Heraclitus
Socrates
Plato's Protagoras 317e-334c (RAGP, 142-56)
Plato
Aristotle
Epicurus
- Skepticism (on reserve)
- Epicureanism (on reserve or click here for online text)
- Stoicism (on reserve)
WEEK
Click on the link for each day to see the appropriate section of the Class Preparation Guide (you can also scroll through the sections of the Course Guide, which is below the schedule table). The Guide provides background info and study questions for each class meeting day. Assigned readings should be completed prior to class on the day assigned in the schedule. For specific dates and course assignments, see the Condensed Schedule for the current semester.
RAGP = Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy
from Thales to Aristotle, 2nd ed
| WEEK 1 | Tuesday | Course Introduction (review RAGP, 1-7 after class) | |
| I. Pre-Socratic Philosophy | |||
|
Heraclitus |
Thursday | Milesians and Pythagoreans (RAGP, 8-20) | |
| WEEK 2 | Tuesday | Xenophanes and Heraclitus (RAGP, 21-34) | |
| Thursday | Eleatics: Parmenides, Zeno, and Melissus (RAGP, 35-41; 59-63; 76-79) | ||
| WEEK 3 | Tuesday | Pluralists and Atomists (RAGP, 42-58; 64-71) | |
| II. Socrates and the Sophists | |||
|
Socrates |
Thursday | Sophists (RAGP, 80-88)
Plato's Protagoras 317e-334c (RAGP, 142-56) |
|
| WEEK 4 | Tuesday | Apology (RAGP, 112-130) | |
| Thursday | Euthyphro & Crito (RAGP, 97-111; 131-41) | ||
| WEEK 5 | Tuesday | Meno (RAGP, 191-216) | |
| III. Plato | |||
| Thursday | Phaedo 72d-107d & Symposium 203c-212d (RAGP, 217-47; 254-61) | ||
|
Plato |
WEEK 6 | Tuesday | Republic I (RAGP, 263-91) |
| Thursday | Republic II-IV (esp. RAGP, 292-313, 328-30, 340-42, 345-52, 358-74) | ||
| WEEK 7 | Tuesday | Republic V, 472b-VI, 506b (RAGP, 400-429) | |
| Thursday | Republic VI, 506b-VII, 541b (RAGP, 429-60) | ||
| WEEK 8 | Tuesday | Republic VIII-X (esp. RAGP, 461, 488509, 52326, 52935) | |
| Thursday | Parmenides 127b-135d (RAGP, 536-545) | ||
| IV. Aristotle | |||
| WEEK 9 | Tuesday | Physics I-II (RAGP, 626-51) | |
| Thursday | excerpts from the Organon: Topics, Post. Anal.,Categories(RAGP, 595-613; 619-25; 588-94) | ||
| WEEK 10 | Tuesday | Metaphysics I (RAGP, 690-703) | |
|
Aristotle |
Thursday | Metaphysics IV, VII (RAGP, 703-27) | |
| WEEK 11 | Tuesday | Physics VIII, 6; Metaphysics VIII, XII (RAGP, 657-58; 728-40) | |
| Thursday | De Anima (On the Soul) (RAGP, 741-63) | ||
| WEEK 12 | Tuesday | Nicomachean Ethics I-II (RAGP, 768-84) | |
| Thursday | Nicomachean Ethics III, VI, VII (RAGP, 784-95; 799-813) | ||
| WEEK 13 | Tuesday | Nicomachean Ethics VIII-IX (on reserve in Foley OR click here for online electronic version); X (RAGP, 813-23) | |
| Thursday | Thanksgiving Vacation | ||
| WEEK 14 | Tuesday | Politics I-III, VII (RAGP, 824-45; 851-54) | |
| V. Post-Aristotelian Philosophy | |||
|
Epicurus |
Thursday | Post-Aristotelian
Schools:
|
|
| WEEK 15 | Tuesday | Post-Aristotelian Schools (cont.); Neoplatonism: Plotinus (reserve) | |
| Thursday | Neoplatonism: Plotinus (reserve) | ||
| FINALS
WEEK |
Thursday | Final Exam |
This Course Guide is designed to help you prepare for class discussion and to promote the best possible use of our time in class.
The most important way to prepare for class is to read the primary assigned reading carefully, noting important passages, briefly outlining significant arguments, jotting down questions that you believe need to be answered or points you don't fully understand, and summarizing for yourself what seem to be the key points. It may be necessary to read the primary material more than one time to get the fullest possible understanding (as a matter of fact, I can guarantee that all of the assigned texts merit--and indeed require--repeated readings to gain a real sense of their significance). To aid your reading, I have provided brief background comments and study and reflection questions. I strongly suggest that you keep the study and reflection questions handy you as you read and use them as a spur for thinking. Make a point to write brief notes to yourself as you read and to write down your responses to the study and reflection questions.
While you should focus most of your attention to the primary texts, I both encourage and expect you to become aware of the interpretations advanced of the ancient philosophers by significant scholars. The best secondary source for comment and discussion of ancient Greek philosophers, philosophical works, and philosophical issues is the monumental History of Greek Philosophy by W. K. C. Guthrie (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 6 vols.). This is a reference work consulted by advanced scholars, but the writing is generally clear and informative. A much more accessible general history of ancient Greek philosophy is Terence Irwin's Classical Thought (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), which is organized around the major themes addressed by each of the most significant Greek philosophers. Both of these reference works will be available on reserve, and they are often a good place to begin if you are trying to dig a little deeper to understand the primary material.
In addition, I have listed optional readings that are directly related to the topics or texts for each particular class meeting. As you might imagine, there is a mountain of scholarly material on issues in ancient Greek philosophy; these references will give you a place to begin (check with me if you are unsure how to locate a particular item, or if you would like some help finding material on a particular subject). An information code after the bibliographic reference tells you whether the reading is an article or book and rates the degree of complexity and depth, from introductory to intermediate to advanced. Of course, if you have any questions about use of these readings or further research in the library, you should ask!
Ancient Philosophy: What Is It? Why Study It?
Background Info:
Philosophy is frequently divided topically into three subfields: (1) metaphysics or theory of reality, which attempts to describe what is ultimately real; (2) epistemology or theory of knowledge, which addresses the nature, processes, and limitations of human knowledge; and (3) ethics and politics, which explore right and wrong and different conceptions of the good life in both individual and social contexts. We will use these different subfields as touchstones in two ways. First, we want to notice how for individual philosophers views in one of the subfields affect positions taken in the other (for example, how a particular theory of reality links to a specific epistemology). Second, we will try to compare the positions of different philosophers within specific subfields, and notice how philosophy is frequently a dialogue in which thinkers respond to, object to, and modify the positions of their predecessors.
Compare the accounts of the nature of reality by
these two early Greek writers:
Then, after him, wide-bosomed earth,
a sure, eternal dwelling place
for all the deathless gods who rule
Olympus' snowy peaks.
Next, Tartarus of the dark mist was born
in a nook of the wide-wayed earth;
then Love, most beautiful by far
of all the immortals, the looser of limbs,
who overcomes, of all the gods
and all mankind, the mind within them
and their clever counsels.
From Chaos there sprang Erebos
and dark-robed Night.
--Hesiod, Theogony 116-29, trans. by John Mansley Robinson
--Thales, reconstructed from ancient testimony of his views
Discussion Questions:
2. What characteristics distinguish a "philosophical" account of reality from a mythic or religious one?
3. What reasons (if any!) can you give for studying ancient Greek philosophy?
Pre-Socratics: Milesians and Pythagoreans
Background Info:
No complete work by a Pre-Socratic philosopher has survived from antiquity. Our knowledge of their philosophical views derives from quotations from their work included in other ancient writings ("fragments") and second-hand discussions of their views by other authors ("testimony"). The relevant fragments and testimonia were collected and edited by the German classical scholars Diels and Krantz in the monumental Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, which also includes German translations of the texts. Scholarly translations, including those in English, typically refer to passages of Pre-Socratic text using the numbering system developed by Diels and Krantz.
The "Milesian" philosophers were geographically centered about the Greek city of Miletus on the coast of what is now Turkey. They can be thought of as early scientist-philosophers, who were trying to understand the basic structure of reality, particularly material reality.
Pythagoras was a charismatic thinker who founded a philosophico-religious community in the sixth century. While the group was rather secretive, the core of the community's practices involved intellectual pursuits and dietary restrictions that were aimed at purification of the soul, which the Pythagoreans believed to be immortal.
apeiron: limitless, boundless, infinite, indefinite; according to Anaximander, the ultimate stuff of reality
gnomon: "carpenter's square"; Pythagorean way of representing numbers to show relationships
2. What is the Pythagorean view of the soul? What effect did this view of the soul have on the Pythagoreans' way of life?
3. How does the Pythagorean emphasis on the value of mathematics fit into their overall view of the nature and value of philosophy?
4. In what sense is the Pythagorean theory of numbers as cosmology an extension of the Milesian search for the arche?
2. What similarities and differences do you see between the Pythagorean account and the religious conception the soul articulated in Christianity?
Freeman, Kathleen. The Pre-Socratic Philosophers: A Companion to Diels Fragmente der vorsokratiker, 2d ed. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1949. [book; intermediate] Individual listings discuss each of the pre-Socratic philosophers.
O'Meara, Dominic J. Pythagoras Revived: Mathematics and Philosophy in Late Antiquity. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.
