Ancient Philosophy, history of philosophy
First
and Second Class. 10TH - 13th October, 2008
F
Ancient Philosophy – Course
Outline
·
Conceptualising
philosophy
·
What
is Ancient Philosophy?
·
Periodising
Ancient Philosophy
F
Pre-Socratic –
o
Thales
o
Anaximander
o
Anaximenes
o
Pythagoras
o
Heracletus
o
Parmenides
F
Socrates
·
Plato
·
Aristotle
F
Classification of Philosophy.
Philosophy
can be classified into three.
·
According
to epoch: Here we think of Ancient, Mediaeval, Contemporary and Modern
philosophy.
·
According
to branches: Here we think of the four main branches of philosophy – Logic,
Ethics, Epistemology and Metaphysics.
·
According
to culture: Here we talk about American philosophy, English philosophy, African
philosophy, Chinese philosophy, Indian philosophy, Greek philosophy etc.
F
Conceptualising Philosophy
Right
from the outset, it must be made clear that the concept of philosophy does not
lend itself to easy definition. The reason for this is that any conception of
philosophy is always open to various criticisms. Yet another reason we could
not have an easy definition of philosophy is that philosophers themselves
usually define the discourse of philosophy from a given branch of it which they
are interested in.
Philosophy
can be defined as the act or art of questioning the normally or usually
unquestioned in the life of man in society, be it immediate or extended. In
this sense, the immediate environment or society of man is wherever he finds
himself at any given time, while the extended environment or society is any
place that is spatio-temporally located beyond the point man is at any given
time.
F
Features of Philosophy.
·
Philosophy
is a rational, critical enterprise. This simply means that there must be solid
reasons or grounds proffered to back the acceptance of the position so taken.
·
The
above not withstanding, the reasons deployed to support a position in
philosophy could still be subjected to rigorous examination by other
commentators in the discipline so as to know whether the reasons would stand or
fall flat. Hence, the characteristics of rigorosity in philosophical thinking
arise.
·
Philosophy
is a systematic enterprise. It does not proceed in a haphazard manner. Rather,
it proceeds from the simplest to the complex, from the known to the unknown,
from the general to the particular, or from the unknown to the known.
·
The
discipline of philosophy is justificatory in nature. It attempts to provide
justification for any of our beliefs in society.
·
Philosophy
is also normative in nature. It weighs attempt to provide norms by which men
could regulate their thinking and behaviour in society.
·
Philosophy
is also essentially reflective of the life of man within his socio-cultural
milieu. Therefore, some scholars have been temped to argue that earlier
philosophy is socio-cultural philosophy, that is, every philosophy is a product
of a given culture and society.
F
What is Ancient Philosophy?
Ancient philosophy was almost
entirely Greek in nature. The period of ancient philosophy extended from about
600BC to about 400AD. It is usually divided into the Pre-Socratic period, the
Plato and Aristotle period and the Post-Aristotelian or Hellenistic period.
However, for our convenience here, we shall bifurcate into only Pre-Socrates
and Socrates.
Before the earliest Greek
philosophers came to the fore, explanations for the ultimate reality were
usually sought within the mythico-religious order, dominated by gods and
goddesses. However, the order of explanations changed radically when the three
Greek philosophers of note came into being. These philosophers were Thales,
Anaximander and Anaximanes. These philosophical figures were cosmological
speculators because each of them was bothered with given or offering a
rational/natural explanation for the origin of the world and the ultimate
reality, shorn of all mythico-religious explanations of their predecessors.
F
3rd Class.
17th
October, 2008
Ø
Question Number 1
The Pre-Socratic (Ionians or
Milesians) philosophers made a radical change from their predecessors in the
process of explaining the underlying principles of reality. How would you
justify this claim?
F
The Pre-Socratic Philosophers
When
we are talking about the Pre-Socratic philosophers, we have a host of them.
However, we shall focus our attention here on the philosophers that constituted
the Milesian School
After
discussing those philosophers, we shall dilate on the Socratics, such as the
main figure Socrates, Plato the student, and Aristotle the student of Plato.
F
The Milesian or Ionian School
The Milesian School
These wise men saw that in spite
all the change and transition, there must be something permanent since the
change is from something into something else. Therefore, the wise men felt that
there must be something which is primary, which persists, which takes various
forms and undergoes this process of change. Change cannot be merely a conflict
of opposites; thoughtful men were convinced that there was something behind
these opposites, something that was primary.
Therefore, Ionian or Milesian
philosophy or cosmological speculation is mainly an attempt to decide what
these primary or primitive elements of all things are all about.
Ø
Question Number 2.
