Download PHIL 310 Prelude to Socrates Lesher

PHIL 310
Prelude to Socrates
Lesher
The life of Socrates (470-399 BC) represents one of the most important developments in
ancient Greek philosophy—indeed, in the judgment of many people, one of the most important
developments in all of human history. Yet, despite the importance assigned to Socrates and his
teachings, little is known for certain about him, or who is really was. This difficulty has given
rise to what is called ‘the Socratic question’—i.e. how much can be said with any confidence
about what Socrates actually said and thought. We will talk about that shortly.
But another aspect of coming to grips with Socrates is seeing him as a man of his time
and place, and especially in the light of earlier philosophical traditions. Since Socrates is almost
always regarded as a revolutionary thinker and an individual who lived during an usually
turbulent period, we need to step back for a second to look at some of the larger forces that were
at work during the 5th century that set the stage for Socrates’ novel activities and ideas.
There are essentially four trends that converged on the Athens of Socrates’ time and
influenced both his thinking and the views about him held by others.
1. The Presocratic ‘scientific tradition’—the set of intellectual activities that began
with the Milesian ‘inquirers’, continued on through Parmenides, and concluded
with Democritus .
2. The Rise of Athens as a center of empire, ideas, and the arts.
3. The Sophists—a group of itinerant purveyors of practical know-how who came to
Athens during its golden age, concurrently with the life of Socrates
4. The profound social collapse of Athens after the defeat by the Spartans and
occupation of the city in 404.
I will try to say something briefly about each of these developments
I
The playing out of the Presocratic scientific tradition
The way of thinking that began with the Milesian ‘inquirers’ continued on for several
centuries through Xenophanes and Heraclitus but when Parmenides introduced his novel way of
thinking, the ‘old Ionian science’ underwent a profound change. We can summarize these
changes by identifying some of the key players in 5th century though:
Empedocles of Acragas was a Sicilian philosopher/poet/physician/quack who appears to have
taught that while there is such a thing as ‘what is’ there are also many individuals, changes, and
developments taking place over time. Empedocles explains that there are four basic elements
(earth, water, air, and fire), and two controlling powers (Love and Strife), the rearrangements of
which make up the world of people and things we encounter on a daily basis. At the same time,
this whole collection of things (‘this totality’) is eternal, continuous, etc. (cf. p. 50- 51).
Anaxagoras of Clazomenae lived in Athens during the 5th century and offered a complex
account of the creation of this and other worlds from an original, primordial ‘soup’ which was
originally caused to rotate by a cosmic Mind or Intelligence (nous). Like Empedocles,
Anaxagoras seems to think that there is no coming into being or destruction in that sense,
individual entities are created and destroyed all the time by a process of mixture (cf. p. 46).
Democritus of Abdera appears to have introduced the important idea of an ‘indivisible body’
(to atomon) and to have thought of the universe as consisting of these tiny ‘atoms’ moving about
in empty space. The people and things we meet with every day are combinations of the basic
particles that have snagged together in some way. (cf. p. 66). Democritus accepts Parmenides’
claim that ‘what is’ is eternal, continuous, changeless, and full developed, but he now calls each
of the basic particles ‘what is’, and empty space or the void ‘not being’.
All three thinkers sought to provide an account of the ways in which individual entities
come into being, pass away, move about in space, and develop over time. The fact that they did
this without ever offering the slightest justification for doing so suggests that Parmenides himself
never intended to deny the existence of such entities, but was simply posing a challenge as to
how anything could be known about the natural world with any degree of certainty.
But this last stage of this ‘Ionian-Eleatic materialism’—Democritean atomism—also
represented the end of the tradition of scientific inquiry on a wide scale. Democritus’ view of a
natural world ordered only by the random (if necessitated) collisions among the particles struck
those in the larger community as devoid of interest and value. If this is the best science had to
offer, in effect, who needs science? And there is some reason to think that Socrates himself had
little sympathy for this whole approach.
Apology, p. 113.
Phaedo, p.238.
.
It is also clear that in the view of one rather conservative minded Athenian, the playwright
Aristophanes, there was little in ‘the new learning’ that deserved respect. See handout.