Philip, James A. Pythagoras and Early Pythagoreanism. Phoenix Supplementary v. 7. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1966. [book; intermediate] General discussion of the history and thought of the early Pythagorean movement.
See also discussions of individual pre-Socratics in Guthrie.
Background Info:
Xenophanes was from Colophon in Asia Minor, and concerned himself particularly with philosophical reflections on the nature of religion. Much of his effort was directed to critiquing anthropomorphic conceptions of deity. Heraclitus was from Ephesus, near Miletus on the coast of Asia Minor in present day Turkey. His writings are wide-ranging in their subject matter, but the most important aspect of his work is that directed to addressing the related problems of change and continuity over change. Heraclitus' way of posing and addressing this problem is very important for understanding the treatment of the issue by Plato.
dialectic: conversational give and take (note the similarity to our "dialogue"); philosophical method in which one highlights oppositions and resolution of those oppositions; in Heraclitus' hands dialectic is a tool to illustrate the truth in both sides of apparently contradictory observations (e.g., that all things are one and that what is real is a battle of opposites)
2. Heraclitus' theory is an attempt to account for both change and constancy in the world. In what relation, according to Heracleitus, are change and order?
3. What role does Heraclitus believe the Logos plays in the world order?
4. What is suggested by Heraclitus' references to the images of fire, thunderbolt, and the waters of a river?
5. What notion of God does Heraclitus seem to have?
Reflection:
1. Does the world seem to you to be best characterized as orderly or chaotic? Why? How does your assessment compare to the view of Heraclitus?
See also discussions of pre-Socratics in Guthrie.
Eleatics: Parmenides, Zeno, and Melissus
Background Info:
The Eleatic philosophers--Parmenides, Zeno, and also Melissus--are named after the town of Elea on the southwestern coast of Italy. Eleatic metaphysics, which stresses the permanance and unchangeability of true reality, is an important contrast to Heraclitus, and plays an important role in the later development of Plato's metaphysics. Like Heraclitus, the Eleatics were interested in the use of dialectic, which, especially in Zeno's use, is a weapon that shows the contradictory presumptions employed in the common-sense attitude and hence argues against accepting the evidence of sense-perception.
Discussion Questions:
2. What are the basic features of reality according to Parmenides? What argument does he offer to support this view?
3. How is the poetic framework of Parmenides' work related to his argumentative purpose?
4. What is Zeno's basic argumentative strategy to prove Parmenides' view of reality? What attitude do Parmenides and Zeno take toward the evidence provided by the senses?
5. Does Melissus offer any advance on the basic argumentative position of Parmenides?
Reflection:
1. Does Heraclitus' notion of the Logos imply at least partial agreement with Parmenides? Explain.
2. If the Eleatic view of reality is correct, what does that practically imply about our understanding of the world and ourselves?
Parmenides. Parmenides of Elea: Fragments. Phoenix supp. vol. 18. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984. [book; reference source/intermediate] Critical edition of the extant fragments of Parminides with an introduction and testimonia on Parmenides' life and views.
Background Info:
The pluralist pre-Socratics, so named because they argued for a plurality of ultimate principles of reality, attempted to defend a common-sense account of the world order that accommodated the rational objections of Parmenides and the Eleatics. Perhaps the most famous version of this view is Democritus' atomism, which argued that in the microcosm, Parmenides was right: that the ultimate constituents of reality are unchanging and indestructible. The modification was to reject Parmenides' monism, and assert that there were many such "Parmenidean spheres," which by combination and separation account for change and motion in the perceptible world. In general, all of the pluralists took a similar tack, arguing that Parmenides' rational account of reality correctly characterized the nature of the ultimate principles of reality, but failed to recognize that these principles are subject to combination and separation.
Discussion Questions:
2. What principle of unity does Anaxagoras claim stands above the opposition of different elements in the world?
3. What are the essential features of Democritus' theory of atomism?
Reflection:
1. In a way, all of the pluralists are attempting to reconcile the rational account of reality offered by Parmenides with the testimony of sense perception. Do their theories meet Parmenides' objections to pluralism? Explain.
2. What consequences for the theory of human nature flow from Democritus' atomism?
Who were the Sophists? What did they believe and teach?
Background Info:
The Sophists were professional instructors that found a market in fifth-century Greece, particularly the democratic city-states. The Sophists basically supplied skills for succeeding in public life, most notably with respect to skills in speaking in public and in law-courts.
The primary readings for today consist of selections of fragments from the writings of the Sophists themselves. In addition, we will examine the speech of Protagoras from Plato's dialogue Protagoras. While Plato, given his polemic stance toward the Sophists, must be used cautiously as a source, this speech seems to give an attractive account of the "craft" the Sophists claimed to practice.
Discussion Questions:
2. What does Protagoras mean by claiming that man is the measure of all things? What sort of epistemology is presumed by this claim?
3. In his justifiably controversial argument, Gorgias claims that nothing exists. What reasons does he have for this claim? What does his argument seem intended to accomplish?
2. On the standards of other early Greek philosophers, do you think the Sophists should be counted as philosophers?
3. Sophists have a reputation for skepticism and disdain for the truth (that's the modern meaning of the word "sophistry"). Based on our readings, do you think the charge is fair? Compare Sophists and the skills they taught to modern political "handlers."
See also Irwin, especially pp. 59-69, which shows how sophistic skepticism extends from certain views of the pre-Socratics
See also Guthrie on the sophistic movement and discussions of individual Sophists
The Apology: Socrates' Trial and Philosophical Mission
Background Info:
Although
Socrates was arguably the most influential philosopher of ancient Greece,
he himself wrote no philosophical works. Evidence for his life and views
comes primarily from the dialogues of Plato (especially the subgroup of
dialogues that scholars believe Plato wrote early in his philosophical
career), but there are other sources, of varying quality: Xenophon, the
comic poet Aristophanes, and scattered references in the work of Plato's
student Aristotle.
Socrates is the central character in a ribald comedy by Aristophanes, The Clouds, which depicts him as the master of a school that purveys a curious mix of pre-Socratic natural philosophy and sophistic rhetoric. Socrates mentions in his trial that this play contributed to his bad reputation among his fellow citizens. As his personality emerges from the Apology, however, Socrates seems to have been interested primarily in moral philosophy and in discussions of virtue or human excellence (arete). His defense highlights his position that examination of himself and others, the key practice of his notion of philosophy, is directed toward improving the condition of the soul.
For convenience, scholars employ a standard way of
referring to passages in Plato's dialogues. Passages are identified by
the page and column of a landmark Greek text, the Stephanus text of 1578.
Most translations include these reference numbers and letters (e.g., Apology
24b) in the margins for easy comparison to other texts and translations.
2. What is the relevance of the oracle at Delphi to Socrates' perception of his mission?
3. How does Socrates think that ignorance amounts to a kind of wisdom?
4. Socrates several times compares horse-training to human education (20a-b, 24e-25b). Explain the analogy and spell out Socrates' implied evaluation of the Sophists and his fellow citizens.
5. Why does Socrates see his role in Athens as that of "gadfly" (30d-31c)? What "sentence" does Socrates believe fits his role as social "gadfly" (36b-37a)?
6. What is Socrates' attitude toward death (28b-32e,
40c-42a)? How does his life of philosophical questioning relate to his
experience on the battlefield? What does Socrates aver is most important
to him?
2. Why do you think Plato wrote the Apology? What seems to be the point? Is the Apology a work of philosophy?
3. Examine the Apology for evidence for and against the claim that Socrates is a Sophist.
Aristophanes. The Clouds. In Four Plays by Aristophanes. Translations by William Arrowsmith, Richmond Lattimore and Douglass Parker. New York: New American Library, 1984. [book; introductory] An interesting slice of Greek culture and record of public attitudes toward the Sophists, even if it is an inaccurate portrait of Socrates (as I believe it to be).
Brickhouse, Thomas C., and Smith, Nicholas D. Socrates on Trial. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989. [book; advanced] An excellent piece of scholarship with careful and exhaustive interpretion the Apology. See especially pp. 13-37, in which Socrates and the historical situation of the trial are described.
Dover, Kenneth J. "Socrates in the Clouds." In Gregory Vlastos, ed., The Philosophy of Socrates: A Collection of Critical Essays. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1971. [book; intermediate] Discusses Socrates' depiction in Aristophanes' play The Clouds and argues persuasively that the portrait should not be regarded as historically accurate.
Kraut, Richard. "Introduction to the Study of Plato." In Kraut, ed., Cambridge Companion to Plato (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 1-50. [article; intermediate] Wide-ranging, thorough, and remarkably well-informed survey of the basic philosophical issues in Plato's dialogues; also includes discussion of major current scholarly controversies.
McPherran, Mark. "Socrates and the Duty to Philosophize." Southern Journal of Philosophy 24 (1986): 541-60. [article; introductory] Explains the religious nature of Socrates' mission and his notion of philosophical activity as a public duty.
Vlastos, Gregory. "The Paradox of Socrates." In Gregory Vlastos, ed., The Philosophy of Socrates: A Collection of Critical Essays. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1980. [article; introductory] Attempts to describe the peculiar character and philosophical method of Socrates; helpful introductory source.