How far is it true to say that
Ionian cosmological speculation is all about the project of discovering the
primary or primitive element underlying reality?
20th October, 2008
F
Thales
Right from the beginning, it is
worthy of note to state that much is not known about Thales. The little known
about him has bee the report of other latter philosophers, especially Plato and
Aristotle.
Thales was a native of Miletus , in Asia Minor , a
flourishing commercial city which has a large slave population. Talking of the
depth of his knowledge, Thales displayed a mixture of a philosopher and a
practical scientist. He was a philosopher because he manifested a curious mind
in trying to explain the ultimate underlying principle of reality. He was a
scientist because he made his conclusion on the ultimate underlying principle
of reality from his empirical observation.
Thales’ unique contribution to
thought was his notion that in spite of the differences between various things
there is, nevertheless, a basic similarity between them all, after all, that the many are related to each
other by the One. He assumed
that some single element, some “stuff” a stuff which contained its own
principle of action or change, lay at the foundation of all physical reality.
To Thales, the One or this Stuff was water.
In the metaphysics, Aristotle conjectured that observation may have
led Thales to the conclusion that water is the ultimate primary stuff.
According to Aristotle, Thales might have derived it from observation of simple
events, “perhaps from seeing that nutriment of all things is moist, and that
heat is generated from the moist and kept alive by it… he got his notion from
this fact and from the fact that the seeds of all things have a moist nature,
and water is the origin of the nature of moist things”. Other phenomena such as
evaporation or freezing also suggest that water takes on different forms.
Although Thales’ analysis of the composition of things may not be entirely
accurate by the standard of scientific investigation, the significant of his
philosophical postulation lies in the fact that he raised the question
concerning the nature of the world.
As stated indirectly above,
Thales could be taken to a scientist. Among other scientific activities
ascribed to Thales are the construction of an almanac and the introduction of
the Phoenician practice of steering a ship’s course by the Little Bear.
Thales is also reputed to have
some knowledge of the science of geometry. He knew how to calculate the
distance of a ship at sea from observation taken at two points on land, and how
to estimate the height of a Pyramid from the length of its shadow.
Yet another postulation
attributed by Aristotle to Thales is that all things are full of gods, that the
magnet has a soul because it moves iron. Perhaps, Thales made this conclusion
in the process of explaining the principle of motion underlying moving objects
of nature.
F
Question Number 3.
Thales was a philosopher cum
scientist. Do you agree? Justify your answer.
F
Anaximander.
Another great philosopher of the Miletian School
He contended that the primary and
ultimate element of all things could not be water, since water itself or the
moist was one of the “opposite”, the conflicts and encroachment of which had to
be explained. If change, birth and death, growth and decay, are due to
conflict, that is, the encroachment of one element on the other, then, on the
supposition that everything that is in reality water, it is obvious that other
elements could have been long absolved in water.
Therefore, Anaximander reached a
conclusion that the primary element underlying reality is indeterminate and it
also generates motion. It is something which is more primitive than the
opposites, being that out which they come and into which they pass. But, how do
things come into being? According to Anaximandar, things come into being when
they separate-off from the original substance and they come out of existence
when they return to the primary elements of substance. Therefore, both
existence and non-existence, according to Anaximandar, are explained through
the motion to and from the eternal substance.
F
Question Number 4.
According to Anaximandar, the
explanation for existential entities depends on the principles of motion from
and to the eternal substance. – Discuss.
Apart from the above, Anaximandar
was also full of scientific curiosity. He is said to be the first man who made
a map. He also held that the earth is shaped like a cylinder. He is also
reported to have said that the sun is as large as the earth, or twenty-seven
times, or twenty-eight times as large. He also stated that there is a plurality
of co-existence worlds, which are innumerable.
F
Anaximenes.
He was the third philosopher of
the Miletian School
Anaximenes answered this question
by picking on air as the primary stuff that underlies reality. According to
him, air is the underlying element of reality from which the things that are
and have been and shall be, the gods and things divine arose, while other
things come from its offspring. Anaximenes draws a parallel between man and
nature.
He does this by stating that we
live only as long as we can breathe, and just as our soul, being here, holds us
together, so do breath and air encompass the whole world. Anaximenes explains
this process by using the two concepts of “rarefaction” and “condensation”. In
using those two concepts, Anaximenes also bring up the idea that differences in
quality are caused by differences in quantity, the expansion and contraction of
air represents quantitative change, and this changes occurring in a single
substance accounts for the multitude of different things, expansion or
rarefaction of air causes warming and, at the extreme, fire.
