as opposed to these materialist thinkers, which he saw as a threat to the political and moral order of Athenian society. This is because materialism sees the universe as a largely ‘valueless’ place, which lacks any purpose or moral weight, other than mathematical principles. One example of this is the Presocratic philosopher Democritus (c. 480–370 BC), who saw the universe as consisting of atomos (Greek for ‘undivided’ or ‘indivisible’), which are tiny, invisible particles (hence the English word ‘atom’). These tiny particles are different shapes, some are triangle shaped, some hexagonal, etc., and they have ‘hooks’, allowing them to connect with other atoms that causes them to form into the objects we see in the world. However, as the quote from Democritus below states, that is all that there is. For example, one set of atoms forms to constitute, say, honey, and another set of atoms forms a person’s taste buds. When these two connect, there is an experience of ‘sweetness’, but there is no such thing as ‘sweetness’ itself, only the interaction between atoms. However, that means that some other creatures’ taste buds may experience the honey as bitter, and so this is what Democritus means ‘by convention’.
‘By convention sweet, by convention bitter, by convention hot, by convention cold, by convention colour. But, in reality, atoms and void.’
Democritus
The implications in terms of knowledge and morality are immense, for it suggests that the universe is nothing more than connected atoms, lacking any purpose or reality other than the atoms themselves. All things become relative to the person (or any other creature) that is encountering the world of objects; for one creature a flower may be yellow, while for another it is monochrome. In terms of ethics, nothing can be said to be inherently good or bad, for ‘atoms’ are not ‘good atoms’ or ‘bad atoms’, and so what may seem like a morally good action for one person, may not be so for another, for it is merely a matter of ‘taste’. The concern for Socrates was such a vision of the universe can lead to a corrosive scepticism and to sophistry.
Democritus
Legend says that when Democritus was very old he deliberately blinded himself by staring at the rays of the sun that were reflected from a silver shield. The reasons given for this are either that he did not want anything to impair his inner vision of his soul, as he was nearing death, or it was also suggested it was because it was too distressing to see beautiful women with the knowledge he was too old to make love to them.
The Sophists
Whereas Socrates believed in absolute standards, there was a group of itinerant teachers who thought the opposite: the Sophists. One of the greatest Sophists of all, Protagoras (c. 490–420 BC) famously declared that ‘Man is the measure of all things’. By that he meant that it was mankind that established what is right or wrong, not the gods or the existence o
f a morality independent of man. Again, we can see parallels with the world we live in today: with the decline in institutional religion and the increase in the view that there is no one ‘truth’. This raises the question of how we can teach moral standards when there are no ‘standards’, only what is relative. This is what is meant by moral relativism, and it was this especially that both Socrates and Plato found abhorrent.
To understand what ‘goodness’ meant for the Ancient Greeks it helps to look at how the children were educated at that time. In the golden age of Athens, the sons of the aristocrats – for they were the only ones who received any kind of decent education – were brought up to imitate the virtues of the gods and heroes contained in the works of, for example, Homer and Hesiod (see Chapter 1). ‘Virtue’, for most ancient Greeks, did not mean the same thing as it does for the Western Europeans of today. For the Greeks, virtue included such attributes as courage, ambition, the acquisition of wealth, glory and acting for the good of the polis.
The Sophists, however, were more concerned with teaching people to be ‘clever’ rather than the training of character. For example, today both Hitler and Napoleon might be considered ‘clever’ politicians, yet neither would be considered ‘virtuous’ in our modern sense of the term, although we might be more prepared to see Napoleon as having more ‘character’ and ‘nobility’ than Hitler. However, for the Sophist, what mattered was the acquisition of power, not the kind of morally good person you are. Many of Athens’ great heroes were leaders who would certainly not pass the test of being ‘good’ by our modern standards; Pericles being a typical example of this. However, Pericles was also seen as possessing the qualities admired and praised in the Greek myths, such as courage and nobility and a genuine concern for the interests of the state.
