DOCSLIB.ORG

The Unity of the Philebus: Continuity in Plato’S Philosophy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Unity of the Philebus: Continuity in Plato’S Philosophy Distribution Agreement In presenting this thesis or dissertation as a partial fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced degree from Emory University, I hereby grant to Emory University and its agents the non-exclusive license to archive, make accessible, and display my thesis or dissertation in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known, including display on the world wide web. I understand that I may select some access restrictions as part of the online submission of the thesis or dissertation. I retain all ownership rights to the copyright of the thesis or dissertation. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation. Signature: _________________________ ___________________ Jong Hwan Lee Date The Unity of the Philebus: Continuity in Plato’s Philosophy By Jong Hwan Lee Doctor of Philosophy Philosophy ___________________________________ Dr. Richard Patterson Advisor ___________________________________ Dr. Ann Hartle Committee Member ___________________________________ Dr. Richard D. Parry Committee Member Accepted: ___________________________________ Lisa A. Tedesco, Ph. D. Dean of the James T. Laney School of Graduate Studies ______________ Date The Unity of the Philebus: Continuity in Plato’s Philosophy By Jong Hwan Lee B.A., Seoul National University, 2002 M.A., Seoul National University, 2005 M.A., Emory University, 2010 Advisor: Dr. Richard Patterson, Ph.D. An abstract of A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the James T. Laney School of Graduate Studies of Emory University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy 2013 Abstract The Unity of the Philebus: Continuity in Plato’s Philosophy By Jong Hwan Lee The Philebus is Plato’s answer to the question what the human good is. In my dissertation I maintain that this dialogue is a part of his grand philosophical picture. In the middle dialogues, Plato shows the way up to Forms, which is the foundation of knowledge for human beings living in the physical and sensible world. After the critical stage of his philosophy, Plato in the Philebus wants to return to the Cave, where ordinary people live their daily lives and tries to give an account of the good life there upon the firm foundation, forms. The main thesis of my dissertation is to show the consistency of the structure in the Philebus and to suggest a comprehensive interpretation of the Philebus with a perspective: ethic, especially Socratic question and answer, is the main theme. Understanding this dialogue in line with Socratic dialogues, and furthermore, interpretation on this dialogue upon an assumption that all Plato’s dialogues are actually Plato’s answer to Socrates’ question, “how to live a good life?” will open another look on the Philebus with a more smooth and unifying presentation. Puzzling metaphysical account in the middle of the dialogue is indeed the necessary foundation for the ethical conclusion, that is an answer to Socrates’ question raised mainly in the Socratic dialogues. My interpretation of this dialogue suggests that Plato never has given up the main claim of the middle dialogues, the separate forms and the two-world structure of beings. At the same time, however, this interpretation proposes that he does not remain at the unsolved metaphysical questions but progresses while answering the questions, which were raised against the theory of Forms. The Philebus is a philosopher’s story of coming down to a daily shadowy life from the reality. In other words, this dialogue is a possible suggestion to find a way from a theoretical life to a practical life for the good to be realized on the earth as it is in the world of Forms. The Unity of the Philebus: Continuity in Plato’s Philosophy By Jong Hwan Lee B.A., Seoul National University, 2002 M.A., Seoul National University, 2005 M.A., Emory University, 2010 Advisor: Dr. Richard Patterson, Ph.D. A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the James T. Laney School of Graduate Studies of Emory University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy 2013 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation would not have been possible without the kind support and help of many individuals. First and foremost, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Richard Patterson, for the valuable guidance, advice, patience, and immense knowledge as well as the sense of humor. I could not have imagined having a better mentor for my Ph. D. study. Deepest gratitude is also due to Dr. Richard Parry. Without him I would not have completed the dissertation as it is. I consider it an honor to work with my other committee members, Dr. Ann Hartle, Dr. Jack Zupko and Dr. and Father Tom Flynn, who have generously given time and expertise as well as support and advice for this dissertation. I must acknowledge the late Steven Strange, whose passion and knowledge in the seminars and the Greek and Latin reading groups are deeply missed. I am also much indebted to Dr. Nick Fotion, who has been like a granddad to me. He has been a continual and immense source of knowledge, support, direction, and counsel. My thanks must go also to the precious friends at Emory and in Atlanta. Their friendship, hospitality, knowledge and wisdom have supported, enlightened, and entertained me over the many years of our friendship. I am grateful to my mentors from Korea. Dr. Nam-Duh Kim and Dr. Taesoo Lee first made me fall in love with philosophy. Pastor Nam-Joon Kim's prayers and supports help me remain in this love of wisdom. Last but not the least, I wish to thank my family, Hyunju and Seoyul, for their love and trust. They have been most patient and supportive throughout the hard years. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 1. Hard Questions of The Philebus ...................................................................................... 1 2. The Human Good: A Mixture of Pleasure and Knowledge ............................................... 4 3. The Structure of This Dissertation ................................................................................ 10 3. 1. Characters in the Philebus (Chapter 1) ................................................................................... 12 3.2. Methods Used in the Philebus (Chapter 2 and 3) ................................................................. 14 3.3. Metaphysics in the Philebus (Chapter 4) ................................................................................ 17 3.4. The Human Goods—Knowledge and True Pleasure (Chapter 5 and 6) .......................... 19 CHAPTER 1: SOCRATIC CHARACTERS IN THE PHILEBUS: THE IDEAL CONVERSATION 21 1.1. Dramatic Characteristic of the Philebus ....................................................................... 21 1.2. Plato’s Dialogues and the Philebus .............................................................................. 23 1.2.1. Three Thematic Groupings of Plato’s Dialogues ................................................................ 23 1.2.2. The Philebus as An Unusual Late Dialogue ......................................................................... 27 1.2.2.1. Similarities with the Socratic Dialogues ................................................................................... 27 1.2.2.2. Differences from the Socratic Dialogues: Three Distinctive Features .................................... 29 1.2.3. Interpreting Plato’s Intention in the Philebus ................................................................... 33 1.3. The Philebus: an Ideal Dialogue .................................................................................. 37 1.3.1. A Positive Conclusion? ............................................................................................................. 38 1.3.2. Engaging Characters—Crito in the Crito? ............................................................................ 39 1.3.3. Socrates’ Own Thesis and Its Refutation—Only in the Philebus? ................................. 41 1.3.3.1. Socrates in the Gorgias—A Strong Belief without Refutation ................................................. 42 1.3.2.2. Socrates in the Protagoras—Is He Serious? ............................................................................ 45 1.4. An Ideal Example of Plato’s Philosophical Investigations ........................................... 50 CHAPTER 2: DUAL CROSS-EXAMINATION IN THE PHILEBUS 52 2.1. Elenchus in the Ideal Conversation ............................................................................. 52 2.2. The Metaphysical Example at 15b and the Nature of Socrates’ Method ....................... 54 2.2.1. The Controversial Interpretations of Philebus 15b ........................................................... 54 2.2.2. Plato’s Intention in the One and Many Problem in the Philebus .................................. 57 2.3. Rejecting Initial Theses .............................................................................................. 61 2.3.1. The Original Question in the Philebus ................................................................................. 62 2.3.2. Three Conditions of the Human Good—Examination on a Life of Pleasure .............. 63 2.3.3. An Examination of the Life Only with Knowledge ........................................................... 66 2.3.4. The Dual Cross-Examination in the Philebus ................................................................... 69 2.4. Launching a New Systematic Investigation ................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Clitophon's Challenge and the Aporia of Socratic Protreptic* Teruo Mishima
    Clitophon’s Challenge and the Aporia of Socratic Protreptic* Teruo Mishima Before I discuss the text in detail, I would like to briefly sketch the main line of arguments in the Clitophon which I am going to take up, just for the sake of anamnēsis of the readers : In the opening scene Socrates speaks to Clitophon in the third person and tells him that he heard from somebody else that Clitophon, in his conversation with Lysias, has criticised Socratic diatribai (pursuits), whereas he has lavishly praised his synousia (association) with Thrasymachus. Taking Socrates’ words as a sort of disguised criticism or complaint, Clitophon answers that the story was only half true, because although he did on the one hand criticise Socrates, he also on the other hand highly praised him. Then, he explains to Socrates why he must take such an ambiguous attitude towards him. In the first half of his speech he focuses on the aspect of Socratic teaching which he admires unreservedly, namely Socrates’ protreptic speech towards virtues. Here he refers to a lot of Socratic dicta which remind us of well known passages in the early dialogues of Plato. By contrast, in the latter half Clitophon explains where his deep frustration with Socrates lies. He says that, being already converted by Socratic protreptic and resolved to pursue virtues, what he expects now from Socrates is “what comes next”, that is a detailed account of the essence of virtues to be acquired and a piece of concrete advice on how to acquire them. But to these - Clitophon complains - neither Socrates’ company nor Socrates himself gives any convincing answer.