However, contraction or
condensation causes cooling and the transformation of air into solids by way of
a gradual transition. If air is condensed, it initially becomes or forms wind.
If this process goes further, it gives water, still further it gives earth. The
greatest condensation of all is found in stone. Anaximenes also taught that the
earth is shaped like a flat table floating on the air like a leaf.
F
Question Number 5.
The philosophy of Anaximenes or
the philosophical position of Anaximenes was a combination of those of Thales
and Anaximendar. Discuss.
OR
Anaximenes improved upon the
philosophical potions of both Thales and Anaximendar. Do you agree? Justify
your answer.
F
Term Paper
Critically expose the
significance of Pythagoras in philosophy in the ancient era.
Or
Critically show the
importance/contribution of Pythagoras in the development of philosophy in
ancient world.
4-5 page minimum
7 pages maximum. Including cover
page and reference page. Submission – First class in January.
F
Heraclitus.
Heraclitus was an Ephesian noble
man who flourished, according to Diagones, around the late 6th
century BCE.
Whereas earlier philosophers
concentrated upon describing what things consists of, Heraclitus shifted
attention to a new problem, the problem of change in reality. His chief idea was
that “all things are in flux”, and he expressed this concept of constant change
by stating that “you cannot step twice into the same river”.
31/10/2008
F
Question Number 6.
Critically examine the idea of
“unity in diversity” in the metaphysics of Heraclitus.
OR
The concept of fire plays
a dominant role in the metaphysical postulations of Heraclitus. How far is this
true?
According to Heraclitus, the
concept of change apply to all things, including the human soul however, all
things that change contains something which continues to be the same throughout
all the flux of change. Between these many forms of and single continuing
element, between the many and the One, there must be according to Heraclitus,
some basic unity. Hence, the significance of the notion of unity in
diversity in the philosophy of Heraclitus.
But what is the One in many? For
Heraclitus, the essence of all things is fire, sense-experience tells us that
fire is simultaneously a deficiency and a surplus; it must consistently be feed
and it constantly gives off something ever in the form of heat, smoke, or
ashes.
It is surplus because it gives
off something in the form of heat, smoke and ashes. Fire is a process of
transformation, then, whereby what is fed into it is transformed into something
else. In other words, Heraclitus stated that fire live by feeding, by consuming
and transforming into itself, heterogeneous materials springing up from a
multitude of objects, it changes them into itself and without this supply of
material, it would die down and cease to exist.
The very existence of fire
depends on this “strife” and “tension”. Thus, the clash between the opposites
is reconciled in fire.
NB. Fire is said to be deficient
because it needs something to keep it alive otherwise it dies-off. It is said
to be surplus because after it had died-off, it leave something behind in the
form of heat, smoke or ashes.
In the process of fire, there are
two parts according to Heraclitus. The first one is the upward one, and the
second part is the downward. When fire is condensed it becomes moist; and under
compression it turns to water; water being congealed, it turned into earth, and
this is the downward part. Therefore, the downward part of fire explains the
coming into being of all the things we experience. And again, the earth itself
liquefied and from it water comes and from that everything else. According to
Heraclitus, the latter process is the upward part.
After explaining why there are
changes in the world, Heraclitus went further to explain stability. He
explained this stability in terms of measure: when fire takes in some measure
of things to kindle, it gives out an equal measure in some form. Therefore,
while the substance of each kind of matter is always changing, the aggregate
quantity of that kind of matter remains the same. There is stability in the
universe because of the orderly and balance change of flux, the same “measure”
coming out and going in.[1]
F
Question Number 7
Clearly explain the process that
leads to the existence of physical phenomena, according to the metaphysical
postulation of Heraclitus.
Furthermore, to explain the
preponderance of one thing over the other as experienced in reality, Heraclitus
appealed to the theory of the difference exhalation. Therefore, the bright exhalation,
when ignited in the circle of the sun, produce day; and the preponderance of
the opposite exhalation produce night. The increase of worth proceeding from
the bright exhalation produce summer; and the preponderance of moisture from
the dark exhalation produce winter.
Another significant idea that
Heraclitus added to his concept of Fire is the idea of Reason as
universal law. According to Heraclitus, the process of change is not a
haphazard movement but the product of God’s Universal Reason otherwise called
Logos. This idea of Reason derived from Heraclitus’ conviction that the most
real thing of all is soul, and the soul’s most distinctive and important
attribute is wisdom or thought.
Because God is Reason, and since
God is One, it must permeate all things. Consequently, Heraclitus believed that
God is the Universal Reason which holds all things in unity and orders all
things to move and change according to thought or principles, and this
principle and thought constitutes the essence of Law.
