THE HISTORY OF ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY.

PHIL. 211.

COURSE CONTENT

1. The beginning of western philosophy with the background to the pre- philosophical thought.

2. The writings of the Poets as Homer and Hesiod.

3. To the transition to philosophical thought of earliest ancient.

4. Philosophers, namely, Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes.

5. The pre Socratic platonic and Aristotelian to post Aristotelian periods.

6. Special attention will be paid to them cosmology, Epistemology and ethical theories.

THE BEGINNING OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY WITH THE BACKGROUND TO THE PRE - PHILOSOPHICAL
THOUGHTS..

INTRODUCTION. SECTION 1

Thinking and doing are the core aspects of human civilization from the ancient to modern civilization.
Civilization we are told started in Egypt and spread to the other parts of the Mediterranean sea. The
difficult life style in the River Nile valley brought the Egyptians to a time light of the ancient civilization.

After Egypt was the Mediterranean region, there the middle east including Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iron
and the far east like China and then back to the Roman civilization and now the western civilization of
which we refer to as the English, Britain, French and American civilizations of the modern world.

THE WESTERN PHILOSOPHY.

Own focus in this course is the western philosophy. Most of what we consider as philosophy in the west
were borrowed from the other civilizations. The Britains, French and Germany borrowed most of them
hearing from the Romans educational focus.

Most of the insights of the western education and philosophies came from the ancient period.

The periods are as follows: part 1

1. THE ANCIENT PERIOD.

The Greek cultural context from poetry to philosophy.

2. Greek Philosophy before Socrates.

3. The sophists and Socrates

4. Plato; the search for intimate Truth and Reality.

5. Aristotle; understanding the natural world.

6. Classical philosophy after Aristotle.

PART II

THE MIDDLE AGES

7. Cultural context - the development of Christian thoughts.

8. St. Augustine Philosophy in the service of faith

9. Early mechanical Philosophy

10. Philosophy and Theology in the eleventh and twelfth century

11. St. Thomas Aquinas : Augustine Philosophy and Christian thought.

12. The raveling of the medieval synthesis.

PART III

THE MODERN PERIOD.

13. Cultural context Renaissance reformation and the use of modern science

14. Early empiricist : Francis Bacon and Thomas Hobbs .

15. Rene Descartes Founder of modern Philosophy.

16. Benedict (Baruch) Spinoza Rationalist and mystic

17. Gottfried Leibniz: The optimistic Rationalist

18. Cultural context: The enlightenment and the age of newton.

19. John Locke, the rise of modern empiricism

20. George Backeley following the road of empiricism

21. David Hum: the Scottish Skeptic

22. Immanuel Kant: Finding the power and the Lunits of the mind

23. The Nineteenth century cultural context: Romanticism, science and the sense of History

24. Karl Marx : A Philosophy for changing the world.

25. G. W. F. Hegel Biographer of the world Spirit

26. Soren Kierkegaard: The founder of Religions existentialism.

27. Friedrich Nietzsche: The Founder of secular existentialism

28. Nineteenth century

Empiricism: Comte, Bentham and Mill.

PART IV.

The CONTEMPORARY PERIOD.

29. The twentieth century cultural context science Language and experience.

THE WRITINGS OF HOMER AND HESIOD THEN SECTION 2.

THE NATURAL ORDER ACCORDING TO HOMER .

The stage set for philosophy was Worth looking at by the most important Greek poet Homer. His
authority within Greek culture is underscored by the fact that later philosophers found it important
either to defend or to criticize his views. One of the earliest Greek Philosophers Xenophobes ( about
570-478 Bc) explain that he a criticizes Homer because "All at first have learnt according to Homer
"Homer's poems suggest several broad conceptions a about the nature of the Universe. First, what
Orcher we find in nature ( the pattern of the seasons, for example) is the proposes and sims of the gods.
However, nature is sometimes unpredictable, because the gods are fickle and impulsive. A devastating
earth quake or a sudden storm, for example, is caused by they do not fit into any long term national
purpose of his that would make his initiation of these events intelligible.

Second, the Homeric gods are far only from the omnipotent deity of the Judo- Christian tradition. Not
only can they be thwarted by other God's . Not only can they be thwarted by other gods, including their
own family members, but they are subject to such forces as fate or necessity. Although the fates are
sometimes presented as several personal beings , their actions are usually so unintelligible and
unpredictable that the human mind cannot penetrate their mysteries. This from own stand point, the
collection of faces called fate is more principle of randomness than it is a law of nature.