Crito and Euthyphro: Socrates' Basic Ethical Principles and Philosophical Method
Background Info:
The Crito is a continuation of the dramatic portrayal of the Apology. It depicts Socrates in prison awaiting his execution, and focuses on the attempts by his friend Crito to persuade him to make his escape from prison while he still has a chance.
The Euthyphro dramatically precedes the Apology. In it, we see Socrates waiting to enter the court. While waiting, he discusses the nature of piety or holiness with a seer who is preparing to bring a case of murder against his own father. This discussion follows the pattern Socrates describes in the Apology of questioning reputed experts about the content of their knowledge. The Euthyphro resembles other early Platonic dialogues that involve discussion of the virtues or moral excellences (courage, self-control, justice, and so forth) and end in confusion or dead end.
aporia: literally, lack of passage; in Socratic contexts, it refers to points in the conversation where, due to the perplexity of the interlocutors, it seems there is no way to proceed
Discussion Questions:
2. What two principles does Socrates plan to use in evaluating Crito's plan (46b-e)?
3. How does Socrates think that the opinion of the multitude should affect his course of action regarding his death sentence (46d-48d)? Whose views should we value? Why?
4. Under what circumstances does Socrates think it is right to do wrong or inflict harm on another (48e-49e)? Why? What popular view is Socrates criticizing?
5. What principles are invoked by the Laws in persuading Socrates that remaining in Athens and accepting his sentence is the just course of action? What would be the result if Socrates fled as Crito has implored him to do?
6. What business does Euthyphro have before the court? How does his plan lead naturally to a discussion of piety?
7. What is Euthyphro's first definition of piety? Why does Socrates think that this definition is deficient? Is the definition necessarily wrong? Why or why not?
8. Why is Socrates interested in the single forms of piety and impiety (5c-d, 6d-e)? Why is it important to find a "form" or "model" (see 6e)? What point is Socrates making about good philosophical definitions?
9. What second try at a definition for piety does Euthyphro offer (7a-11b)? What problems are there with this account, even if it revised?
11. Socrates suggests to Euthyphro that piety shares a specific relation to justice (see 11e-15c). What is that relation?
12. How can piety be conceived as a skill like horsemanship or cattle-raising? How does this definition demean the status of the gods?
2. Is Socrates' strict insistence upon obedience to the law in the Crito inconsistent with the refusal to obey the commands of rulers that he himself admits to in the Apology?
3. What effect does investigating piety with Socrates have on Euthyphro? What, in general, is the effect of Socrates' method on his interlocutors?
3. Do you think Socrates is an "expert" like the trainer or doctor? Explain.
Brickhouse, Thomas C., and Smith, Nicholas D. "Socrates' Elenctic Mission." Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 9 (1991): 131-59. [article; advanced] Insightful analysis of the objectives of Socrates' method of question and answer.
McPherran, Mark. "Socratic Piety in the Euthyphro." In Hugh Benson, ed., Essays on the Philosophy of Socrates (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), pp. 220-41. [book; intermediate] Carefully argued defense of the view that despite the "dead end" at the close of the Euthyphro a Socratic conception of piety emerges that is consistent with Socrates' views and practices in other early dialogues.
Woozley, A. D. "Socrates on Disobeying the Law." In Gregory Vlastos, ed., The Philosophy of Socrates: A Collection of Critical Essays. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1971. [book; intermediate] Critically examines the apparent tension between the Apology, in which Socrates seems to defend ignoring the law, and the strict call to obedience in the Crito.
Meno: Socratic Method and Plato's Theory of Recollection
Background Info:
As I noted earlier, Plato scholars basically agree on different periods in Plato's authorship. The earliest dialogues feature dramatic representation of Socrates examining moral qualities in conversation with others, and typically end without being resolved. The Meno marks a transition to Plato's middle period, in which the ethical concerns of the early dialogues are related to epistemological and metaphysical themes. The most notable feature of the middle dialogues is Plato's theory of forms or ideas, which asserts that the moral qualities which are the objects of Socratic investigation (and also other ideal concepts) are actually existing entities. Apprehension of these ideal realities is central to the doctrine expressed in the Meno, that what seems to be learning is actually remembering or recollection.
Discussion Questions:
2. How does Meno initially explain what virtue is (71e-73c)? What fault does Socrates find with that account? Why is a singular and unitary definition necessary? How does even Meno's corrected definition (73d-75e) make the one central virtue into many things once again?
3. What is Meno's new strategy for explaining the nature of virtue in terms of human desire and capacity to achieve that desire (77b-79e)? How does Socrates demonstrate that both halves of this account fail?
4. Meno suggests that their failure to give an account of virtue is numbing, because they hardly know how to clearly state the problem (see 78e-80e). Meno notes that there is a perplexing connection between what one seeks and how one is to find it (this puzzle is often referred to as "Meno's paradox"). What is that connection? Why is it problematic?
5. What theoretical solution does Socrates suggest as a way of dissolving Meno's paradox (81a-e)? What view of the human soul does it involve? What explanation does it give of the process we ordinarily call "learning"?
6. How does Socrates intend the exchange with the slave boy (82b-86c) to demonstrate the theory of recollection? What stages of "learning" does the slave boy experience? What conclusions does Socrates draw concerning the slave boy's answers?
7. The last part of the dialogue (86c-96e) is a return to Meno's initial question. What approach does Socrates suggest to determining whether or not virtue can be taught? What hypothesis concerning the relation of virtue to wisdom is necessary? From what source is wisdom acquired (89a-91b)? What answer does Anytus propose (92e)? How does Socrates critique his position?
8. In the face of an absence of knowledge, what role is played by opinion, according to Socrates (96e-100b)? How is right opinion both less than knowledge and a step toward knowledge? What final suggestion does this lead Socrates to make concerning the source of virtue or human excellence?
2. How do the stages in the conversation with the slave parallel the dialogue as a whole?
Phaedo: Immortality
of Soul
Symposium: Soul, Love, and Beauty
Background Info:
While the Meno is transitional, the Phaedo marks a clear philosophical change from the early or Socratic dialogues, and emphasizes two themes introduced by the Meno that are not found in the early dialogues: the immortality of the soul, and the claim that conceptual realities (the "forms") are independently existing entities apprehended only by the mind.
The scene for the dialogue is the prison where Socrates has been held since his trial and sentencing. On the day depicted in the dialogue, Socrates' friends have assembled to spend the day with him with the knowledge that he will drink the hemlock at sunset. Socrates surprises them with his equanimity in the face of his impending execution, telling them that the true philosopher not only does not fear death, but welcomes it. The bulk of the dialogue consists of the arguments Socrates offers to justify his "good hope" in the survival of the soul after death.
The Symposium depicts a drinking-party held to celebrate the victory of one of Socrates' friends, Agathon, in a dramatic competition. Weary after a previous night of reveling, the party guests decide to moderate their entertainment and offer speeches in praise of Eros, the god of love.
eidos: visible form, shape, quality; in Plato, the eidoi are the independently existing casual sources of the qualities of particular things, such as beauty, justice, equality, tallness, and so forth
misology: hatred of argument
2. What additional argument does Socrates offer to respond to the criticisms (78b-84b)? What ultimate conclusions does he draw concerning the nature of the soul, its relationship to the body, and the effect of one's way of life on the state of the soul?
3. What objection about the immortality of the soul is raised by Simmias? What analogy does he use to suggest the nature of the soul? To what extent does Simmias seem to be agreeing and disagreeing with Socrates' account of soul?
4. What objection about the immortality of the soul is raised by Cebes? What "image" or analogy does he use to characterize the soul? What parts of Socrates' analysis of the soul does he seem to accept? What parts is he rejecting?
5. What is misology? How is misology like misanthropy? How does misology arise? Why is Socrates worried about misology on the part of the friends with whom he is discussing the soul? What are the dangerous consequences of becoming overpowered by the difficulties of philosophical discussion?
6. How does Socrates address the objection of Simmias? What conflict does Socrates point out between the notion of soul as harmony and the theory of recollection? How does Socrates employ a functional account of the soul to point out further problems with the notion of soul as harmony?
7. How does Socrates address Cebes objection by turning to a discussion of causation? How is his "autobiography" relevant here? Why does Socrates think that an account that appeals to purely natural causes cannot explain his own decision to remain in Athens and face execution?
8. What is Socrates' causal argument for the immortality of soul?
9. What is Socrates' basic account of love in the Symposium? How are love and desire related to one another?
10. What does Socrates hope to illustrate by the idea of the ladder of love? What, according to this account, are all loves really directed toward?
2. How persuasive are the arguments offered by Socrates for the immortality of soul?
3. What clues are offered by Socrates about the nature of philosophical method and the role of reason in attaining truth?
4. What seems to be the philosophical method both recommended by the interlocutors and put into action in the dialogue? How successful does this method seem to you?
5. What overall attitude toward death does the dialogue convey to you? What reaction do you have to that impression? Why? How confident are you in the immortality of the soul at the end of the dialogue? Why?
6. How "true to life" does Socrates' account of love seem? Is it reasonable to take love as a fundamental human drive rather than a specific sort of relationship between human beings?
7. In the Phaedo, Socrates argues that the soul is immortal. In the Symposium, Socrates seems to think (following his teacher Diotima) that the soul attains immortality only vicariously, through offsping. Is Socrates contradicting himself?