According to Heraclitus, man’s
reason is a moment in the Universal Reason. Therefore, man should and live by
reason, realising the unity of all things and the reign of an unalterable law.
He should be content with the necessary process of the universe and not rebel
against it, since it is in the expression of all encompassing, all ordering
law. Lastly, it must be noted that by stressing universal law and man’s
participation in Reason, Heraclitus laid the metaphysical foundation of the
Stoics Universalist ideal.
F
Question Number 8.
Critical reasoning plays a great
role in Parmenides’ submission that Being arises neither from being nor from
not-being. Justify your answer.
F
Parmenides: November 10, 2008
Parmenides was a younger
contemporary of Heraclitus. He was born about 510 B.C. and lived much of his
life in Elea, south of Italy
In opposition to that of
Heraclitus, Parmenides employed rigorous critical thinking to reach a
conclusion that in spite of what our senses tell us, there can be no motion or
change. Parmenides took two steps before arriving at this conclusion. The first
step was reductionist in the sense that Parmenides reduced the concept of
change or becoming into a statement that the concept becomes only meaningful
when, ‘something changes from not-being to being or being to not-being’.
The second step was argumentative
in the sense that Parmenides appealed to logical reasoning in claiming that
there is a contradiction in affirming that there is only one reality and there
is, at the same time, change. Using the foregoing steps as a basis, Parmenides
reached a firm conclusion that Reality, Being, of whatever nature it may be,
necessarily exists and cannot come out of existence. According to him, the
conclusion so reached follows from the following reasoning: if something comes
into being, it must arise out of being, thus there is no real arising, no
coming-to-being; for it is already something existing. However, if it arises
out of not-being, then not-being must be already something in existence in
order for being to arise out of it but this is a patent contradiction: being
could not have arisen out of not-being, since not-being is nothing and nothing
comes out of nothing – nihilo ex nihilo.
Therefore, being “It” arises
neither out of being nor out of non-being: it never came out of being, was
simply Is. Furthermore, since it applies to all being, nothing ever becomes.
For Parmenides, this Being or Reality is uncreated and indestructible, for it
is complete, immoveable and without end.
According to Parmenides, change
is a confusion of appearance with reality to this extent; Parmenides made a
bifurcation between two things: the way of truth and the way of
opinion/seeming. For Parmenides, appearance cannot produce more than opinion
whereas; reality is the basis of truth. In order words, according to Parmenides
understanding reality as explained as ‘It is’, is the way of truth: it gives us
knowledge of the nature of the Being. However, the way of opinion/seeming is
recognising that appearance gives or yields nothing but mere opinion.
But, why did Parmenides submit
that Being is complete? According to him, “It” is one that cannot be added to
because if it is not one but divided, and then it logically means that it must
be divided by something other than itself. However, Being cannot be divided by
something other than itself, for besides Being, there is nothing. Nor can
anything be added to it, since anything that was added to Being would itself be
Being; however, this is impossible since there is only one Being. Similarly, it
is immovable and continuous, for all movement and change, forms of becoming,
are excluded by the application of all the premises inherent in the forgoing.
Ø
Question Number 9.
The philosophy of Heraclitus
centres on the principle of unity in diversity. Discuss.
Ø
Question Number 10.
Clearly delineate between the
Pre-Sophists and the Sophists in their philosophical reflections.
Or
Critically examine the merits and
demerits of the Sophists in the ancient philosophy.
F
The Sophists (Sceptics) and
sophistry – November 17, 2008.
The arguments and counter
arguments raised against one another’s position by earlier Pre-Socratic ancient
philosophers, whom we have examined earlier, seemed to point out to the latter
ancient philosophers that philosophic reflection or reasoning could hardly
yield objective truth or lead to any sure knowledge claims. The air of
uncertainty cast on the power of the sense or senses perception of man to yield
anything but unassailable truth further supported the scepticism of latter
philosophers. The Sophists fell within the latter category. But, who are the
Sophists? How did Sophistry came into being?
The word ‘sophist’ originally had
no negative connotation since it is initially meant almost what we now know as
‘professor’. A sophist was initially a man who made his living by instructing
young men in certain things that were considered to be practically useful to
those young men. However, the word later attracted negative connotation. In
this sense, a sophist is a person who argued to prove a position that there can
be no objective truth or men could never apprehend any sure knowledge with
their finite mind and senses. Hence sophistry came to mean an argument that is
specially constructed and submitted in order to delude or deceive the other.
Before moving further, we need to
examine some differences between the Sophists and their predecessors.