THE MORAL IDEAL ACCORDING TO HOMER.

The Homeric notion of virtue is quite a bit different from that found in later moral traditions.

Homer's virtues were the virtues of the warrior _ hero and can be summarized under the heading of
excellence. Excellence was defined in terms of success to row power, wealth, moderation and security.
Homer's heroes may be called on to look after the welfare of others and to take risk to meet the
demands of loyalty. However, these moral duties are always for the sake of the outcome for others.
 Homer's conception of the gods was consistent with this picture. The gods interest involved around
their own honour and status. They say up on mount Olympus looking down on the spectacle of human
affairs like spectators at the chariot races. Although the gods were able to suffer frustration, no one
doubted that their lives were basically happy.

This, when a moral aspired to be God like, this had more to do with enhancing his or her own status
than it did with concern for others. When it came to their intention with mortals, the gods did not
reward virtue and punish evil as much as they expressed favoritism and reacted negatively when
annoyed. Flattery bribery cajoling and coaxing worked as well to win the gods Favour as did moral
goodness. Service to the gods Favouras did moral goodness. Service to the gods was motivated not by
their goodness but by their power consequently, all interactions between morals and the goods was for
both sides solely a matter of calculating self interest.

Homer's account of Zeus however provides some exceptions of this general picture. Zeus was the
Supreme God among Homer's collection of deities. Although he was stronger than all the rest and they
looked to him for advise and approval he still limited both by both external forces and some times get
glimpses of his concern to see justice prevail within human affairs . He becomes angry at moral wrongs
that moral conflict on one on other .

Homer's HESIOD develops this line of thought even further. According to Hesiod, Zeus directs the
order gods to measure human actions against a universal law of justice as Hesiod states in his works and
days.

The deathless gods are never far away they mark the cooked judges who guide down their fellow men
and do not fear the gods.

In these sort of passages the will of the gods takes on the character of a uniform, moral order operating
in the world. This picture provided fertile soil for developing the notion of an impersonal natural order,
independent of the gods will.

THE PERIOD OF THE THALES ANAXIMANDER AND ANAXIMENES.

Section 3.

THALES

He was the Greek philosopher who predicted the solar eclipse. He was also considered as the first
western philosopher .

Some scholars placed him between the period 624-545 Bc. He was a nature of milestus a Greek sea part
in Ionia on the western coast of Asia , minor him and some of his two successors were called the
Milesian philosophers. The two cities, Ionia and milestus were noted for commerce wealth and
cosmopolitan cities. Many of the inhabitants were deceptive to new ideas and the cities perfect
breeding ground far fresh ideas.
 THALES had a very practical mind besides preci ting the eclipse, stories abound that he solved a
number of engineering problems for the military and invented navigational instruments and techniques .
However, it was not his technological achievements that earned him his place in history. He is important
for understanding the western intellectual heritage because he set in motion an ongoing debate about
the ultimate nature of things. Many theories of these early thinkers may seem as much an example of
early science as they are of philosophy. This is not surprising as they are of philosophy. The disciplines
were not clearly distinguished, as they are today. What we called as science was considered to be
"native" ie. "Natural philosophy" . For most of human history even today, a student receiving the highest
degrees in Chemistry with a PhD which is a doctor of philosophy degree. This period represents both the
both science and philosophy because these early thinkers embarked on the quest for universal
principles and nationally defended theories rather than simply making observation and collecting data.

THALES QUESTION.

Thales concern was to find the unity that underlies all the multipiety of things in own experience. This is
sometimes called the problem of the one and the many. We encourage many things in the world fish,
sand three, stars graps, stones , rocks and plants. But what unifiea it all? Why do we consider this a
Universe, not a multipurpose?

What basic principle account for all this ? What fundermental staff underlies everything we find in the
world? This is the primary issue that occupied all the prescience philosophers.

THALES ANSWER.

The answer Thales gave was that water is the source of all things. At first, this answer may seem naive
and unprobable. However before we criticize any of these early philosophers , we must remember that
we stand in top of some twenty five hundred years of philosophical speculations and scientific
discoveries. Hence there early attempts to answer these questions are remarkable in their originality
and cleverness. Aristotle's speculates that Thales reasoned from the fact that water is essential to life
and the seeds of all things are moist to the conclusion that water is the fundamental element.