Hackforth, Reginald. Plato's Phaedo. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1955. [book; intermediate] Translation, with introduction and interspersed commentary, of the Phaedo. Commentary often helpfully summarizes key points of the argument and discusses related texts in Plato and other ancient philosophers.
Shipton, K. M. W. "A Good Second-Best: Phaedo 99b ff." Phronesis 24 (1979): 33-53. [article; intermediate]
Vlastos, Gregory. "Socrates contra Socrates in Plato." Chap. 2 of Socrates, Ironist and Moral Philosopher (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991). Detailed exposition of the key differences in the philosophical positions expressed by the character Socrates in Plato's early and middle groups of dialogues by one of the preeminent recent scholars of Socrates and Plato.
Republic I: Socrates on Justice
Background Info:
The Republic is one of Plato's most lengthy works, and according to many commentators, his philosophical masterpiece. The bulk of the dialogue features Socrates making many claims that seem out of character with the Socrates we know from Plato's early dialogues. For this reason, the dialogue is thought to be from a later period of Plato's authorship. However, Book I is remarkably similar in structure and content to many of the early Socratic dialogues, for it features a discussion of a moral quality, in this case justice, which ends without clear resolution. Many scholars have concluded that Plato originally wrote Republic I as a stand-alone dialogue, and then later decided to expand it to its current full length.
Discussion Questions:
2. How does Socrates use analogies from arts or skills (technai) to criticize Thrasymachus' view? What good is sought in arts? What is the parallel between sheep-herding and the art of ruling?
3. How does Thrasymachus respond to Socrates' critique? Does he change his position? Could there be a group of people holding to the type of "justice" he advocates?
4. How does Socrates employ the concepts of limit
and function in his final argument against Thrasymachus?
Republic II-IV: Seeking the Just State and the Just Individual
Background Info:
As the second book of the Republic begins, Glaucon and Adeimantus (who, incidentally, are Plato's brothers) pick up the argument advanced by Thrasymachus in Book I. Although they profess not to believe the argument themselves, they argue that most people do think that justice is a burdensome obligation that we submit to only for its consequences. The main objective of Books II-X of the Republic is to address this challenge and argue that justice is good for the state and for the person who manifests it. Not surprisingly, Socrates begins the discussion of justice by trying to clarify what it is. In order to do this, he proposes that they look at justice as it is found in the good state, and then try to extend their analysis to the nature of the good person.
An important part of Socrates' discussion of the just state is the educational program that he outlines for the warrior guardians and the rulers of the state. The major focus is education of character, which uses literature to inculcate desirable character qualities in the citizens.
After having described the just state, Socrates seeks to locate the four cardinal virtues of wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice. He argues that wisdom will be localized in the wise leadership of the ruler guardians, and that courage will be exemplified by the character of the warrior guardians. Moderation (self-control) is found in all of the citizens of the state, insofar as they agree on who should rule. By a kind of process of elimination, Socrates argues that justice will be best characterized by the recognition of and active pursuit by each group in society of the proper role it must fill to contribute to the city's good. Socrates then attempts to apply this analysis to the individual soul.
polis: state or city-state; the common Greek political unit consisting of a city and its surrounding farmland
2. Why does Socrates turn to the structure of the ideal state to answer the question raised about the good of justice? On what principles does Socrates think the city is based?
3. What classes does Socrates think are necessary in the ideal state? What is the importance and function of each? (Note that Socrates suggests that dogs are by nature philosophical at 376a-b.)
4. What theory of education does Socrates propose for the state? What notion of God is to be presented to the young citizens of the state? For what other educational purposes is poetry suited, and in what cases is it problematic? What are the other important elements of good education? What is the ultimate aim of this program of education?
5. What must the rulers be like? What kind of life will they lead? What "noble fiction" will be told to the citizens of the state to support the class system?
6. What account of the soul does Socrates offer?
What reasons does Socrates have for understanding the soul to have parts?
How are the four cardinal virtues located in the soul in accordance with
the analogy to the just state?
2. What evaluation of literature is suggested by Socrates' educational theory?
3. How does the account of the soul advanced in the Phaedo compare to that advanced in Republic IV?
Annas, Julia. An Introduction to Plato's Republic. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981. [book; introductory] Very readable commentary on the major themes of Plato's Republic, organized roughly around the sectional divisions of the text.
Clay, Diskin. "Reading the Republic." In Charles L. Griswold, Jr. ed., Platonic Writings, Platonic Readings, pp. 19-33. New York: Routledge, 1988. [article; intermediate] Suggestively questions the standard interpretation that Plato means for the state sketched out in the Republic to be taken as a practical plan for political organization.
Republic V-VI: The Philosopher King
Background Info:
In the sections we will skip from Book V, Socrates argues for "two waves" of paradox that his description of the just state involves: that property for the rulers will be held in common (that is, the life of the rulers will be communal) and that women will have virtually the same responsibilities as men. The third "wave" is the most outrageous: philosophers must rule. To elaborate and explain this thesis, Socrates tries to distinguish between true and false philosophy and to account for why most philosophers are apparently useless or vicious.
Discussion Questions:
2. How are knowledge, ignorance, and opinion related? How are the forms involved in Socrates' account of knowledge? How are forms related to things in the world?
3. What characteristics will philosophical rulers
have? How will the philosophical rulers be like political technicians?
What role will the forms play in their "artistry"?
Vlastos, Gregory. "Was Plato a Feminist?" Times Literary Supplement, NB, March 17-23, 1989. Reprinted in Feminist Interpretations of Plato, ed. Nancy Tuana (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1994). One of the most influential recent treatments of the question of the role of women in Plato's ideal state. The Tuana volume includes several discussions of this issue, along with other feminist treatments of topics in Plato.
See also Annas, Guthrie, and Irwin
Republic VI-VII: The Form of the Good and the Education of Philosophers
Background Info:
This section is the most famous part of the Republic. In it, Socrates seeks to describe the nature of the most real thing, the Form of the Good, by three analogies: the Sun, the Line, and the Cave. The Cave places the nature of the Good back into the context of the live of inquiry practiced by true philosophers, and shows both what the philosophers gain by their inquiry and also why they are often thought to be ignorant of practical matters. This part of the argument continues into Book VII, in which Socrates explains the Cave analogy and elaborates the theory of education that it represents. The end of Book VII treats in detail the philosophical program of education Socrates believes guardians must complete in order to be capable of apprehending the Good; it includes theoretical mathematics, astronomy, and harmonics as preparations for the study of dialectic, which is itself required before the guardians are prepared to exercise rulership.
Discussion Questions:
2. Why should we regard the Good as the supreme object of study?
3. What plausible candidates for the Good are there? What are problems with these possible accounts?
4. Explain the basic points of Socrates' three analogies of the Sun, Line, and Cave. What does each image reveal about the nature of the Good and the human quest to apprehend it?
5. What theory of education flows from Socrates' account of the Good, especially the analogy of the Cave?
2. Do you think the program of education outlined in Republic VII would be worthwhile? What result would it have?
Republic VIII-IX: The Forms of Souls and States
Background Info:
Books VIII and IX describe in detail the four kinds of corrupted cities and the corresponding four kinds of corrupt soul: the timocratic (honor-loving), the oligarchic (money-loving), the democratic (radically egalitarian), and the tyrannical or despotical. The account in this section has had important influence on political theory.
In Book X, Socrates begins with a diversion. He returns to the theme of imitative poetry (discussed earlier in conjunction with the education of guardians), and argues that poetry primarily appeals irrationally to emotion. The Republic then ends with an argument for the immortality of the soul and a myth of judgment.
Discussion Questions:
2. Why should we think, at the end of the dialogue, that the philosopher is truly the most happy person? What arguments does Socrates advance to defend this view?
3. Why should we think that injustice yields unhappiness rather than happiness?
Parmenides: Problems with the Theory of Forms, Later Dialogues
Background Info:
Plato's Parmenides marks an important thematic transition. While the early dialogues depict Socrates in conversation with others about moral concepts and the care of the soul, and the middle dialogues explore metaphysical and epistemological problems that arise from Socrates' search to understand moral concepts, the later dialogues increasingly turn to technical problems concerning the theory of forms. The Parmenides (thought to be late in the middle period or one of the first of the later dialogues) portrays a conversation between a young Socrates who defends the theory of forms against the criticism of Old Father Parmenides, who employs the one/many problem to point out difficulties in the claim that sensible things "share in" or "participate in" the forms. (Historical evidence and comparison to the positions of Socrates in the early dialogues strongly support the thesis that this encounter is entirely fictional). After airing these problems, the remainder of the dialogue is occupied with a dialectical investigation into unity and plurality, conducted by Parmenides, in the Zenonian style.
While some scholars have taken the criticisms of the theory of forms to in the Parmenides as evidence that Plato rejected the theory toward the end of his life, its reappearance in and presumption by at least some later dialogues tells against this claim. At any rate, it is true that Plato's interest in the later dialogues moves to a new method, the method of "division," and that his concern is more with epistemology and metaphysics than the ethics that animated Socrates (paralleling this transition is the gradual eclipse of Socrates as a character in these dialogues). At the end of his life, however, he returned to the practical themes that motivated much of the Republic in his last dialogue, the Laws.
Discussion Questions:
2. What problem from Zeno's book does Socrates inquire about? How is that "hypothesis" related to Parmenides' philosophy?
3. How does Socrates appeal to the theory of forms to dissolve the paradox that Zeno employs in defense of Eleatic monism? How do forms and things differ? How do they relate to one another?