·
In
the first instance, it must be noted that the earlier Greek philosophers had
been chiefly interested in the Object, that is, they were trying to determine
the ultimate principle of all things. Therefore, they were mainly cosmological in
their philosophic enterprise.
They were thinking more about the
underpinning reality of the cosmos. However, when the Sophists came into
picture, they directed their philosophic attention to the subject that is man.
They were interested in man and the civilisation of man. They started asking
question about whether or not civilisation and customs of the Greeks and their
surrounding cities were merely convention or man-made or were based on the
immutable principles of nature. They wanted to know whether or not the customs
were sacred ordinance, having divine sanction, or could they be changed,
modified, adapted and developed. The sophists were inspired in this exercise by
the fact that they came to Greece
·
Secondly,
yet another difference between earlier philosophers and the sophists was that
the former were mainly deductive in their reasoning; they reasoned from general
principles to explain particular entities in the empirical world. However, the
sophists sought to amass a wide store of particular observation and facts. They
observed particular things around them, using the observed particular things;
as a basis for their later conclusion. For example, from the fact they have
garnered in relation to the differences of opinion and belief, they might reach
the conclusion that it is impossible to attain to any certain knowledge. In
view of the foregoing, the method used by the sophists in their reflection was
a composite of empiricism and induction.
F
21/11/2008
·
Thirdly,
yet another difference between the sophists and their predecessors reduces to
“difference of end”, the sophists’ predecessors, the Miletians and those that
immediately followed them before the sophist, were much concerned with how to
arrive at the objective truth about the cosmos or the world around them.
Conversely, the Sophists were not primarily interested in arriving at the
objective truth. They were more interested in showing that truth could not be
objective. Therefore, they were mere relativists, apart from being famously
sceptical.
F
Merits and Demerits of the
Sophists.
·
Merits.
In some sense, the sophists had
some merits which should not be taken away from them. Because the sophists were
skilled in rhetoric, the art of persuasive speech, they were very much sought
after. The power of persuasion had become a political necessity for anyone
wishing to rise to the level of leadership. Obviously, a would-be leader in the
Athens
Deriving from the above, the
sophists rendered to men immense service in training the young Athenians how to
present their ideas clearly, meaningfully, forcefully. Clear speech and the
power of persuasion were greatly invaluable in a popular assembly where it
would be disastrous to allow debate among unskilled speakers who could neither
present their own ideas effectively nor discover the errors in the arguments of
their opponent.
However, the sophists later
acquired negative reputation. In the first instance, they broke with the
tradition of seeing philosophers as disinterested thinkers who did not engage
in philosophy for gain. The sophists, contrary to the common image of
philosophers, collected fees for their teaching and training of the young
Athenians. In fact, they seem to be seeking out only the wealthy that could pay
for their services.
·
Apart
from the merits of the sophists discussed above, there is yet another strong
point of the sophists. The point is that the sophists were not altogether wrong
in stating that there is truth in every and any position. The strength in this
claim is that in reality, no matter how bad a position may look, there may
still be some iota of truth which shows that the position may not be
discountenanced. For example, when someone tells a lie, the truth in that is
that he is telling a lie.
F
November 24, 2008.
In the same way, the sophists
were also strongly accused of teaching young men how to make a bad case look
good or to make an unjust cause appear to be just. The sophists were also criticised
by some other philosophers for building sceptics out of their students who
later rigorously questioned the truth in their traditional religions and
ethical views. Perhaps this criticisms of the sophists may not be unfounded if
one remembers that the sophists might have felt that the traditional religions
and ethical views/values questioned might not hold the ultimate and objective
truth, minding the sophists belief that truth is a relative matter.
Furthermore, a rigorous
commitment to the relative and sceptical attitude of the sophists logically
shows the contradiction in their position. If the sophists felt that there is
no absolute truth, that there is truth in every and any position, then there is
some truth in the claim that the truth which the sophists would want to impart
in the teaching of his student would be relative to him, the truth in his
teaching might not be the truth in the minds of his students, minding the fact
that the students are different and separate from him.
If we accept this reasoning,
then, the sophists would not be justified in teaching them in the first
instance. This form of argument could be summarised thus:
Premise
1:
The sophist believes that there
is truth in every and any position.
Premise
2:
That the sophists are not a good
teacher is a position that the opponent of the sophists maintains.
Premise
3:
The position that the sophists
are not a good teacher is also true because, according to the sophists, there
is truth in every and any position.
Conclusion:
Therefore, since ‘not a good
teacher’ is also equal to ‘a bad teacher’ who ought not to teach in the first
instance, then, the conclusion is that sophists ought not to teach in the first
instance.