Additional reasons may have occured to Thales to support his conclusion that everything is transformed
into a gas (steam) and it also can be changed into a solid ice further more, water comes down the air in
the form of rain and return back to the air as mist. When water evaporates down a dish, it leaves a
sediment ( apparently twining into earth) while digging down into the earth will lead us to water, finally
living in Miletus and being surrounded by water may have it seem probable to Thales that everything
comes from water. Although we don't know what Thales lead arguments were, the fact that his
unimediate successors offered rational support for their theories makes it highly that Thales did too.

THE PROBLEM OF CHANGE.

Some further issues involved in Thales speculation. If water is the one permanent and basic substance,
what causes the change in water's " appearance and change or being and becoming" A possible answer
can be found in Thales claim that all things are " full of gods " contraly to appearances, it is likely that he
was not reverting to a naive Theological explanation here , he noticed for example, that magnetic stones
have the power to move Iron. He considered this power to be an animate causal agent in a seemingly
inert stone. Thus he seemed to believe that the principle of animation and change resides in things
themselves. However, the only vocabulary he had for expressing this was to say that things are alive and
divinely animated in some fashion.

ANAXIMANDER

From 610-545 Bc

He was a younger contemporary of Thales and perhaps, the latter student. He was well known in
milestus and published a book on the evolution of the world. At the same time, significantly phrase was
emerging as from of literature to rural that of poetry. This shows that the way people made sense out of
the world was shifting.

ANAXIMANDERS QUESTIONS

He took up the task of his teacher by addressing the question, " what is the single , basic stuff that is
fundamental to all other things? He noticed that he also absorbed Thales assumption that the key to the
Universe would be a single type of entity. He was not satisfied with his teacher's solution, however,
water is just another particular thing that we find in the world along with earth, air and fire. How can
one kind of thing explain all other things? It is a contradiction to suppose that something that is clearly
not water has. Water itself needs to be explained. Thus with Thales' pupil the process of philosophical
criticism begins.

ANAXIMANDER'S ANSWER

According to Anaximander, the ultimate reality must be an eternal imperishable source from which all
things return. This ultimate ground of all beings is the Aperon which means the boundless, the infinite,
as the indefinite. It is without any internal boundaries or divisions and is a space filling, dynamic mass. It
is infinite in time otherwise there would have to be something more fundamental that producesd it.
Furthermore, it is indefinite in quantity. The Boundless can be thought of as a reservoir from which all
things and their quantities are produced. But are the properties that describe it ? Is it cold ? No,
Anaximander would say for then it could not produce the property of dryness. Since it contains or
produces all specific properties it itself cannot be identified with any one of them. Hence, it is
undefinable since we can only define things that have specific properties.

THE PROBLEM OF CHANGE.

Anaximander has a much more development theory of change than did his Teacher. He said the world is
made up of warring opposites ( cold versus heat, night versus day) Since they are opposites, one cannot
give birth to the other, but they must all come from something else more fundamental. Therefore
change is the process of various qualities separating out from and returning to the primordial substance.
Originally everything was part of the whirring mass of the boundless, were flung out from it much as
particles are separated out from a solution in a centrifuge. This whirling motion explains how the planets
originally received their motions. Through this process all the warring opposites such as hot and cold,
wet and dry were produced combinations of there qualities produced the objects in our experience for
example from the objects in our experience, for example from the combination of cold and wet come
the earth and clouds. From the hot and dry come a ting of fire that enclosed the whole. This burst into
smaller things of five that enforce creating the heavenly bodies. From the warm and the wet came life.
Interestingly Anaximander included a primitive evolutionary theory in his account if the world claiming
that all life forms, including humans, originally came from the sea.

Anaximander gave a very modern answer to the age-old problem: what does the earth rest on? His
answer was that it rests on nothing. Since the earth is the center of a Spherical universe, it has no reason
to go one way or another. Since any direction is equally attractive, it stays where it is. Anaximander
recognized that from the stand point of the universe as a whole, there can be absolute directions of up
or down. The universe is an everlasting motion made up of the cycle of creation and destruction. This is
the first philosophical account in the western tradition of the cyclical view of history ( a common theory
among the Greeks) Although he is attempting to give a natural explanation of things, he retains the
notion of moral force in the universe as did his poetic predecessors. He uses the principle of justice to
explain the world cycle . Since everything borrowed its existence from the boundless, it must return the
loan. Hence, everything ultimately returns to its original source.