4. In response to Parmenides' questioning, what kinds of forms does Socrates say there are? Why is this an interesting problem? How does Parmenides account for Socrates' failure to fully solve this problem?
5. What three images do Socrates and Parmenides explore to describe the relationship between forms and things? What problems about the forms are suggested?
6. How does discussion of largeness and smallness raise part/whole problems about the relationships between forms and things?
7. Socrates then turns to an account that describes things as "images" of the forms. How does Parmenides think that this analysis leads to needless duplication of forms?
8. Despite his criticisms of the theory, how important does Parmenides think forms are? Why do you think he asserts this position?
Cornford, Francis Macdonald. Plato and Parmenides : Parmenides' Way of Truth and Plato's Parmenides. Translation, with introduction and running commentary. London: Routledge & K. Paul, 1939. [book; intermediate] Running commentary aids in understanding difficult passages.
Prior, William J. "Parmenides 132c-133a and the Development of Plato's Thought." Phronesis 24 (1979): 230-40.
Physics: Aristotle's Philosophy of Nature and Scientific Method
Background Info:
Aristotle is the most prominent student to emerge from Plato's school, the Academy. While there is no doubt that Aristotle owes a great deal to Plato, and that he regarded himself to be a very close friend of Plato, his works show that friendship did not imply slavish agreement in matters of philosophical import (see Nicomachean Ethics I, 6; 1096a 12-17). In his ethics and politics, Aristotle's philosophy shows striking similarity to Plato's; in other respects--most notably epistemology and metaphysics--Aristotle seems diametrically opposed to Plato. In all, however, Aristotle's work is shaped by the fact that he is responding to Plato. The differences between them arise in large part from the different methodological approach that is clear from the beginning of Aristotle's Physics.
The texts of Aristotle are very different from those of Plato. Stylistically, they are treatises rather than dialogues. In many cases they seem much less finished products, leading some scholars to conjecture that they were lecture notes that were later compiled and edited by one or more of Aristotle's students.
As they do with Platonic texts, scholars employ a traditional system of reference to identify passages in Aristotle's works. In addition to the book and section divisions of the text, quotations to Aristotle usually include the standard page, column, and line numbers from the landmark Bekker edition. A complete reference to an Aristototelian text is in this format: Physics I, 5; 189a 10 [work/book/section/Bekker page/column/line number].
Discussion Questions (references are to book and section of the Physics):
2. For what reasons should change be understood in terms of contrary principles (I, 5)? How do contraries help account for generation and destruction? How many principles of natural explanation are there (I, 6)? What considerations are relevant in determining the number?
3. In what way does change presuppose an underlying subject (I, 7)? How does attention to the underlying subject qualify the answer one gives about the number of principles of natural change?
4. How does Aristotle use his analysis of change to critique the views of his predecessors (I, 8-9)?
5. What is Aristotle's definition of nature (II, 1)? How does that definition indicate the difference between objects that exist "by nature" (that is, natural objects) and objects that are "products of art" (human artifacts)? How does comparison of a tree and a bed, both made of wood, spell out this distinction?
6. What basic theories of nature are discussed by Aristotle (II, 1)? How does each make different appeal to the notions of substance/matter and shape/form? With which account is Aristotle in agreement? How does he employ the notion of generation--the move from potential to fulfilled existence--to defend an emphasis on form? What is the final aim or end (telos) of the process of natural change or growth?
7. How is the physicist to be distinguished from the theoretical mathematician or applied mathematician (II, 2)? Why does Aristotle think that the "holders of the theory of Forms" are doing something closer to mathematics than physics?
8. Aristotle has argued that physics is concerned with both matter and form. How does his example of "snubness" demonstrate this (II, 2)? (What is the matter of snubness? What is its form?) With which sense have most previous thinkers been preoccupied? Does Aristotle regard this emphasis as correct? How is nature concerned with the end or "that for the sake of which"? How is the importance of form explained by parallel to human arts of production?
9. Why is it important for the physicist to understand cause (II, 3)? How many causal principles are there, and what are those principles? (Can you pick out some of the examples of each kind that Aristotle gives?) How can the notion of cause be further clarified?
10. What questions are causes designed to answer (II, 7)? Of which should the physicist be knowledgeable? Why? Are the four causes always different for a particular thing? How does investigation of causes suggest a threefold division for physical inquiry? What are the three divisions? What are the basic principles of physical motion or change?
11. Aristotle points out that nature can be understood to operate in one of two ways: as goal driven (as a cause which acts "for the sake of something") or according to necessity. What differences in physical theory result from these different theoretical outlooks (consider Aristotle's discussion of Empedocles)? How does Aristotle attempt to use his analysis of chance and spontaneity to argue that nature must be goal directed? What relation is there between causation "for the sake of something" and intelligence? How is Aristotle's notion of nature as goal directed an rejection of randomness in nature?
12. What proper role does necessity play in nature
(II, 9)? How is natural necessity "hypothetical"? How is the order of reasoning
different from the ordering of things in nature? What natural element turns
out to play the role of necessity? In what way?
2. Compare Plato and Aristotle on the philosophical significance of "form."
Edel, Abraham. Aristotle and His Philosophy. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1982. [book; intermediate] Chapter One (pp. 4-15) discusses the history of Aristotle interpretation and some of the problems that arise from the conditions of the texts. Chapter Two (pp. 16-29) attempts to place Aristotle's philosophy into the historical context, and especially to address the relationship between Plato and Aristotle.
Jaeger, Werner. "Aristotle's Verses in Praise of Plato." Classical Quarterly 21 (1927): 13-17. [article; intermediate] Discusses an inscription thought to have been written by Aristotle as a testament to his relationship with Plato; gives suggestive insight into the relationship between these two great philosophers.
Owen, G. E. L. "The Platonism of Aristotle." In Logic, Science and Dialectic: Collected Papers in Greek Philosophy, Martha Nussbaum, ed. (London: Duckworth, 1986), pp. 200-220.
See especially the introductory discussions in Irwin and Guthrie, and the introduction to the Apostle and Gerson edition of Aristotle's works
Aristotle's Logical Works: Logic, Language, Knowledge, and Reality
Background Info:
The texts included in today's reading are traditionally included in the group of Aristotelian texts which have come to be called the Organon (although it is highly doubtful that Aristotle himself collected these works into a single group). Literally, the organon is the "instrument," that is, the instrument for rational inquiry. In these works Aristotle attempts to describe the tools of rational analysis that are applicable to any specific discipline. Although a large part of these texts are devoted to what we would call "logic," they also treat issues in language, methods of inquiry, rudimentary discussions of theory of knowledge, and even some basic claims about the nature of reality. Indeed, Aristotle's arguments in these works presuppose that there is no radical division between language, logic, and reality. On his view, the study of our use of language sheds light on how human knowing operates and on the nature of reality.
Discussion Questions:
1. What is the role of pre-existent knowledge in inquiry (I, 1)? How, in particular, does the success of demonstrative science depend on pre-existent knowledge?
2. What is the difference between knowledge "without qualification" and knowledge that is "universal" (I, 1)? How does Aristotle employ this distinction to deal with the paradox raised in Plato's Meno ?
3. On what does true knowledge of a thing rest (I, 2)? What kind of status does true scientific knowledge have? What role does syllogistic argument play in true knowledge?
4. What does it mean to say that premises of true scientific argument must be "prior" and "better known" than the conclusion (I, 2)? In what sense does Aristotle intend these terms? What model of rational inquiry does Aristotle's account give?
5. To what problem does the dependence of scientific demonstration on primary premises give rise (I, 3)? Does Aristotle think that demonstration is impossible? Why or why not?
6. What senses of predication are employed in demonstration (I, 4)? How do these various senses impact the necessary knowledge aimed for in demonstration?
7. What sorts of unprovable principles are employed in demonstration (I, 10)? What is the relationship between demonstration via language and thoughts?
8. To what epistemological (knowledge-theory) problem concerning the basic premises of demonstrative knowledge does Aristotle return in Post. An. II, 19? How is Aristotle's restatement of this problem parallel to Meno's paradox? Why does Aristotle regard innate knowledge as unlikely?
9. What hierarchy of human knowing does Aristotle suggest leads us from immediate sense-perception (a capacity we share with lower animals) to apprehension of universals? How then do human beings come to know the primary premises that are necessary for demonstrative science? What faculty of the mind enables us to apprehend first principles? Is the knowledge of first principles scientific or not?
Categories (parenthetical references are to sections of the work)
1. What does Aristotle mean by "equivocal naming," "univocal naming," and "derivative naming" (1)?
2. In order to give an account of things, Aristotle uses the categories of things "said of a subject" and things "present in a subject" (2). How does Aristotle define these two classes? What combinations of these categorizations are possible? What different types of things are described in each case? What is the status of existing individuals according to Aristotle's system?
3. Aristotle notes that predication, on the account he has offered, can be employed in a hierarchical fashion, by noting genus and species (3). What kind of predication can be made with regard to things lower on the hierarchy on the basis of higher predications? (See Aristotle's comments on predication of 'animal' to 'man' and to individual human beings.) How then does this categorization of things suggest a theory concerning how we know about things?
4. What does Aristotle mean by "composite" and "simple" (or "noncomposite") expressions (2)? What are the basic types of simple/noncomposite expressions (4)? What kind of expression is required to make an assertion that is either true or false? Why?