F
Socrates – November 28, 2008
The
phrase ‘the Socratics’, is usually used, in the strict sense, to refer to three
of the most important philosophers that have ever lived in the history of
philosophy in general, or in the history of western philosophy in particular.
The three figures were Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.
Here,
only the latter two would be examined for two basic reasons first, Socrates
didn’t write anything himself. Whatever we know of him, must have come down
from his pupils, such as Xenophone and Plato. Secondly, the views of Socrates
by Xenophone and Plato differ from each other. However, since Xenophone has not
been known to be a philosopher of repute up till this day, while Plato is
widely acknowledge as one of the greatest western philosopher that have ever
lived, we shall do well to examine his philosophy. Through this, we shall have
a glimpse of what Socrates actually said in his philosophy.
F
Plato’s Philosophy.
Plato
was born in Athens
Ø
Question Number 11.
How far
is it true to argue that Plato’s metaphysics and epistemology are closely
interwoven?
F
Influence on Plato’s Philosophy.
Before
delving into Plato’s philosophy, it is apposite to recognise and understand the
figures that Plato drew on in his philosophic enterprise. These philosophers
were Pythagoras, Parmenides, Heraclitus and Socrates.
From Pythagoras,
in the first instance, Plato derived the Orphic elements in his philosophy: the
religious trend that espoused the belief in immortality, the other-worldliness,
the priestly tone, and all that is involved in the simile of the cave; as well
as his respect for the subject of mathematics, and intimate intermingling of
intellect and mysticism.
From
Heraclitus, Plato derived the negative doctrine that there is nothing permanent
in the empirical or sensible world. Combining these thinking with the
Parmendean doctrine above, Plato arrived at the conclusion that knowledge is
not derivable from the sensible or empirical world, but is only achieved by the
intellect which connects to the super-sensible world, that is, the world of
universals or essences.
From his
immediate master, Socrates, Plato learned to pre-occupy himself with ethical
problems and to seek teleological explanations of the world, rather than
mechanical ones. According to Socrates, the master, an action is right when it
serves man’s true utility, in the sense of promoting true happiness, that is,
eternal happiness, not pleasure induced empirical happiness.
F
Plato’s Metaphysics and
Epistemology.
Right
from the outset, it needs to be made clear that Plato’s metaphysics, which revolves
around the ‘theory of forms or ideas, and his epistemology that centres on the
true object of knowledge’, are highly connected.
As
implied above, Plato’s philosophy is founded on the distinction between reality
and appearance.
F
Plato’s Theory of Knowledge.
It must
be borne in mind that Plato’s theory of knowledge is not deducible, in a
systematic manner in any one dialogue; though, one may still glean more of his
epistemology in a given dialogue than in another.
In
‘Theaetetus’, what Plato did was to elaborate in Theaetetus his theory of
degrees of ‘knowledge’, and this thinking corresponds or parallels his hierarchy
of being in the Republic. In order words, and in a more simplified way, Plato
set out initially in Theaetetus to refute the false theory of knowledge
attributed mainly to Protagoras, and the theory of knowledge of Protagoras is
that knowledge is perception, the theory that what appears to an individual to
be true is true for that individual. According to Plato, this conception of
knowledge falls short of the true conception of knowledge which entails that:
·
Knowledge
must be infallible and
·
Knowledge
must be what truly is.
Now,
since perception is obviously lacking in these two attributes, then it does not
constitute true knowledge. But, what is the criticism deployed by Plato,
against the Protagorean conception of knowledge? According to Plato, the
Protagorean understanding that ‘man is the measure of all things’ is not only
in reference to sense perception; it also extends to include all truth.
However, if you hold on to this understanding of knowledge, there are some
obvious problems or difficulties.
If
knowledge is perception, then no man could lay any claim to be wiser than
another man, for each man is the best judge of his own sense perception as
such.
If we
agree to the foregoing, according to Plato, then what justification has
Protagoras to see himself as a teacher of knowledge and collect fees for doing
so? What make us think we should sit at his feet and listen to him? After all
each man is the measure of his own wisdom.
Moreover,
if seeing and knowing are the same, it
logically follows that if a man knew something in the past, and still remembers
it now, it does not know it, though he remembers it, since it does not see he
now.
Even if
we agree that perception could lead to knowledge, we could still argue that it
does not lead to the whole of knowledge. This is because a great part of what
man recognises to be knowledge consists of truth that tricks that involves terms
which are not object of perception at all. There is much man knows about
sensible world which grasped through intellectual reflection and not
immediately by perception. For instance, the conclusion and arguments of
mathematics are not apprehended through sense perception. Likewise, the truth
of analytic statement is not given to us through sense experience rather it is
knowledge given to man a priori, that is, knowledge that man comes to earth
through reflections of the basic terms that constitute the subject and
predicate of the assertion.