ANAXIMANDER'S SIGNIFICANCE

ANAXIMANDER'S first contribution was the fact that his theory move in the direction of a more abstract
mode of thought. This may seem like a deficiency, but actually it is not. We cannot imagine the
boundless, nor see it, nor feel it. Similarly , however neither can we imagine not directly sence most of
the forces and particles that own contemporary physicists talk about. By going beyond Thales' crude
principle of water, Anaximander frees reason to think about that which transcends our everyday
experience. Secondly, he began the process of philosophical criticism. He learned from Thales but found
his solutions inadequate. Therefore, he contributed to philosophical progress by building on his
predecessors while improving the latter's theory. Thirdly, Anaximanders addressed more seriously the
problem of change and tried to give a more detailed and adequate explanation of it. Fourthly, with his
principle of Justice he struggled to articulate an earthly vision of a natural, scientific law. True, he still
characterized it as a moral law ( a relapse back to a poetic anthropomorphic view of things)
nevertheless, it was an important principle that operated independently of the caprice of the gods ,
making in mere scientific in character.

ANAXIMENES .

ANAXIMENES' dates are hard to pin down, but he was active around 545 Bc, making him a younger
contemporary of Anaximander and the third member of the Milesians or Ionians. He is said to have
written a book but it has not survived. Nevertheless, his contemporaries say that it had a simple,
unpretentious style, and scientific in lone and less poetic than the work of his predecessors.

ANAXIMENES'QUESTION
As with his fellow Milesians, Anaximenes is concerned primarily with the question " what is the basic
substance that is the foundation of all reality? He agrees with Anaximander that the basic reality must
be eternal, unlimited and singular. However ( continuing the process of Philosophical criticism) , he finds
his colleague's answer to be inadequate. To say that the basic reality is the boundless not to say much at
all. If there is a basic substance, we must be able to say something about it, if we know that that it is
there at all. This using the criterion of Charity, Anaximenes has the task of finding a less vage and more
convincing answer to the fundamental question.

ANAXIMENES ANSWER

The answer he gives us simpl, the basic reality is air. He may have come to this theory on the basis of
several observations. First, air is much more pervasive than water, so it is a better candidate for the
fundamental substanc. Second, air is control to all nature. It is necessary for the existence of fire and can
be found in water and on the earth. Third, he may have noticed that water falls when not supporte, but
air is self supportin. Therefore, water can not support the earth as Thales claimed . However since air
can support itself, it can conceivably support the heavenly bodies as well just as a light breeze can float a
leaf. Finally, air sustains life. It is the primary difference between the living and the dead. Anaximenes
believe the soul was identical to air, when we breathe our last breath and then expire, air ( which is the
Soul) leaves the body.

THE PROBLEM OF CHANGE

ANAXIMENES accounted for the process of Change by two principles that produce changes in the
density of the basic substance. One is rarefaction ( or expansion), and the other is condensation ( or
compression) for example , extremely rarified air become warm and eventually becomes fire . As air
becomes increasingly condensed, it becomes colder and successively changes into wind, water, earth
and finally stone. Not content to simply throw out opinions, Anaximenes provided the first recorded
scientific experiment to provide evidence for his claims. He observed that when you open your mouth
wide and blow on your hand, your breath will feel warm. But when you close your mouth as if you were
going to whistle and blow on your hand, your condensed breath feels cold. Hence, by appealing to the
quantitative changes produce by rarefaction and condensation, he believes we can account for all
qualitative changes in the world.

ANAXIMENES' SIGNIFICANCE

ANAXIMENES' contributions are twofold, first, he showed that we must temper abstract though with
conceptual clarification. If the ultimate reality is indefinite as Anaximander claimed, then we cannot
know much about it and this concept explains very little. Second, Anaximenes treated the problem of
change more explicitly and adequately than his predecessors. Instead of simple saying that all things
contain the principle of change, as Thales seemed to conclude, as that some cosmic moral principle
accounts for the world process, as Anaximander claimed, Anaximenes tries to give an explanation that
has some degree of scientific basis.

SUMMARY OF THE MILESIANS METHODS.

None of these first three philosophers directly address the problem of how we obtain knowledge about
the world. Nevertheless, they do illustrate the beginning emergence of epistemological and
methodological concerns. Thales and ANAXIMENES' as example of a primitive empiricism. Empiricism is
the position that claims that sense experience is the best way to arrive at knowledge. Since they took
observable substance ( water and air) to be ultimate, they obviously were concerned that their theories
Stick close to what we can see and touch. A contrast ANAXIMANDER'S position might be seen as a Clyde
and early version of rationalism. Rationalism claims that reason is the best method for obtaining
knowledge. Since ANAXIMANDER'S boundless cannot be sensed but is postulated sheerly on the basis of
a rational argument, his philosophical methods differs from that of his two colleagues. Although the
terms empiricism and rationalism are two precise to describe these early theories correctly, these
philosophies contain seeds of an issue that will become very important in all philosophy from Plato to
our century.