5. What is Aristotle's notion of substance (5)? Why, given his point that we can speak of a hierarchy of predication, is it reasonable to speak of "secondary substance"? What is secondary substance? How is Aristotle's account of predication applicable to this theory of hierarchical levels of substance?
6. What, on Aristotle's view, is most really real (5)? What reasons does he give for this view? What is the metaphysical relationship between individual things, species, and genera?
7. What are the characteristics of substance (5)?
What connections can be noted between substance and predication? What does
Aristotle mean by saying that substance admits of no contrary and has no
variation of degree? What does it mean to say that substance, while remaining
unitary, has contrary qualities? How does this last point show the contextual
nature of language?
Owen, G. E. L. "Logic and Metaphysics in Some Earlier Works of Aristotle." In Logic, Science and Dialectic: Collected Papers in Greek Philosophy, Martha Nussbaum, ed. (London: Duckworth, 1986), pp. 180-99. [article; advanced] Explores the link between Aristotle's theory of language and logic and his view of reality in several of the works included in the Organon.
Metaphysics I: First Philosophy; Aristotle's Critical History of Philosophy
Background Info:
The Metaphysics (literally, "after the physics") addresses Aristotle's theory of what he himself calls "first philosophy." We are not exactly sure how the book got its name; commentators have suggested that it was arranged after the Physics in a systematic ordering of Aristotle's works, or perhaps that it was meant to be understood to address more fundamental questions than the Physics. At any rate, the word "metaphysics," since Aristotle's time, has come to mean fundamental theory of reality. At any rate, the book addresses the study of "first principles and causes," the possession of which counts as wisdom. Aristotle believes that these most universal principles are most subject to knowing and are the most divine to examine.
Aristotle's philosophical method and basic theory of reality, particularly his account of causation, gives him a perspective for criticizing the accounts of philosophers prior to him. Like Socrates and Plato (and at least some of the pre-Socratics), Aristotle views the value of philosophy in terms of its contribution to wisdom, although his notion of wisdom is explicitly shaped by the method of philosophizing that he adopts.
Aristotle is the first philosopher who attempts to systematically assess the philosophical views of his predecessors. While his observations and criticisms are very valuable, we must be cautious to realize that he is not trying to objectively explain and compare prior philosophers, but to show how his own approach to philosophy relates to and improves upon the efforts of these predecessors.
Discussion Questions:
2. What competing notions of wisdom are there (I, 2)? With which view of wisdom is Aristotle most in agreement? Why? What is the primary motivation for wisdom among human beings? Is it practical need? In what senses is possession of wisdom by nature divine?
3. How does Aristotle justify his claim that inquiry into first principles suggests examination of his theory of the four causes (I, 3)? How does Aristotle interpret the views of his predecessors in the terms of his theory of causes and substance (I, 3-6)? What evaluation of his predecessors does Aristotle offer? How does he justify his analysis? Which of the causes were recognized by Thales, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras? By Hesoid and Empedocles? By the Pythagoreans and Eleatics? By Plato and his followers?
4. What does Aristotle conclude from his treatment of his philosophical predecessors (I, 7)? What does it indicate to him concerning his doctrine of the four causes? What are the specific shortcomings that Aristotle identifies in previous speculations concerning first principles (I, 8-9)? What specific criticisms of Plato's theory of forms does Aristotle articulate?
5. What is Aristotle's final summation of the history
of philosophy up to his own work (I, 10)?
Metaphysics IV, VII: Aristotle's "First Philosophy": Investigation of Substance
Background Info:
While Aristotle's book on basic philosophical principles has since antiquity been called the Metaphysics, it is clear from several references in the text that Aristotle refers to the study pursued in that book as "first philosophy." By this Aristotle apparently means that his intent is to investigate ultimate principles of reality taken in their most general sense. Think of it this way: the Physics studies things insofar as they are natural objects in motion, while the Metaphysics asks the more fundamental question about things insofar as they are things. As Aristotle sees it, this primary inquiry brings the philosopher to the study of being, which Aristotle interprets as the study of substance, the ultimate constituent of reality.
Discussion Questions:
2. Why does Aristotle think that it is reasonable to seek an ultimate cause (II, 2)? Why might a final cause be the answer to a search for ultimate cause?
3. How do the constraints of language and appropriate degree of accuracy affect philosophical inquiry (II, 3)?
4. How, according to Aristotle, does investigation of first principles lead the philosopher to analysis of the nature of being (IV, 1)? In what sense is the science of being prior to all others?
5. What kind of term does Aristotle take "being" to be (IV, 2; recall Aristotle's categorization of the meaning of terms in Categories, 1)? About what central notion do all of the meanings of "being" converge? What then must be the central focus of the philosopher investigating primary causes? How is the science of being related to other sciences? Why is the study of being appropriately referred to as "first philosophy"? How is investigation of being in the way Aristotle intends more truly pursuit of wisdom than either sophistical reasoning or dialectic?
6. What sorts of "axioms" or ultimate principles does philosophy study (IV, 3)? Why? How is the task of the philosopher different from, say, that of the physicist? What is the role of logic in philosophical inquiry?
7. Aristotle has argued earlier, and repeats his position, that "being" has a primary sense (VII, 1). What is it? How are the other senses of being related to this primary sense? In what ways is the notion of being as substance "first" or "prior"? To what question, consequently, does the question of being reduce?
8. What answers to the question "What is substance?" does Aristotle recognize as having been advanced by his predecessors (VII, 2)? What possible type of substance does Plato's theory of forms suggest to Aristotle?
9. What four basic senses of "substance" does Aristotle discuss (VII, 3)? Which of these four senses is most primordial, and most likely as the candidate for substance? Why? What is the nature of the substratum that is the most substantial? Why does Aristotle regard all of these candidates for the substratum as problematic?
10. What is Aristotle's analysis of essence (VII, 4)? What is the relationship between essence and substance?
11. In what way does definition involve essence (VII, 5)? Why then is it true that definitions only apply strictly to substances?
12. Is the essence of a thing identical to the thing itself (VII, 6)? (Note that this problem is reflected in Aristotle's double use of "substance" as (1) individual thing, and (2) essence.) What problems is Aristotle's solution designed to avoid?
13. Should the universal be taken to be substance (VII, 13)? Why or why not? What does Aristotle's view imply about Plato's theory of Forms?
14. Why is it important to think of substances as unities (VII, 16)? In what way is the theory of Forms correct and incorrect on this count?
15. In what sense is substance a cause of things (VII, 17)? What follows from consideration of substance as a cause?
Aristotle's Theology--The Unmoved Mover
Background Info:
In the course of answering the questions of the ultimate causal source of nature (in the Physics) and the causal source of being (in the Metaphysics), Aristotle turns to theology. This is not really surprising, for Aristotle argues that the study of first principles is a "divine science" in two senses: insofar as it studies the knowledge the possession of which is most divine, and insofar as it inquires into divinity (Meta. I, 2). The theology advanced by Aristotle is, however, not drawn from sacred scriptures or cultural traditions (as were the Homeric accounts that the pre-Socratics had begun to criticize); it is a philosophical theology that grounds study of the divine in what reason reveals about the natural world and about basic principles of reality.
Discussion Questions:
Physics
2. What is the relationship between the primary mover and things that are moved (VII, 2)? What are the species of motion?
3. What things are subject to alteration or change (VII, 3)? Why?
4. Is motion eternal (VIII, 1)? Why or why not? What is the relationship between motion and time?
5. How does the eternality of motion imply a primary mover (VIII, 6)? In what way is this mover the cause of all motion?
6. What are the characteristics of the primary mover (VIII, 10)?
Metaphysics
1. What three basic types of substance are there (XII, 1)? Which type is "recognized by all men"? Why? How are two of the types of substance appropriately studied by physics, and the other type not? Into what group of substances does Aristotle think Platonic forms would be properly placed? Why?
2. What are the key points of Aristotle's proof that there is some "eternal unmovable substance" (XII, 6)? How does his proof depend on his theory of time (recall the discussion of time in Physics IV, 10-12), and the relation between time and motion? Why must the causal force of the eternal unmovable substance be different from the causal force that Plato thinks the forms to have? Why must this type of substance exist in actuality rather than potency?
3. Is Aristotle's view of the world order one in which what is comes to be by creation or some other process (XII, 6)? If not, what is his view of reality? Does Aristotle agree with the view of Heraclitus that all things are subject to constant flux? Why or why not?
4. How does Aristotle's investigation of the types of substance suggest to him a theory of cosmology (XII, 7)? What is the thing that moves with a perfect, unceasing motion? What is responsible for this perfect motion? Is the ultimate source of motion itself moved? How does reference to the "motion" of thought and desire clarify Aristotle's point? How is the first cause responsible for motion without itself moving?
5. What are the characteristics of the unmovable substance (XII, 7)? What is its perfect activity? Why is it appropriate to regard the unmovable substance as divine? What kind of God is this substance?
6. What does Aristotle think the multiple motions of the heavens indicates about the number of eternal unmovable substances (XII, 8)? How then is the science of astronomy different from physics, and from mathematics and geometry? Does Aristotle think that the determination of the number of the eternal infinite substances can be determined with certainty? Why or why not? What in the traditional view of the gods does Aristotle think should be retained, and what rejected? Why?