    [Show full text]
  • The Trial and Death of Socrates : Being the Euthyphron, Apology, Crito, and Phaedo of Plato
    LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO /?. (Boffcen THE TRIAL & DEATH OF SOCRATES *O 5' dve^Tcurroj /3toj ov /Siwrds cu>0p(j!nrip ' An unexamined life is not worth living.' (PLATO, Apol. 38 A. ) THE TRIAL AND DEATH OF SOCRATES BEING THE EUTHYPHRON, APOLOGY, CRITO, AND PH^EDO OF PLATO TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH BY F. J. CHURCH, M.A. LONDON MACMILLAN AND CO. AND NEW YORK 1895 [ All rights reserved.] First Edition printed 1880 Second Edition, Golden Treasury Series, 1886 Reprinted 1887, 1888, 1890, 1891, 1892, March and September 1895 PREFACE. THIS book, which is intended principally for the large and increasing class of readers who wish to learn something of the masterpieces of Greek literature, and who cannot easily read them in Greek, was originally published by Messrs. Macmillan in a different form. Since its first appearance it has been revised and corrected throughout, and largely re- written. The chief part of the Introduction is new. It is not intended to be a general essay on Socrates, but only an attempt to explain and illustrate such points in his life and teaching as are referred to in these dialogues, which, taken by themselves, con- tain Plato's description of his great master's life, and work, and death. The books which were most useful to me in writing it are Professor Zeller's Socrates and the Socratic Schools, and the edition of the VI PREFACE. Apology by the late Rev. James Riddell, published after his death by the delegates of the Clarendon Press. His account of Socrates is singularly striking.
    [Show full text]
  • CRATYLUS by Plato Translated by Benjamin Jowett the Project Gutenberg Ebook of Cratylus, by Plato
    CRATYLUS By Plato Translated by Benjamin Jowett The Project Gutenberg EBook of Cratylus, by Plato INTRODUCTION. The Cratylus has always been a source of perplexity to the student of Plato. While in fancy and humour, and perfection of style and metaphysical originality, this dialogue may be ranked with the best of the Platonic writings, there has been an uncertainty about the motive of the piece, which interpreters have hitherto not succeeded in dispelling. We need not suppose that Plato used words in order to conceal his thoughts, or that he would have been unintelligible to an educated contemporary. In the Phaedrus and Euthydemus we also find a difficulty in determining the precise aim of the author. Plato wrote satires in the form of dialogues, and his meaning, like that of other satirical writers, has often slept in the ear of posterity. Two causes may be assigned for this obscurity: 1st, the subtlety and allusiveness of this species of composition; 2nd, the difficulty of reproducing a state of life and literature which has passed away. A satire is unmeaning unless we can place ourselves back among the persons and thoughts of the age in which it was written. Had the treatise of Antisthenes upon words, or the speculations of Cratylus, or some other Heracleitean of the fourth century B.C., on the nature of language been preserved to us; or if we had lived at the time, and been 'rich enough to attend the fifty-drachma course of Prodicus,' we should have understood Plato better, and many points which are now attributed to the extravagance of Socrates' humour would have been found, like the allusions of Aristophanes in the Clouds, to have gone home to the sophists and grammarians of the day.
    [Show full text]
  • The Coherence of Stoic Ontology
    The Coherence of Stoic Ontology by Vanessa de Harven A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Prof. Dorothea Frede, Co-chair Prof. Klaus Corcilius, Co-chair Prof. A.A. Long Spring 2012 Abstract The Coherence of Stoic Ontology by Vanessa de Harven Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy University of California, Berkeley Professors Dorothea Frede and Klaus Corcilius, Co-chairs Any thoroughgoing physicalist is challenged to give an account of immaterial entities such as thoughts and mathematical objects. The Stoics, who eagerly affirmed that only bodies exist, crafted an elegant solution to this challenge: not everything that is Something (ti) exists. Rather, some things have a derivative mode of reality they call subsistence: these entities are non-existent in that they are not themselves solid bodies, but they are nonetheless Something physical because they depend on bodies for their subsistence. My dissertation uncovers the unifying principles of Stoic subsistence, and shows how they can account for thoughts and other immaterial entities without running afoul of their physicalist commitments. While all commentators agree that the Stoics posited Something as the highest category of being, they have failed to find a coherent physicalist account of Stoic ontology. For instance, (1) a canonical set of incorporeals (time, place, void, and what is sayable (lekton)) is well attested, but there is little agreement as to what these entities have in common as incorporeals, which makes the category look like an ad hoc collection of left-over entities.
