|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
|
Mini-Course in Philosophy The Development of Philosophy - Part I |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
A Mini-Course in The Philosophy of Socrates and Plato These mini-courses study the growth of philosophy after its emergence in the early Greek Schools, and traces the development of philosophic thought from Socrates to its relatively full expression in the magnificent synthesis of Aristotle in the 4th century B.C. Also discussed is the retrogression of philosophy after Aristotle. Part I discusses the philosophy of Socrates and Plato. Part II discusses the philosophy of Aristotle. Part III discusses the course of philosophy after Aristotle. Part I of The Development of Philosophy is divided into three Sections:
Section 1: The Essential Question It is useless to employ human reason in the quest of truth unless it can be known beyond doubt or quibble that the mind is capable of attaining truth and holding it with certitude. Man cannot attain to all truth, for the scope of the intellect, while tremendous, is not infinite. But there is a vast domain of truth which man is competent to investigate and within which is natural mental powers can bring him to unwavering certitude. If this fact be not recognized at the outset, no development of philosophy is possible. Without a recognition of human power capable of knowing things with certitude, philosophy becomes silly vaporizing and the baseless fabrication of a dream. Therefore, the essential question of philosophy is the critical question, that is, the question of the value and extent of the human knowing-power; the question of knowledge, truth, and certitude as available to man's natural and unaided efforts. When Socrates came upon the scene, in the 5th century B.C., the ability of man to know things for certain was being cast into doubt by the Sophists. The doctrine of these teachers was skepticism, that is, the doctrine that man cannot be certain of anything and that all his knowledge is valueless or, at best, of dubious value. It is, of course, impossible to formulate a direct proof by reason for the reliability of reason. Such a proof would involve the fallacy of "begging the question," that is, assuming at the outset the point to be established by the proof. Nor is a proof necessary. A proof is always a careful and methodical unfolding of a thing which is complicated; it is a simplifying; it is a bringing to light and evidence what is not evident in itself. But when a thing is simple to begin with, no simplifying is called for. When a thing is uncomplicated, no unfolding of complications is possible. When a thing is self-evident, external evidence is not needed. One does not need a lighted lamp to discover the noonday sun. One does not demand proof that the eyes can see. One simply beholds the sunlight and uses one's eyes. That a man can think, and think things out by putting two and two together, is as direct and evident an experience as seeing with the bodily eyes in daylight. Proof is neither possible nor necessary. Still it is possible to formulate an indirect proof of the self-evident truths of man's existence and man's ability to think and by thinking to arrive at certitude and reliable knowledge. Such proof is found in the impossible and self-contradictory character of the opposed doctrine called skepticism. For skepticism is the total paralysis of philosophy; it is, as G.K. Chesterson once remarked, "the suicide of thought." Like suicide, it is an insane thing. Skepticism asserts that it is certain that nothing is certain. It uses reason to show that there is no use using reason. The skeptic cannot speak without affirming his own existence as a certain fact, without affirming certain meaning in the words he utters, without affirming the certain existence of those to whom he speaks, without affirming the truth of his own theory that no truth of theory is possible. Therefore, the skeptic has no recourse but to remain forever silent. Socrates did not pause to analyze the error of the skeptical Sophists. To their doubts and denials he opposed a human and manly acceptance of the power of man's mind to attain truth and to hold it with certitude. This he took for granted, as every sane man must. Starting with this premise, he developed his philosophy of the critical question, giving his theory of knowledge, its character, its value, its purpose. He tied in his studies of the critical question with the ethical question, and, to some extent with the psychological question and the theological question. But the main mark and characteristic of Socrates' philosophy is that it is critical and ethical; it deals with human knowing and with virtue, and indeed it brings these two things together in one. In much this theory is erroneous, but it marked a splendid step forward in the development of true philosophy (or true speculation), and it was a needed brake upon the ruinous course of the Sophists. Section 2: Theories of Socrates Socrates (picture) lived from 469 to 399 B.C. He has left us no writings, and it is likely that he wrote nothing to leave. He taught only orally, and his teachings have come down to us through the writings of his pupils, Plato and Xenophon. Thus our "sources" are secondary, since only a man's own writings are primary sources of his teachings. But these secondary sources are, in the present case, reliable. Socrates felt a divine call to teach and to improve the lives of men. Teaching was for him a religious