SUMMARY OF THE MILESIANS METAPHYSICS

Although they suffered on the details, the Milesians were similar in many respects. First, the Milesians
introduced the problem of appearance versus reality. They all agreed on how the world appears to be
but what they wanted to know was what is reality ultimately like? Water, the boundless and air were
their respective attempts to answer this question. Second, despite their differences all three Milesians
assumed they could explain everything in the universe without exception on the basis of a single
principle. Third, they each assumed this monistic principle was a physical substance of the some sort.
Although later philosophers questioned these assumptions, the Milesian made the first attempt to
reduce the multiplicity of nature to a simpler unity . Finally, they all had something to say about how
change occurs. For Thales, change was sheer spontaneous transformation, because things were full of
gods Anaximander explained change as the separation of qualities out the reservoir of the boundless.
Anaximenes accounted for most changes with the processes of rarefaction and condensation. Despite
their innovative brilliance, these answers were but halting attempts to deal with problems that would
require a much more developed treatment by later philosophers.

THE PRE- SOCRATIC PLATONIC AND ARISTOTELIAN TO POST ARISTOTELIAN PERIOD section 5.

1. THE SOPHISTS AND SOCRATES.

THE SOPHISTS.

SKEPTICISM AND THE KEY TO SUCCESS .

In the fifth century, while philosophers from Parmenides to Democritus were debating traditional
questions about physical nature, a major junctive on twining point in the history of philosophy was
emerging. To understand this change in direction, we need to look at what was happening to the culture
during this century. By this time, the cuty- State of Anthens had risen to become the commercial,
intellectual and artistic lenders of Greek culture. This period was such with advances in medicine,
architecture art, poetry and drama. Furthermore, Athenian democracy came to birth as a new forum of
political governance. For there reasons, this century is known as the golden age of Greece. Ironically the
flood of Social and political changes brought with them a moral and cultural malaise. As the century
were on the old ideal of respect for the Athen laws, religion and customs began to disintergrate writing
in the later third of the century after the outbreak of the Peloponnesian war, the historian Thucydides
described a society that had lost its movings. ( Values).

PROTAGORAS

The first and most famous of the sophists was protagoras. His dates are in dispute, but most believe he
was born in the early part of the fifth century Bc ( probably not later than 490 and may have died around
the year 420 Bc . He became famous for his assertion man is the measure of all things. Under either
interpretation, he expresses a radical humanism and relativism that says there is no standard other than
those that individuals or societies intend. Actually, protagoras seem to have embraced both alternative.
As we will see, he affirmed an individualistic subjectivism with respect to ethics.

Protagoras accepted without question the thesis that our only contact with the world is through
perception. ( Sight, touch, seeing, taste and smelling) from those he drew the conduction that
everything is relative to the individual. Toe, the wind may be warm, but to you it may be cold.

That such a radical individualism would seem to head to moral and social anarchy. However, protagoras
surprises us with a rather conservative, society's traditions and laws are as good as any. Therefore, we
should uphold and follow the traditions of our particular society because a peaceful and orderly society
is gokd. As he is reported to have taught. Whatever practices seem sight and laudable to any particular
State are so, for that State, so long as it holds by them. No doubt he would have approved of the advice
when in Rome do as the Romans do. Therefore, he comes down on the side of nonos ( Convention),
since it is all we have to guide our lives. Protagoras believed that even though it is useless to worry
about whether an idea is tame or not he thought it obvious that some ideas are better or more
expedient than others. Therefore, our humanly invented standards can be given a pragmatic justification
by virtue of the fact that they seem to work for our good.

His Skepticism led him to dismiss the possibility of theoretical discussion of theology.

Concerning the gods , i am unable to discover whether they exist or not, or what they are like in
form, for these are many hindrances to knowledge, the obscurity of the subject and the brevity of
human life.

Nevertheless, he thought traditional religion should not be abandoned. Although he was not sure of
the gods existence, he did seem assured they should belief was an integral part of the civilzed society
and political community of his time. Therefore belief in the gods is necessary for social stability. Once
again, his interests were practical and not theoretical.