    [Show full text]
  • Platons Raumbegriff Verständlich, Desgleichen Der Umstand, Daß Timaios Grenzen Einer Erklärung Der Welt Und Schwierigkeiten Einer Konsistenten Darstellung Hervorhebt
    Der Begriff des Raumes im „Timaios“ im Zusammenhang mit der Naturphilosophie und der Metaphysik Platons Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Philosophie der Philosophischen Fakultät der Universität Konstanz vorgelegt von Kyung Jik Lee aus Seoul Referent: Prof. Dr. Jürgen Mittelstraß Korreferent: Prof. Dr. Gereon Wolters Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 19. Juli 1999 Diese Arbeit erscheint im Mai 2000 auch als Buchhandelsausgabe im Verlag Königshausen & Neumann, Würzburg Meinen Eltern gewidmet Inhaltsverzeichnis Vorwort 9 I Die Erklärung der Welt als wahrscheinliche Erklärung (eikôs logos) 11 1 Einleitung 2 Die Synonymität von eikôs mythos und eikôs logos 3 Der eikôs logos als nicht-philosophische Erklärung 4 Der eikôs logos 4.1 Akribês logos? 4.2 Das Wahrscheinliche und das Historische 4.3 Das Wahrscheinliche und das Notwendige 4.4 Die wahrscheinliche Rede als inkonsistente Rede 4.5 Die wahrscheinliche Rede als hypothetische Anwendung einer exakten Erklärung auf sinnliche Gegenstände 4.6 Die wahrscheinliche Rede als Begrenzung der Anwendung einer exakten Erklärung auf sinnliche Gegenstände II Der Demiurg und der Logos der Welt 38 1 Einleitung 2 Wer ist der Demiurg im „Timaios“? 3 Demiurg und Gott 4 Demiurg und Weltseele 5 Demiurg und Idee des Guten 6 Demiurg und transzendente Vernunft 7 Schwierigkeiten der Rede vom Demiurgen 7.1 Zur Suche nach dem Demiurgen 7.2 Logos und Ergon 7.3 Demiurg und Timaios 7.3.1 Einleitung 7.3.2 Poiêtês 7.3.3 Weitere Parallelen zwischen Demiurg und Timaios 7.3.4 Gott und Götter 7.4 Der Demiurg
    [Show full text]
  • The Roles of Solon in Plato's Dialogues
    The Roles of Solon in Plato’s Dialogues Dissertation Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Samuel Ortencio Flores, M.A. Graduate Program in Greek and Latin The Ohio State University 2013 Dissertation Committee: Bruce Heiden, Advisor Anthony Kaldellis Richard Fletcher Greg Anderson Copyrighy by Samuel Ortencio Flores 2013 Abstract This dissertation is a study of Plato’s use and adaptation of an earlier model and tradition of wisdom based on the thought and legacy of the sixth-century archon, legislator, and poet Solon. Solon is cited and/or quoted thirty-four times in Plato’s dialogues, and alluded to many more times. My study shows that these references and allusions have deeper meaning when contextualized within the reception of Solon in the classical period. For Plato, Solon is a rhetorically powerful figure in advancing the relatively new practice of philosophy in Athens. While Solon himself did not adequately establish justice in the city, his legacy provided a model upon which Platonic philosophy could improve. Chapter One surveys the passing references to Solon in the dialogues as an introduction to my chapters on the dialogues in which Solon is a very prominent figure, Timaeus- Critias, Republic, and Laws. Chapter Two examines Critias’ use of his ancestor Solon to establish his own philosophic credentials. Chapter Three suggests that Socrates re- appropriates the aims and themes of Solon’s political poetry for Socratic philosophy. Chapter Four suggests that Solon provides a legislative model which Plato reconstructs in the Laws for the philosopher to supplant the role of legislator in Greek thought.