7. What is the object of the thinking of the eternal unmovable substance (XII, 9)? Why does Aristotle think his account must be correct? How is the content of the thinking of the unmovable substance related to its status as actual rather than potential? Does the thinking of the unmovable substance ever change? Why or why not?
8. In what two ways is it possible to describe the world as good (XII, 10)? Which does Aristotle think is more correct? Why? How does Aristotle evaluate his predecessors on the issue of the good of the world order? What do you think Aristotle means to suggest by the quotation from Homer that closes the section?
2. In what ways is Aristotle's Unmoved Mover similar to and different from the God of Christian theology?
Patzig, G. "Theology and Ontology in Aristotle's Metaphysics." In Barnes, Jonathan; Schofield, Malcolm; and Sorabji, Richard, eds. Articles on Aristotle. London: 1975-79. Vol. 3, pp. 33-49. [book; intermediate]
On the Soul: Aristotle's Account of Living Things
Background Info:
In contrast to Plato's treatment of the soul, Aristotle orients his discussion of soul from the perspective of a scientific naturalist. That is, instead of making claims about the ontological status of the soul (that it is immortal, that it is most like the forms), Aristotle draws on his basic account of substance to construct a functional analysis of living things that reveals the similarities and differences between different living things. For Aristotle, the soul is the basic principle of the actualization of living things, which is of course specific to the different kinds of living things.
Discussion Questions:
2. What does it mean to describe the soul as a principle of actuality (see especially II, 1, 412b 4-6 and II, 2; 414a 13-29)?
3. How does a functional analysis of soul help distinguish plants, animals, and humans? In what ways are these different living things related?
4. How does the soul apprehend objects in sensation?
5. What are the different kinds of intellect? How
do they differ?
Heinaman, Robert. "Aristotle and the Mind-Body Problem." Phronesis 35 (1990): 83-102. Argues that Aristotle is best characterized as a dualist, despite the stress given in On the Soul to a broadly functionalist account.
Modrak, Deborah K. W. "The Nous-Body Problem in Aristotle." Review of Metaphysics 44 (1991): 755-775. [article; advanced] If it is true that nous (intelligence) is separable and perhaps survives after death, as Aristotle suggests in several passages of De Anima, then it seems that Aristotle faces a version of the mind-body problem. Modrak discusses Aristotle's account of the soul in detail, particularly with respect to the place of nous, and argues that Aristotle has a way of accounting for nous without introducing a "nous-body" problem.
Owens, Joseph. "The Self in Aristotle." Review of Metaphysics 41 (1988): 707-722. [article; intermediate]
NE I-II: Aristotle's Ethics of Character
Background Info:
Aristotle begins the Nicomachean Ethics with
the claim that all human activities and pursuits aim at the good. He means
for this to be understood as a claim about how human activities contribute
to the human function. Ethics is therefore dependent upon theory of human
nature, for to be a good person is to succeed in making actual in one's
character the unique potential of being human. For this reason, Aristotle's
ethics, like Plato's, is an ethics of character, which in judgments of
moral condition focuses on the abiding pattern of personality rather than
on isolated acts or intentions. In contrast to Plato, however, Aristotle's
notion of soul as the principle of actuality of a living body requires
that his notion of goodness be oriented to this life rather than to an
afterlife.
hexis: habit or state of character; produced by a pattern of actions over a long period of time
2. What are the different conceptions of happiness? What is Aristotle's account, and why does he hold it? What is the human function, and what does it have to do with happiness?
3. Why should we think of happiness in terms of virtue (arete)? What is the relationship between action and character? How, on Aristotle's view, does ethics spring from human nature?
4. According to Aristotle's definition, virtue is "a habit, disposed toward action by deliberate choice, being at the mean relative to us, and defined by reason and as a prudent man would define it. It is a mean between two vices . . ." (NE II, 6; 1106b36-1107a 2). Explain the components of this definition. Does this seem a helpful way to characterize moral goodness?
5. How can virtue be distinguished from viciousness?
What are examples of both?
Hardie, W. F. R. Aristotle's Ethical Theory. 2nd. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980. [book; advanced] See especially Chaps. I, on the human good, and V, on human nature.
Irwin, Terence. "Aristotle's Method of Ethics." In Studies in Aristotle, edited by Dominic J. O'Meara (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1981), pp. 193-223. [article; intermediate] Examines Aristotle's "moral epistemology"--the method he employs to investigate ethics and the epistemological presuppositions it rests upon--and argues that Aristotle's philosophical method is linked to the human goods he identifies in the body of the Nicomachean Ethics.
Sisson, Janet D. "Introduction." Apeiron 28.4 (1995), vii-?. [article; intermediate] All of the articles in this issue of Apeiron, an important ancient philosophy journal, treat the Aristotelian concept of virtue as a mean. See Sisson's introduction for an overview of the articles.
Urmson, J. O. "Aristotle's Doctrine of the Mean." In A. Rorty, ed., Essays on Aristotle's Ethics (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980), pp. 157-170. [book; intermediate] Helpful descriptive account of Aristotle's basic claim that goodness of character can be understood as a mean between vicious extremes with critical assessment of the truth of this position.
NE III, VI, VII: Criteria of Moral Praise and Blame, Virtues of Character and Intellect
Background Info:
As we have noticed, Aristotle asserts a very strong connection between action and character. However, he wants to offer an analysis that allows for making distinctions about voluntary and involuntary actions while at the same time holding individuals to fairly high moral standards. He tries to accomplish this by stressing the role of deliberation in moral decision-making, and noting that human beings have responsibility not only for the specific choices they make but also for their ability to make good choices. It is relevant to notice that virtues of intellect and virtues of character, while distinct, are linked in this way: that complete goodness requires not only that we act well, but also that we equip ourselves to make good decisions.
Aristotle's discussion of incontinence has generated
an enormous secondary literature. It is interesting to think of Aristotle's
account of wrongdoing in comparison to the Socratic claim that no one willingly
does evil. Aristotle realizes that some cases of wrongdoing are the result
of ignorance (as Socrates would argue), but he also wants to account for
some cases of wrongdoing by reference to flawed character.
phronesis: practical wisdom
proairesis: deliberate choice, intention (see NE III, 4); key factor in assessing a person's character
2. How are virtues of character and of intellect distinguished? How are they related? Which are most important for human happiness, and why?
3. What character flaws ought we to avoid? How is intemperance different from incontinence? Is it really possible to know the best course of action and to choose not to follow it?
Reflection:
1. Compare Aristotle's ethical method to other ethical systems of which you are aware. What are the consequences of the focus on character and deliberate choice? Are Aristotle's standards too lax or too severe? Explain.
2. For what reasons and in what circumstances to humans fail to do right? How well do you think Aristotle's account answers this question?
Rorty, Amélie O. "Akrasia and Pleasure: Nicomachean Ethics Book 7." In A. Rorty, ed., Essays on Aristotle's Ethics (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980), pp. 267-84. [book; intermediate] Links Aristotle's discussion of incontinence to his discussion of the intellectual virtues in NE VI and compares his position to the Socratic thesis that all wrongdoing results from ignorance, concluding that Aristotle's emphasis is on the development of bad habits with respect to pleasure.
Sorabji, Richard. "Aristotle on the Role of Intellect in Virtue." In A. Rorty, ed., Essays on Aristotle's Ethics (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980), pp. 201-220. [book; intermediate] Offers a detailed discussion of the Aristotelian moral concepts of choice and practical reason in order to explain Aristotle's notion of moral education.
NE VIII-X: Aristotle on Friendship and Contemplation
Background Info:
Although the majority of Aristotle's ethics is concerned with character ethics, one-fifth of it (two of ten books) is devoted to questions about the nature and value of philia or friendship. Although friendship was an abiding issue in ethics throughout the classical world, it dropped out of consideration largely as a result of the move away from character ethics to rule governed systems (Kantianism) and to utilitarianism. As you read Book VIII, look for justifications of the claim that friendship is a morally relevant category.
In the last book of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle attempts to resolve two major problems: the nature of pleasure and its role in human happiness, and consideration of a uniquely human good, the capacity to engage in philosophical contemplation.
teleios: complete or perfect (note the derivation from telos, 'end'); used to describe the best or most noble form of friendship
2. What are the different types of friendships? How are they distinguished, and what are their similarities? Does Aristotle's account seem exhaustive of human relations?
3. What is Aristotle's final analysis of the nature of human happiness? How does this discussion lead him to consider contemplation as the supreme form of happiness? Is Aristotle's account of the value of contemplation in human life at odds with the focus on virtue in action that we find in the remainder of the NE? Explain.
4. How does discussion of happiness lead consideration
back to the topic of politics? In what ways is one's happiness dependent
upon conditions in the social order?
2. Is Aristotle's account of friendship adequate? Explain.
Annas, Julia. "Plato and Aristotle on Friendship and Altruism." Mind 86 (1977): 532-54. [article; intermediate] Discussion of the views of friendship of Plato (mostly from the Lysis) and Aristotle that attempts to show what consequences their accounts have for the problem of choosing good for others for their own sake. The paper includes some difficult passages of moral analysis, but helps to show the relevance of ancient philosophy for current moral issues.
Cooper, John M. "Aristotle on the Forms of Friendship." Review of Metaphysics 30 (1977): 619-48. [article; intermediate] Cautious and detailed discussion of Aristotle's division of friendship into three types--utility, pleasure, and goodness.