GORGIAS

The Sophist Gorgias is thought to have lives over a hundred years, from around 483 to somewhere
around 375 Bc. He was led to his Skepticism by Zeno's arguments and even seem to have adopted the
latter's style and method. Having given up on the pursuit of truth, he also gave up philosophy and
became a teacher of rhetoric. His book was titled " ON NATURE OR THE EXISTENCE". Which is thought to
be parody of the title on nature or the existence which is thought to be the name Parmenides gave to
his own book. Here, GORGIAS appeared to be following the advice he gave his students which was to
destroy an opponent seriousness by laughter.

Where as Protagoras that " everything is true" Geogias delighted in proving that nothing is true .
Accordingly, he argue for three outrageous theses:

1. Nothing exists

2. If anything exist, it is unknowable

3. If it is knowable , it can not be communicated.

We have a report of the argument he provided for these conclusions , but they are too lengthy to
reproduce here. It is not clear whether he meant these arguments to be regarded seriously or whether
he was showing off his rhetorical skills and offering a parody of Parmenides and the entire cosmological
tradition. Nevertheless, it does seem that the point of each one of his thesis is to promote a cyclical
skepticism. With the first conclusion, he is showing that rational argument is limited. Parmenides argue
that Being exists, but Georgias attempts to show that it is just as easy to argue that nothing exist. Hence,
reason can prove anything and metaphysics is impossible.

The second thesis implies that reason and experience were inadequate to tell us about the world. Thus,
knowledge is impossible. The third thesis claims that human language is inadequate and each of us is
trapped within our own subjective world of impressions, nevertheless according to Gorgias, a skilled
rhetorician can reason to any conclusion persuasion not truth, is the goal of discourse.

EVALUATION AND SIGNIFICANCE IF THE SOPHISTS

Socrates and Plato provided the negative critique of the sophists. In belief, they said that : (1) the
sophists overemphasized the accidental subjective and personal elements in knowledge and conduct.
(2). They fail to realize that objective standards are incapable for they are required for any judgement
including critical ones (3) the sophists claimed to teach succes in life but never examined this concept.
Hence they were uncritical in their criticism. Even if we agree with these criticisms of the sophists the
perspective of history shows that they did make some positive philosophical contributions (1). They
raised critical question in epistemology, ethics and politics that had been ignored or taken for granted by
their predecessors. (2). The sophist focused on questions concerning human affairs ( knowledge, values
and actions) and there by expanded the range of philosophy beyond merely Cosmological concerns (3).
They provide a Philosophical weeding service by undercutting belies that were naively based on dogma
and tradition (4). The corrosive Skepticism of the sophists and their ethical relativism forced later
philosophers to think more carefully about the foundations of knowledge and values. Thus, the sophist
along with their opponent Socrates represented a transitional stage to the more systematic philosophies
of Plato and Aristotle. (5). The sophists study of language and argument contributed to the development
of the logic, rhetoric and grammar. (6). They were progressive force against entrenched tradition
because they traveled about, they could look beyond the boundaries of the much too provincial city
State. Furthermore, their critique of blind fast in tradition led to more practical political solution in the
forum of Panhellenism or a greater sense of unity between the Greek States. (7). Finall, the problems
evoked by the sophists, skepticism were a motivating force behind Socrates philosophical quest. Hence,
his reaction to them produced one of the most influential philosophies in human history. We now turn
to this philosophical giant that occupied the body off an eccentric little man.

SOCRATES PERIOD SECTION 6.

Socrates 470-399 Bc.

He was a great teacher and a philosopher of his time. He forced his attention on the youth. He was a
great sophist at his time. Before his death at 399 Bc he was accused of corrupting the youths and not
believing in the gods of their time but in new gods.

SOCRATES ON TRIAL,. THE YEAR 399 BC

In the Athenian courtroom, the crowd incornus as the former sculptor turned market place . Philosopher
makes his way to the center of the room to face his accusers. To the unfetching spectators, the
defendant seems to be physically unimpressive as the light shines off his Bald head and a disheveled and
worm garment hangs awkwardly on his eventy year old, short and stocky frame. It would be a
humongous scene except for the solemnity of the occasion. The "criminal" is Socrates and he is arguing
for his life before an Athenian jury made up of five hundred citizens. Chosen at random. The charges are
Socrates is guilty of corruptingthe youth and of believing not in the gods whom the State believes in,
new diversities. Although he was at his period a comical figure, ones assessment of him changes when
he begins to speak. He addresses the charge while leaving in the details of his life. The twinkle in his eye
almost makes us forget that capital charges hang over him. As his voice increases in his intensity and
urgently, we have a sense that it was not this aged philosopher that sat in judgement but that the crowd
and the citizens of Anthens were on trial. How they made their decision revealed both their own
character and that of their society. The defendant speaks: "Athenians , I hold you in the highest regard
and affection, but I will be persuaded by the gods rather than you. As long as I have breatha d strength, I
will not give up philosophy and exhorting you and declaring the truth to every one of you whom I meet,
saying, as I am accustomed, " My good friend...... Are you not ashamed of carrying so much for the
making of money and for fame and prestige, when you neither think nor care about wisdom and truth
and the improvement of your soul" ? If he disputes my words and says that he does care about these
things, I shall question him and cross examined and test him. If I think that he has not attained excellent,
though he says that he has, I shall reproach him for undervaluing the most valuable things and
overvaluing those that are less valuable. This i shall do to everyone whom I meet, young or old citizen or
stranger..... For I spend my whole life in going about and persuading you to give your first and greatest
care to the improvement of your souls and not till you have done that to think of your bodies or your
wealth.