II
The Rise of Athens
The middle decades of the 5th century, from roughly 460 down to 430 B.C., mark the
famous ‘Periclean’ or ‘golden age’ of the ancient city of Athens. As a result of various economic,
political, and military developments, Athens became a center of empire, commerce, the arts,
science, and philosophy. Among the conditions that helped vault Athens to prominence were:
(a) A series of democratic reforms. Sometime around 508 B.C. Kleisthenes proposed a division
of the city of Athens into 10 tribes, with each tribe serving in rotation as the ‘Prytany’ (or ruling
committee) for the boulê or Council of 500 (which was itself the executive committee of the
Athenian Ekklesia or Assembly). As a consequence of the Kleisthenic reforms, any citizen of the
city could be chosen by the drawing of lots to serve as something like the President of Athens for
a day (Socrates once served in this capacity, with predictably turbulent results). The Athenians,
in short, devised the form of government known today as a direct democracy. The new
democratic system placed a premium on the ability to speak and argue well in public, which led
to changes in the kind of education sought by those able to participate in political affairs. It also
gave the Athenians a pronounced sense of civic pride as the creators of a form of government
which brought the ‘power’ (kratos) to the ‘people’ (demos).(We should remember, however, that
Athenian democracy was constructed on a narrow base--only adult male citizens were eligible to
participate.)
(b) A series of military victories. In 490, on the plain at Marathon to the northeast of the city, a
Greek army led by Kallimakhos and Miltiades defeated a vastly larger Persian army led by
Darius I. Those who had participated in the battle would later be honored as 'Marathonomakhai'-‘men who fought at Marathon’--and it was widely thought that their victory over the vastly larger
Persian force showed the superiority of democratic system of government to a despotic one. A
second victory, the sea battle at Salamis in 480 cemented Athen’s prominence as the leading
navel power in the ancient world.
(c) New-found wealth. In 483 B.C. large silver deposits were discovered at Laureion, a town
located near Athens. Following the advice of their leader, Themistocles, the Athenians decided to
commit a portion of this wealth to the building of a navy, which three years later (in September,
480), helped to produce an Athenian victory at the sea battle of Salamis over the Persian fleet of
Xerxes. The victory at Salamis stopped the Persian invasion of the Greek mainland and led a
number of Ionian colonies to defect from Persian rule.
(d) The formation of an Athenian empire. In 478 B.C. a number of Greek city-states banded
together in what was known at the time as the Delian league, a kind of collective defense
organization united against the threat of a Persian invasion. Over time, the league came
increasingly under Athenian control, and was transformed into an Athenian empire with both
political allegiance and financial resources being paid to Athens). Athens strengthened its own
military position by rebuilding the long walls and fortify the harbor area of the Piraeus.
(e) Enlightened leadership. In this new political and economic climate made possible by the
Cleisthenic reforms Pericles became the popular leader of the Athenians from 462 down to 429.
It was under his rule that Athens enjoyed her greatest period of affluence and cultural
achievement. Among the works created during this period were plays of Aeschylus, Sophocles,
Euripides; the comedies of Aristophanes; the Parthenon (designed by Iktinos with elaborate
pediments, friezes, and an enormous statue of Athena carved under the direction of Phedias); and
the rebuilding of many other public buildings destroyed in the Persian war, newly dedicated to
the popular gods and heroes of the Athenian people.
III
The Arrival of the Sophists
The attack on Ionian science launched by Parmenides, followed shortly thereafter by the
increasing unattractiveness of Parmenidean monism and Democritean atomism, all contributed to
something of a sense of skepticism concerning the possibility of knowledge. Something of an
intellectual void had opened up. Into that void jumped a rag tag group, known generally as
sophists, who offered an alternative approach and product: not knowledge- but practical sophia- ‘practical expertise or know-how’--how to succeed and be happy--even though nothing may be
known—or knowable! Although they were not philosophers in a strict sense, the sophists
represent an important development in the history of early Greek thought—both in themselves
and in the kind of strong reaction they generated.
Among the more prominent sophists were
Protagoras of Abdera (b. around 485 B.C. in Thrace)--first to call himself a ‘sophist’, he was
known mainly for his ‘man the measure’ doctrine (i.e. Relativism), his agnosticism about the
gods, and his method of teaching opposing speeches --the dissoi logoi. (see p. 81). Plato
describes him (in a dialogue named Protagoras) as an extremely popular, if somewhat shallow
teacher of moral and political excellence --kaloskagathia. ‘fineness and goodness’ or all-round
excellence as a person and citizen --“If you come study with me, after the first day you will be
better than you were before, and the same will be true for every day you stay with me’. Enjoyed
a wide circle of admirers but worried some Athenians because he seemed to be departing from
the old ways of educating young men in civic and moral virtue.
Gorgias of Leontini (b. around 485 B.C. in Sicily)--a disciple of Empedocles, he taught
rhetorical techniques and gave public speeches for large fees to promote himself. He focused on
the concept of the logos--by which he seems to have meant ‘persuasive speech’--in part,
evidently, because he felt that nothing could be said about what-is. ‘What-is does not exist, and
even if it did, it could not be expressed in words, and even if it could be expressed in words, it
could not be known.’ Gorgias does not appear to have attacked existing moral standards, but in
his teaching he seems to have assumed that anybody can be persuaded of anything.