duty. He recognized the fact that no improvement in men's lives and morals is possible without a solid philosophy of knowledge. For why speak of duties to men who cannot be sure of anything, and hence cannot certainly know that they have duties at all? Why talk of morals if there is no reliable knowledge that moral exist or are desirable? So intimate indeed is the relation of knowledge to right living that Socrates declared that knowledge is virtue. He maintained that to know thoroughly what is right is to make the doing of wrong impossible. Now, Socrates must have known very well that we often act in contradiction to our knowledge. With the poet Ovid, he must have had experience of "seeing and approving the better things, yet doing the worse." Nor did he excuse sin and crime as the product of sheer ignorance. No, he held that when a man knows thoroughly and realizes all the implications of what he knows he cannot act in such a way as to make practical denial of his knowledge. Yet Socrates stressed the knowing-power too strongly. He should have stressed freewill as well. Man's mind is not like the all-embracing daylight. What a person knows, in full setting, with all implications clearly evident, is not present to the casual mental glance as a wide and varied landscape is present to the glance of the eye. The human mind is, in its action, rather like a narrowly focussed spotlight which throws its light on one small space and leaves many available areas in darkness. And the hand beyond the spotlight, turning it this way or that, to take in this consideration or to omit that other, is the freewill. Whatever proposed course of action is illuminated by the spotlight of the mind has aspects of attractiveness and aspects of unattractiveness, and the mind dwells on whichever of these two things the will decides it shall consider. No matter how good an object of consideration may be, the will can focus the mind on features of it that are unattractive and repellent. And no matter how bad an object may be, the will may turn the light of the mind upon some real or apparent phases of it that are attractive. Hence, sin is possible, even when the sinner "knows better." To put this technically: "Man is capable of objectively indifferent judgments." Perhaps Socrates stressed knowledge so strongly because he earnestly wished to root out the pernicious error of the Sophists who made knowledge of no value at all. At all events, he did make knowledge the one thing necessary for man's mental and moral well-being. And he held that of all knowledge knowledge of self is the core and the essence. "Know thyself!" was the summary of his teaching. Why should a person strive to know himself? Because, said Socrates, all knowledge is in him as planted seeds are in the earth. He must labor, as the gardener labors with hoe and waterpot, to bring this germinal knowledge to birth, growth, fruitfulness. Is this latent knowledge inborn in the mind? It is not certain that Socrates held this doctrine (innatism). If he did, he was utterly wrong, for all natural knowledge is acquired; it begins with the action of the senses on the bodily world around us; from sense-findings the mind or intellect arises to knowledge that is quite beyond the reach of the senses, and forms ideas or concepts, judgments, and reasonings. But perhaps Socrates did not teach innatism. He may have taught that the see-knowledge with which the mind is endowed was implanted by the action of the senses upon the material and sensible universe. Whatever he taught about the origin of knowledge, it is clear that he held that the finished product is to be worked out of the mind itself. How shall a person set to work to bring to fruitfulness, -- that is, to clear, certain, scientific understanding, -- the seed-knowledge of the mind? By following the Socratic Method. This method consists of two processes, the (a) ironic and the (b) maieutic. (a) When a youth came to Socrates for instruction, the great teacher would receive him with every mark of respect, and would ask him questions, seeming to be himself a pupil rather than a teacher. Invariably the newcomer would grow expansive under this treatment, and presently he would begin to "show off." Now, the questions of Socrates seemed innocent, but they were most shrewdly put. Sooner or later the overconfident newcomer would involve himself in contradictory answers. Again and again he would be led into conflicting and impossible statements. Socrates would gently point out this distressing state of affairs, and before long the poor victim would be forced to make shamefaced admission that he did not know what he was talking about. This was what Socrates was working for. The confession of ignorance is, he taught, the first essential step in the work of achieving knowledge of self. Thus far the Socratic irony. It cleared and loosened the mental soil. (b) Then came the maieutic process, that is, the process of "bringing to birth" the ideas and judgments of the mind. This process amounted to study and discussion, -- "dialogue," it was called. If, for example, the question "What is virtue?" was posed for his students, Socrates would use, if necessary, the ironic process to disabuse the pupils' minds of hazy, inept, inadequate preconceptions. Then he would call for examples of virtue. He would require a pupil to explain why he had named each example virtue. He would institute comparison of example with example, noting similarities and differences. At length, the pupils would be