And now, Athenians, I am not arguing in my own defence at all, as you might expect me to do, but
rather in yours in order that you may not make a mistake about the gift of the God to you by
condemning me. For if you put me to death, you will not easily find another who clings to the state as a
sort of gadfly to a horse that his large and well breed but rather sluggish because of its size, so that it
needs to be aroused. It seems to me that the God has attached me like that to the state, for I am
constantly alighting upon you at every point to arouse persuade, and reproach each of you all day long.
You will not easily find anyone else, my friends, to fill my place and if you are persuaded by me, you will
spare my life.

SOCRATES CONTRIBUTIONS TO PHILOSOPHY.

The task is exposing ignorance. Though Socrates studies under a sophist but he discovered that they
were intellectually mistaken and morally harmful. That these smooth talking the rhetoricians had never
honestly sought after genuine knowledge, yet they presumed to instruct people in worldly success. He
worried that the people of Athens under the influence of the Sophists who spoke smoothly and
persuasively was dangerous to society and to oneself if one merely spouts eloquent errors. Socrates was
convinced that one could act only on the basis of the truth or at least our most carefully examined
opinions. We must know what knowledge is available, how we can obtain it and why it is true. To
Socrates the people in his Society were ignorant of the one thing it is most important to know how to
conduct their lives or tend their own souls . That , only one thing is worse than having cancer, and that is
having cancer but not knowing it. If we know we have the disease, we can seek for treatment. For
Socrates, ignorance is a disease of the Soul, it prevent the soul from functioning properly. The problem
was that the people of Athens were inflicted with a multiple of ignorance. They were ignorant and did
not know it. Socrates was like a Pathologist he was trying to make people aware of their condition. Some
were able to accept the diagnosis and seek for intellectual and Spiritual health, while others were too
vain to face the painful truth about themselves.

SOCRATES METHOD

SOCRATIC QUESTIONING.

Socrates method for leading people to knowledge was so effective that it has become one of the classic
techniques of education commonly known as the "Socratic method" or Socratic questioning. Plato later
referred to this method as dialectic. It is conversational method that proceeds by means of a series of
questions and answers in which the inadequacy of the pupils successive answers are exposed,
progressively leading both the pupil and the teacher to answers that have greater clarity and retirement.
The most powerful feature of the method is that instead of simply being given information, the pupils
discover for themselves their own ignorance and are skillfully led to discover the truth on their own.

For Socrates, the method was employed to arrive at an understanding of the most important concept in
human life. He was scandalized by the fact that the leading figures in the society love to hold fact in
political speeches or orations in the law courts, using terms, such as wisdom, justice, goodness or virtue.
Yet, when questioned by Socrates they could not explain what these turns meant. How do we debate or
resolve these issues unless we know what we are talking about or what it is we are seeking? Typically,
Socrates method of questioning moved through the following:
1. Socrates meets someone on the street at a party and begins a conversation with him. Soon Socrates
steers the conversation into an area that has some philosophical significance. The genius of Socrates was
his ability to find the philosophical issues linking in even the most man deme of topics.

Socrates then isolate a key term on which the discussion hinges and that needs classification before
the conversation can proceed. This, the question is posed " what is X ? " Where X refers to some
property or category for example, in the lysis it is piety, in the memo it is virtue , in the Republic, it is
Justice.

3. Socrates then complains that he is ignorant and confused about the issue and begs the help of his
companion in clearing up the nature. Typically, this feeds the arrogance and the smugness of his
companion causing the person to confidently put forth a definition of X.

4. Socrates then thanks him profusely for his two more points to be clarified. This leads to an
examination of the definition and the discovery that it is inadequate.