But if
Plato disagrees with the Protogrean of the understanding of knowledge, then
what constitute knowledge to Plato? In the first instance, Plato starts his
project of arriving at the true nature of knowledge by assuming that the true
object of knowledge must be possessive of or
·
Being
fixed in nature
·
Being
infallible in nature
·
Being
universal etc.
Furthermore,
Plato agrees with Heraclitus that the objects of sense perception are always in
the state of becoming. They come into being and pass away. Now since sensible
particular object are unstable and therefore could not constitute true object
of knowledge, Plato concludes that true object of knowledge are super-sensible
objects, because they are stable or eternal or timeless. At this point, three
interrelated questions come to the fore:
·
What
do the particular sensible objects give us, since they do not give us true
knowledge according to Plato?
·
What
is the relationship between Plato’s particular and universal?
·
Since
universals are objects of the higher order according to Plato, then how do we
gasp them?
OR.
·
What
process does it entail to come into contact with them?
16/01/2009
Being
interrelated as stated above, the three questions would be answered together.
According to Plato, the particular sensible objects would give us opinion. The
explanation for this conclusion seems too clear. The objects of this sensible
world are not fixed and permanent in nature. Therefore, what we may think of
them at any point in reference or some occasions may change at some other point
of reflection or on some other occasions.
The
reason is that particular sensible things or object always partake of opposite
characters: what is beautiful is also in some other respect ugly; what is just
is, in some other respect, unjust: what is interesting is, in some other
respect, uninteresting; and so on.
According to Plato, all particular sensible
objects have this contradictory character; therefore, they are intermediate,
that is, occupying a middle position between being and not-being, and are
suitable objects of opinion but not of knowledge. Thus, opinion, according to
Plato, must consist of what both is and is-not.
18/01/2009
In
conclusion, we could assert on the bases of Plato’s reasoning that opinion is
of the world presented to the senses; however, knowledge is of a super-sensible
eternal realm. Practically speaking, opinion is concerned with particular
beautiful things, but knowledge is concerned with beauty in itself.
The
answer to the question regarding the relationship between particular sensible
things and universal objects is also provided by Plato. According to him, all
particular things of a given kind participate in a general nature that is
common to all of them. For example, we have many tables: brown ones, short
ones, tall ones, long ones, etc. In spite of their differences in colour,
shortness/longness, etc, they are all still called tables because they all
participate in one general nature, that is, common to all of them and this is
‘tableness’ or the ‘table’.
If all
the particular tables in the world were to be destroyed, the word ‘tableness’
or ‘table’ will still be in existence. It would still be in existence because
according to Plato, it does not belong to the world of senses, that is, the
world of perishable particular objects. Since particular tables are capable of
being destroyed, while ‘tableness’, or ‘table’, is not capable of being
destroyed it logically followed that the former, according to Plato, are
imperfect copies of the latter.
In
answering the third question raised earlier, Plato comes up with an explanation
that grasping true knowledge entails a four-stage process, starting from the
lowest order of knowledge and ending with the highest order of knowledge. Plato
states that there is a parallel between the kind of object presented to the
mind and the kind of thought this object makes possible. The stages of Plato’s
process of coming into terms with true knowledge are explained below.
1.
Imagining: The most superficial form of mental activity, according to Plato, is
found at the lowest level/stage. At this stage, the mind comes into contact
with images, or the least reality. By this imagining, Plato must have meant the
sense experience of appearances, that is, the physicals in the sensible world.
A practical example of imagining is a shadow, which could be mistaken for
something real.
In
addition to shadows, Plato also includes in his listing of deceptive
appearances the images fashioned by the artist and the portrait of a given
human figure. The artist is most likely to do the painting from a given angle,
that is, what he thinks the human figure is. This thinking however, may not
agree with that of others in relation to the same human figure.
26/01/2009.
The same
thing also applies to a poet. A poet composes word to represent reality in his
poems. However, this is no true reality since the reality so represented is
nothing but the image in the mind of the poet, not that of the other, which is
presented to the empirical world.
2nd Stage – Beliefs/Believing
The
next stage of Plato’s four-stage process of grasping knowledge is beliefs. This
is the state of mind that is included by seeing actual objects we tend to feel
a strong sense of certainty when we observe visible and tangible objects.