Antiphon (probably of Rhamnous, in Egypt), birth date unknown--focused on self-improvement
techniques--was evidently the first practicing psychiatrist, set himself up, charged people to
listen to their problems, and then gave them advice. He combined this therapy with an attack on
conventional notions of Justice (see p. 86, # 16). Harped on distinction between phusis and
nomos--nature and custom. He defends the cynical view of justice championed by Glaucon and
Adeimantus in Plato’s Republic.
Critias (b. around 460 B.C.,from Athens). Critias did not teach, and was one of the few native
Athenian sophists. He was Plato’s uncle, and an aristocrat and anti-democratic politician. He was
installed by the Spartans as one of the Ruling 30 and died in the democratic counter-revolution.
He echoes the nomos/phusis distinction of Antiphon and seems to have regarded the laws as unnatural constraints imposed by those who happen to be in power. He advocates something like
the view of Thrasymachus in Plato’s Republic (see p. 82, # 19).
Other minor figures: Hippias of Elis (in the Peloponessus)--mad everything he wore, and
claimed to know absolutely everything, Euthydemus and Dionysodorus, who were ex-wrestlers
who took up teaching when they could no longer stay in shape.
Both Plato and Socrates were critical of the sophists and because most of what we know
about the sophists we get from Plato, our picture is perhaps a little too negative. There was a plus
side to the sophistic movement in that they:
1. Represented a new phase in Greek education--the first professional educators. The
sophists’ approach stood in sharp contrast with the older Greek, family-oriented approach to
learning (viz. imparting the traditional Greek values of manliness, courage, fame, observing
one's duties to parents and country, and respecting the gods). The sophists replaced 'family
values' with the pursuit of personal advantage, success in the law courts, and becoming a force in
city affairs, with little or regard for what was ‘fair’ or ‘decenct’. This made them the subject of
Aristophanes wicked humor in his Clouds.
2. Invented the study of rhetoric, grammar, and logical argument (or ‘dialectic’). The
sophists invented what would later become the ‘trivium’ of the famous seven medieval 'liberal
arts' (along with the quadrivium--music, astronomy, geometry, arithmetic.) Against those
unequipped to pay them back in their own coin, their speaking and argumentative techniques
proved to be a devastating weapon. These interests mark the sophists as the first students of
language and founders of the traditional 'liberal arts' education--the skills of speaking and
argument suited to a 'free man' (as opposed to a tradesman or craftsman).
3. Their teachings created serious philosophical questions, for both Socrates and Plato.
For Socrates: can one really teach virtue--i.e. civic and moral excellence? What is it precisely,
and who would best teach it? Does anyone really know how to become good--or more basic,
what it means to be good or just? A number of Plato’s early dialogues appear to have been
written to capture for posterity the way in which Socrates challenged the sophists and went his
own way.
IV
The Collapse of Athens
The Athenian ‘golden age’, however, proved to be short-lived. The Athenians were drawn into a
prolonged war against Sparta that began in 43l and extended down to the invasion and
occupation of Athens (by the Spartan general Lysander in 404). The city was also devastated by
plague during the years 430 and 429, with great loss of life (among its victims was Pericles
himself). The Spartan or ‘Peloponnesian’ war produced deep antagonisms and occasional
outbreaks of hysteria in the city. The rule of ‘the 30’, a puppet government installed by the
Spartans, was especially brutal. By the end of the century, most Athenians were looking for
someone to blame for the debacle, and to root out all those who may have contributed to its
defeat.
In a way each of these developments helped to shape Socrates’ life:
1. He was a heir to Presocratic philosophy, but apart from some possible influence by Zeno’s use
of dialectical argument, he appears to have been uninterested in continuing the kinds of
philosophical inquiries begun by the Milesians. Instead he turned attention to questions relating
to moral values and how a person ought to live. Cicero: de caelo revocata.
2. He was a citizen of Athens during the period of its greatest victories and cultural
achievements, and while he was not active in politics, he participated fully in its cultural life,
distinguished himself in a series of battles, and remained faithful to its laws—even when he was
a victim of a dubious trial and conviction.
3. He was closely associated in the public mind with the sophists, although if Plato’s portrait is to
be believed, he was strongly opposed to their amoralism and skeptical teachings.
4. In the poisoned political atmosphere left from the loss of the Peloponnesian war Socrates was
almost certainly a scapegoat-held responsible for the loss of civic vitality and strength that had
led Athens to her greatest victories because of his association with some of the most notorious
anti-democratic figures Critias—who was a member of the 30-- and Alcibiades—who became a
traitor to the Athenian cause.