Nagel, Thomas. "Aristotle on Eudaimonia." In A. Rorty, ed., Essays on Aristotle's Ethics (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980), pp. 7-14. [book; introductory] Explores the tension in Aristotle's account between a "comprehensive" notion of happiness, which notes the richness of human goods and emphasizes seeking them with proper priorities, and an "intellectualist" account that stresses contemplation above all other human goods.
Aristotle's Politics--Citizen, Associations, State
Background Info:
As Aristotle makes clear on several occasions, ethics and politics are closely linked intellectual enterprises. However, it is true that while both inquire into the conditions of human happiness, each has its own specific subject matter. In the Politics, Aristotle is concerned to show that his general account of human goodness and interdependence has consequences for his notion of the state. Just as friendship is significant in the ethical sphere, Aristotle in the Politics emphasizes an account of human beings as "political animals," creatures who are naturally suited for dwelling in the polis.
Discussion Questions:
2. What is the citizen? How is citizenship related to the form of government? How is the goodness or badness of the citizen judged?
3. What are the different forms of government? What is the composition of rulers in each? Which does Aristotle favor? Why?
4. In what ways does the state promote the happiness of its citizens? How does Aristotle's account compare to Plato's?
see Irwin, especially pp. 137-40 for an excellent brief summary of the link between Aristotle's ethics and politics
see also Guthrie
Post-Aristotelian Schools: Epicureanism, Stoicism, and Skepticism
Background Info:
The rise in the political power of Macedon under Philip and Alexander spread Greek culture throughout the ancient Mediterranean and Near East. While the political empire itself split upon Alexander's death in 323 B.C., the empire had a lasting cultural influence, as Greek language, literature, and philosophy were dispersed throughout the area of Macedonian influence. In an atmosphere of declining empire and collisions between different cultures, the Hellenistic philosophical schools focused their attention on the Socratic theme of how to live a good life. While their ideas covered all aspects of philosophy--epistemology and metaphysics as well as ethics--the Hellenistic schools developed the practical consequences of theoretical philosophy in very clear ways.
Discussion Questions:
2. In what sense did Epicurus advocate pursuit of pleasure? What are the different pleasures, and how do they compare? How is Epicurus' metaphysics adapted from the atomists?
3. What basic attitude toward life does the Stoic attempt to cultivate? Why? On what presumptions about human life and the world does this task rest?
4. To what extent does Stoic metaphysics agree and disagree with Aristotle? What consequences do the Stoics draw for their notion of the good life? How is happiness achieved according to the Stoics?
5. How is Skepticism distinguished from other approaches to philosophy? What are the types of Skepticism? What is the objective of the Skeptical approach?
6. What developments took place in the Academy after Plato's death? What parallels and tensions are there between the move toward skepticism and the philosophical traditions inherited from Socrates and Plato?
Nussbaum, Martha. "Therapeutic Arguments: Epicurus and Aristotle." In Malcolm Schofield and Gisela Striker, eds. The Norms of Nature: Studies in Hellenistic Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Pp. 31-74. Comparison of the ethical method and argumentation employed by Epicurus and Aristotle.
Background Info:
One of the most important intellectual movements of late antiquity is the revival and reinterpretation of Plato. This movement, called for obvious reasons Neoplatonism, has as its most articulate expositor Plotinus. Plotinus, who was from Hellenistic Egypt, studied in Alexandria, one of the two intellectual capitals of the Hellenistic and Roman world, and there came under the influence of Ammonius. After studying as a disciple of Ammonius for a number of years, he traveled, and eventually came to Rome, where he established a school or community of his own that had ties to influential citizens and politicians. Although for a long time Plotinus, like his teacher Ammonius, committed nothing to writing, he did eventually put down his doctrines, of which the resulting treatises were gathered by his student Porphyry into groups of nine (thus Enneads). While the most obvious influence on Plotinus' writings and views is Plato, aspects of Aristotelianism and Stoicism are present as well.
Discussion Questions:
2. According to Plotinus, there are three manifestations or "hypostatizations" of being. What are they? How are they related to one another? How do the three hypostatizations explain the nature of reality? How does his view on this point compare to Plato's?
O'Meara, Dominic J. Plotinus: An Introduction to the Enneads. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993. [book; intermediate] Very readable introductory treatment of Plotinus' philosophy.
Rist, John M. Plotinus: The Road to Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967.
The final exam questions will be drawn from those on this list. (Note that several questions overlap one another.) When you take the exam, you should be prepared to clearly identify the views of the thinker(s) involved in each question, and to reflect critically on the positions taken.
2. What basic position concerning the nature of reality is taken by the Eleatic philosophers? How do they justify this position? Why does Aristotle think that this position is not even worth serious refutation? How is Aristotle's view in line with his empirical approach to the study of nature (i.e., physics)?
3. In accounting for the nature of the world order (cosmos), Heraclitus stresses the flux evident to the senses, which is ordered by rational principle or Logos, while Parmenides and the Eleatics assert the unchanging and unitary nature of what truly is. Explain briefly the key aspects of each of these views. To what extent do Plato's theory of forms and his claims about the world of the senses involve a combination of the views of Heraclitus and the Eleatic philosophers? How can Aristotle's theory of substance be understood as an attempt to steer a middle path between Heraclitus' views and Platonism?
4. What were some of the key features of the Sophists' teachings (refer to specific thinkers)? Given what you know about the Sophists, do you think Socrates was a Sophist? To what extent should Plato's theory of forms be understood as an attempt to respond to the challenges of the Sophists?
5. What does Socrates mean by saying (e.g., in the Apology) that human wisdom consists in recognition of one's ignorance? How does he reach this position? In the middle and later dialogues, Plato develops an extensive epistemological and metaphysical system, the most important aspect of which is the theory of forms. Is this philosophizing in the Socratic spirit? Why or why not?
6. What are the basic points of Aristotle's theory of four causes, and what is it designed to address? How does Aristotle employ the theory as the basis for a systematic critique of his predecessors? Try to determine how Aristotle's critique accounts for specific thinkers, including Plato.
7. It has been argued that the notion of the Prime Mover is a Platonic intrusion into Aristotle's philosophy that is incompatible with Aristotle's fundamental views on reality. Is this a correct assessment? Why or why not?
8. In what specific ways is the dialogue format an appropriate vehicle for presenting Plato's epistemological views? How, by contrast, does Aristotle's philosophical methodology reflect his empirical account of knowledge? Which theoretical approach do you find more persuasive and more productive? Why?
9. What in general does Aristotle mean by virtue or ethical excellence (arete)? What structure does it have? Explain and evaluate Aristotle's justification of his position. To what extent would Plato and the Epicureans agree with his position, and why?
10. Does Aristotle seem to think that friendship should be counted as a virtue or ethical excellence (arete)? What comparisons are there between Aristotle's account of friendship and the Pythagorean notion of a community devoted to inquiry and purification of the soul or to the idea of a "community of inquiry" found in many of Plato's dialogues?
11. What is the meaning of Aristotle's claim that human beings are "political animals"? How is this claim connected to Aristotle's general ethical and political theory, including his account of friendship? Is Aristotle's position on this matter in agreement with the views of Plato's Republic? Why or why not?
12. What changes in attitude toward traditional religion and the conception of the divine can be found in the thought of Parmenides, Heracleitus, Plato, and Aristotle? What trends, if any, do you see in religious thought in ancient Greece (taking these thinkers as representatives)?
13. One important difference between Plato and Aristotle is their disagreement on the theory of forms. Explain in general terms what the theory of forms involves, and clearly state and evaluate one of the arguments that Aristotle offers against the theory.
14. In Plato's view, the forms are independently existing things that are fundamental to all sensible things. For Aristotle, on the other hand, individual things--what he calls "substances"--are most real. Explain the reasoning behind these positions, and critically compare them.
15. According to Plato, the most complete kind of knowledge is apprehension of the forms; on Aristotle's view true wisdom is knowledge of first principles. How do the details of their epistemological theories revealed in the analogies of the line and the cave (from the Republic) and in the Aristotelian theories of apprehension of universals and syllogistic science demonstrate the similarities and differences in their respective positions?
16. Both Plato and Aristotle insist on connecting ethics--the cultivation of one's character--to the laws and social customs of the community. On what grounds do Plato and Aristotle make this connection between law and moral principle? (Try to refer specifically to the views advanced in Republic, Nicomachean Ethics, and Politics.)
17. Explain the thesis of Epicurus that human happiness must be understood in terms of pleasure. What are the kinds of pleasure? Which is most important? How is attainment of pleasure dependent upon philosophical inquiry and study of nature?
18. To what extent are the ethical theories of the Epicureans and Stoics developments of Aristotle's ethics? What are the key differences? On what issues are these thinkers in basic agreement?
19. Plotinus argues that reality manifests itself in three "hypostases." What are they, and how does he explain their relationship? Why, given this account, is it fair to count Plotinus with a revived version of Platonism?
20. Compare the theories of human nature and soul advanced by Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics. What role does each view give to rationality? What implications does each theory have for conceiving of the proper human function? How are these theories of human nature connected to specific ethical doctrines?
 |
Email
David H. Calhoun
David H. Calhoun's Home Page Copyright © 1998-2004 by David Calhoun. All
rights reserved.
|