Seeing constitutes only believing because visible objects depend upon their
context for meaning of their characteristics. Therefore there is a degree of
certainty which seeing gives us but this is not absolute certainty. For
instance, we all seem to feel certain that all bodies have weight because we
see them fall when they are thrown up. However, our certainty rings hollow when
yet another fact is brought: the fact of the weightlessness of bodies in space
at certain altitudes.
Considering
the above, Plato said that believing, in spite of being based on seeing, is
still in the stage of opinion. The state of mind given to us by objects of the
empirical world is obviously on a level higher than that of imagining. This is
because it is based on a higher form of reality but, although actual empirical
objects possess greater reality than their shadows, they do not by themselves
present to us all the knowledge we would want about them. They only give us
circumstantial knowledge, that is, knowledge limited to particular
circumstances.
3rd
Stage – Thinking.
When
a person makes a transition from the level of believing to the level of
thinking, the person has transcended the visible world to the level of the
intelligible world, that is, from the realm of opinion to the realm of
knowledge. This Platonic transition is characteristic of the scientist. The scientists
do rely on visible things, but to the extent of abstracting from them through
the intellect, of knowledge that is not open to the sensible world.
4th
Stage – Perfect Intelligence.
This
is the last stage of Plato’s four-stage process of grasping the true knowledge
of things. This is the highest stage of the knowing. According to Plato, the
mind still seeks for a fuller or complete explanation of things, even at the
stage of thinking. Therefore, the mind makes another transition to the highest
realm of knowledge, that is, the stage of perfect intelligence.
At
this apex of the four-stage process, the mind is completely released from
sensible objects. At this level, the mind directly interacts with the Forms.
These are those intelligible objects, such as the Ideal Triangle, the Ideal
Man, or simply the ideals of all the things, the physical objects are imperfect
copies of. These Forms have been abstracted from the actual objects of the
physical world. According to Plato, it is the faculty or power of dialectical
reasoning that the mind moves from the lowest level of knowledge towards this
highest level of knowledge.
F
Aristotle’s Philosophy – 31/01/09
Apart
from Plato earlier examined, yet another dominant figure in the Socratic
segment of the ancient philosophy was Aristotle. This philosopher was born in
384/383 B.C. at Stageira in Thrace
Aristotle
was to later found his own school called the Lyceum which was also called
Peripatetic. In 322 B. C., Aristotle died in Chalcis
F
Plato and Aristotle.
Initially,
as a student of Plato at the Academy, Aristotle was deeply influenced by the
genius of his master Plato. He wrote many dialogues in a Platonic style.
However, he later developed his own divergent views, which were critical of
Plato’s position.
According
to Aristotle, there are obvious problems with Plato’s Theory of Forms/Ideas.
Aristotle stated that Plato’s Theory of Form is supposed to explain sensible
objects in an intelligible manner, but this purpose is defeated in various
ways.
First,
the Theory is useless in the process of explaining the motion of particular
sensible object of the material world. The logic is simply that the explananas
and the explanadum are not of the same nature. Forms are defined by Plato to
motionless. Fixed and etc. however, the particular sensible objects of the empirical
world are the opposites. If the latter are truly copies of the former, they
should also be motionless, fixed and etc. But they are obviously not. If this
is the case, how could then the former intelligibly explain the features of the
latter?
According
to Aristotle, Forms are also supposed by Plato to explain sensible objects.
Therefore they themselves should be sensible. It’s only then we could know
whether or not the explanation is correct, since we would be able to confirm
empirically whether or not the explanation is properly made. But the objects in
Plato’s Theory of Forms are not sensible. Therefore there is a problem of
epistemological gap between the Forms and their representations in the sensible
world. Furthermore Aristotle also claims that the Forms are intended by Plato
to give an intelligible explanation about the plurality or multiplicity of the
things in the empirical world. However, there is a problem. According to Aristotle,
this intention of Plato has been defeated since Plato’s Theory of Forms rather
than explain why things of the physical world are many or numerous, only
succeeds in creating further multiplicity of things. Aristotle disparages
Plato’s thinking further by taking him to be a man who, unable to count with a
small number, things he would find it easier to do so if he doubles the number.
Yet
another criticism which Aristotle levels against the Theory of Form of Plato is
that these Forms are defined by Plato as the essence of the physical objects in
the sensible world. However, the problem is how to intelligibly explain objects
that exists independently of sensible object as the essences of those sensible
objects.
[1] Downward part of
fire accounts for visible (Matter) things while the upward part accounts for
invisible things.
NB: While the
three Milesians were interested in the thing that doesn’t change when all other
things are changing, Heraclitus on the other hand focused on two things, viz;
1. Things that
doesn’t change when all other things are changing
2. What makes the
things that change, change?
Comments
Post a Comment