5. Typically, the subject then produces another definition that improves on the earlier one. This leads
back to step 4 and olor close examination the definition is once again found to fail.

6. Step 4 and 5 are repeated several times until the victim realizes that he doesn't know what he is
talking about. Typically, the dialogues end either when Socrates companion finds some excuse for
ending the conversation so that he can get out of Socrates spotlight or the two agree that they need to
seriously confirm their starch for a solution.

SOCRATES METHOD OF ARGUMENT.

1. He applied the use of Logic in arriving at conclusions.

2. He considered the starting point of arguments from the universal to the particular.

3. From the Particular to the universal.

4. He also looks at the objective views and subjective views, to arrive at some conclusions.

5. He considered the use of words that can lead the two parties to a Conclusive statement.

6. The issue of argument should not be two particular and two general. Eg. 1. Justice means doing what
is in the interest of those in power ( Thrasymachus's definition).

Socrates then elicits the following corollary to the definition from Thrasymachus .

2. To be just is to obey the laws of those in power ( inference from thesis 1). Next Socrates has him
agree to the common sense observation that

3. Those in power can make mistakes ( observation), From this, the following two inference may be
drawn.
4. Those in power may mistakenly make laws that are not in their own interest( inference from 3)

5. To I ey such laws is not to act in the interest of those in power. ( Inference from 4)

Finally, Socrates elicits contradiction;

6. Therefore, to be just is to do why is in the interest of those in power.( Paraphrase of 1) and to be just
is to do what is do what is not in the interest of those in power ( inference from 2and 5)

SOCRATES ' THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE

Socrates called him self a midwife of ideas. As a teacher he was the midwife of ideas who helped other
to be delivered if what they already know of it, that they have known what they have in them.

SOCRATES METAPHYSICS

In the metaphysical aspect of philosophy, Socrates talks of the Soul.

What is the Soul?

In many previous Greek account of philosophy, the "Psych" ( which we translate is the Soul)

The Soul accompanied the body like a shadow was part of the body as the breath of life while the body
was identified with the real person. The Soul accompanied the body like a shadow, but has no
connection with thoughts or emotions of the person.

After death the Soul was thought to exist as a kind of ghost that could be summoned back to prophecy
or to take vengeance on the living. However, the soul was not really identified with the original person
in many early Greek accounts.

Socrates talks of virtue and excellence as living a good life here on earth, doing those things that are
good and are desired of us to do.

The knowing and doing good was very necessary. This calls for intellectualism. That knowledge and
virtue are one in life according to Socrates. That without knowledge all other virtues ( temperance,
justice and courage) are useless and may lead to harm. A well intentional judge who is ignorant of the
law and of the circumstance of the case will not meet out justice. Some one who is courageous because
they are ignorant of the danger at hand , will act foolishly, there is not only a necessary unity between
the virtues and knowledge but there is also a unity among all the virtues themselves. Someone who is
brave but unjust might end up being a dangerous tyrant. All virtues depends on each other.

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF SOCRATES

Socrates had distrust for some ruler of politics because some of them had disjust about themselves on
popular democracy due to lack of knowledge. That public offices should not be choosen for casting lot or
by popular votes, as it is commonly at this time.
 That only those who have philosophy/ philosophical wisdom are competent to rule. This view did not
go well with him among the popular leaders of Anthens. By this, he was unjustly condemned by his
enemies. That two wrongs cannot make a light.

SOCRATES LEGACY .

1. He developed the history of thought in philosophy.

2. They were a lot of intellectual fruits in his Philosophy for scholars to pick

3. The thought that there were much more important goals in life than what they saw in there days.

4. Socrates talks of being a midwife ie. The aspect of knowing their self and what that is in you.

5. For him philosophy begins with the concept of knowing yourself. That unexamined life is not worth
living.

Questions for reflection.

1. What is wisdom? Why did Socrates consider it to be the most important goal in life? Was he correct
about this? In what way or ways are you pursuing wisdom or not pursuing it in your life. Which persons
in history do you think were wise why?

2. Who would Socrates identify as Sophists in our day.

3. Do you agree or disagree with Socrates 's Statement that " to know the good is to do the good why?

4. Was Socrates correct in claiming that being moral or living up to the highest standard of human
excellence is necessary for happiness and fulfilment?

5. Do you agree or disagree with Socrates' claim that morality is objective and not a matter of subjective
opinion as the Sophists thought? Why?

6. Is it ever morally justified to break the law? If so under what conditions. Assuming that Socrates
sentence was unjust, do you agree with his reasons for not escaping from prison?.