prepared to formulate a clear and precise definition of virtue. Now, once a person can clearly define a thing, he knows that thing. Thus, by the maieutic process, is knowledge "brought to birth." This method of working out a concept by studying various instances or examples is known as the inductive method or simply as induction. Socrates is rightly regarded as "the father of induction." The concepts or ideas worked out by the maieutic process are used by the mind in forming judgments and arriving at conclusions by reasoning. Such judgments and reasonings, said Socrates, are unchangeably true; they constitute science; they are known with certitude. Thus did Socrates contradict the doubts and denials of the Sophists with a ringing assertion of the possibility of achieving truth, certitude, science. We see, in all this, that Socrates was concerned with the critical question; we also notice that this question is intimately bound up in the Socratic system with the ethical question, since Socrates held that knowledge is virtue. Dealing directly with the ethical question, Socrates says that man is made for happiness, and that happiness is the fruit of goodness, that is, of virtuous living. And, since knowledge is virtue, and is to be attained by striving to develop the contents of the mind, man's great moral effort must be directed to knowledge, especially self-knowledge. "Gnothi s'auton, Know thyself!" was the constant cry of Socrates. As to the theological question, it is fairly clear that Socrates believed in one Supreme God. But for the sake of avoiding political troubles, -- which came upon him notwithstanding, -- he conformed to the polytheistic practices of his times. On the cosmological question, it is likely that Socrates taught the production of this world out of eternal matter, and that he regarded the world as the best that could possibly be made (cosmological optimism). On both scores he was wrong. He did not identify the world with God (pantheism), but held that God is present everywhere in the world, ruling it in all things (divine providence and government). Discussing the psychological question, Socrates held that man has a soul which is distinct from the body. The human soul, he taught, is like God inasmuch as it is simple (that is, not made of parts), immortal, and endowed with understanding and memory. It seems, however, that Socrates failed to realize that the cause of the soul's immortality is its spirituality. It will be noticed, too, that Socrates failed to mention freewill as a faculty of the soul, and one that makes it like to God. And he mentions understanding and memory as though they were two faculties, whereas they are one; the intellectual memory is but one function or service of the understanding (i.e., the intellect) itself. What Socrates taught about the union of soul and body in man, is not clear. He may have held, as did Plato later, that the soul is in the body as a hand is in a glove; that is, he may have taught a merely accidental union of soul and body. The truth is that soul and body in man are substantially united; soul and body constitute a single substance, the human substance. Such in briefest outline were the teachings of Socrates. Despite incompleteness and errors, these theories constitute a developing philosophy which is immeasurably superior to anything accomplished by thinkers of preceding ages. The fame of Socrates as a teacher and his widening influence over minds, especially the minds of the young, brought him to the unfavorable notice of the politicians. These fine gentlemen managed to have him condemned to death. He drank the deadly hemlock in the year 399. B.C. In passing, we must contradict the sentimental opinion that the suicide of Socrates was a noble deed. If it were not for the artistic and touching account of it we have from the pen of Plato, we should probably never think of it as something fine and full of dignity. Suicide is never noble. It is, in itself, a contemptible and a cowardly deed. Of course, Socrates, despite his magnificent mind, was under the sway of pagan opinion and custom; without doubt he regarded the taking of his life as a thing justified and even necessary in the circumstances. We make no attempt to fix his personal guilt. We simply point out the truth of sane ethics that a man may never take his life by direct means. No man may justly be compelled to be his own executioner. Even if he be willing to spare the hangman an ugly job, he may not kill himself. For it is manifestly an unnatural thing (and hence contrary to natural law) for a man to take his own life, even if that life be forfeit. One final word. While Socrates was wrong in identifying knowledge and virtue, he deserves the highest praise for his efforts to put ethics on a reasoned basis, and to show that many things are good or bad in themselves. He made moral science more than a set of rules of etiquette, or a program of whims, or a code of fads, or a list of likes and dislikes. A great many of our modern intellectuals would do well to ponder and to imitate this notable Socratic effort.
Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Book... Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Magazine...
|
|||||||
|
Philosophy Resource Center Main Page |
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
||
|
|
||
[Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer]
Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, 2002-03, & 2004-05 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.