    [Show full text]
  • Interpretation: a Journal of Political Philosophy
    Interpretation A JOURNAL J_OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Winter 1998 Volume 26 Number 2 149 Jules Gleicher Moses Politikos 183 Tucker Landy The Limitations of Political Philosophy: An Interpretation of Plato's Charmides 201 Jason A. Tipton Love of Gain, Philosophy and Tyranny: A Commentary on Plato's Hipparchus 217 Larry Peterman Changing Titles: Some Suggestions about the "Prince" Use of in Machiavelli and Others 239 Catherine H. Zuckert Leadership Natural and Conventional in Melville's "Benito Cereno" 257 Jon Fennell Harry Neumann and the Political Piety of Rorty's Postmodernism Book Reviews 275 George Anastaplo Aristotle's "Physics": A Guided Study, by Joe Sachs 285 Michael P. Zuckert Shakespeare and the Good Life, by David Lowenthal 295 Joan Stambaugh Martin Heidegger: Between Good and Evil, by Rudiger Safranski 299 Patrick Coby Hypocrisy and Integrity: Machiavelli, Rousseau and the Ethics of Politics, by Ruth Grant 305 Susan Orr Leo Strauss and the American Right, by Shadia Drury 309 Will Morrisey Public Morality and Liberal Society: Essays on Decency, Law, and Pornography, by Harry M. Clor Interpretation Editor-in-Chief Hilail Gildin, Dept. of Philosophy, Queens College Executive Editor Leonard Grey General Editors Seth G. Benardete Charles E. Butterworth Hilail Gildin Robert Horwitz (d. 1987) Howard B. White (d. 1974) Consulting Editors Christopher Bruell Joseph Cropsey Ernest L. Fortin John Hallowell (d. 1992) Harry V. Jaffa David Lowenthal Muhsin Mahdi Harvey C. Mansfield Arnaldo Momigliano (d. 1987) Michael Oakeshott (d. 1990) Ellis Sandoz Leo Strauss (d. 1973) Kenneth W. Thompson International Editors Terence E. Marshall Heinrich Meier Editors Wayne Ambler Maurice Auerbach Fred Baumann Amy Bonnette Patrick Coby Elizabeth C de Baca Eastman Thomas S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Historicity of Plato's Apology of Socrates
    Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Master's Theses Theses and Dissertations 1946 The Historicity of Plato's Apology of Socrates David J. Bowman Loyola University Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses Part of the Classical Literature and Philology Commons Recommended Citation Bowman, David J., "The Historicity of Plato's Apology of Socrates" (1946). Master's Theses. 61. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses/61 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 1946 David J. Bowman !HE HISTORICITY OP PLATO'S APOLOGY OF SOCRATES BY DA.VID J. BOWJWf~ S.J• .l. !BESIS SUBMITTED Ilf PARTIAL FULFILIJIE.NT OF THB: R}gQUIRE'IIENTS POR THE DEGREE OF IIA.STER OF ARTS Ill LOYOLA UlfiVERSITY JULY 1946 -VI'fA. David J. Bowman; S.J•• was born in Oak Park, Ill1no1a, on Ma7 20, 1919. Atter b!a eleaentar7 education at Ascension School# in Oak Park, he attended LoJola AcademJ ot Chicago, graduat1DS .from. there in June, 1937. On September 1, 1937# he entered the Sacred Heart Novitiate ot the SocietJ ot Jesus at Milford~ Ohio. Por the tour Jear• he spent there, he was aoademicallJ connected with Xavier Univeraitr, Cincinnati, Ohio. In August ot 1941 he tranaterred to West Baden College o.f Lorol& Universit7, Obicago, and received the degree ot Bachelor o.f Arts with a major in Greek in Deo.aber, 1941.
    [Show full text]
  • Plato Apology of Socrates and Crito
    COLLEGE SERIES OF GREEK AUTHORS EDITED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF JOHN WILLIAMS WHITE, LEWIS R. PACKARD, a n d THOMAS D. SEYMOUR. PLATO A p o l o g y o f S o c r a t e s AND C r i t o EDITED ON THE BASIS OF CRON’S EDITION BY LOUIS DYER A s s i s t a n t ·Ρι;Οχ'ε&^ο^ ι ν ^University. BOSTON: PUBLISHED BY GINN & COMPANY. 1902. I P ■ C o p · 3 Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1885, by J o h n W il l ia m s W h i t e a n d T h o m a s D. S e y m o u r , In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. J . S. C u s h in g & Co., P r i n t e r s , B o s t o n . PREFACE. T his edition of the Apology of Socrates and the Crito is based upon Dr. Christian Cron’s eighth edition, Leipzig, 1882. The Notes and Introduction here given have in the main been con­ fined within the limits intelligently drawn by Dr. Cron, whose commentaries upon various dialogues of Plato have done and still do so much in Germany to make the study of our author more profitable as well as pleasanter. No scruple has been felt, how­ ever, in making changes. I trust there are few if any of these which Dr. Cron might not himself make if he were preparing his work for an English-thinking and English-speaking public.
    [Show full text]
  • Theory of Forms 1 Theory of Forms
    Theory of Forms 1 Theory of Forms Plato's theory of Forms or theory of Ideas[1] [2] [3] asserts that non-material abstract (but substantial) forms (or ideas), and not the material world of change known to us through sensation, possess the highest and most fundamental kind of reality.[4] When used in this sense, the word form is often capitalized.[5] Plato speaks of these entities only through the characters (primarily Socrates) of his dialogues who sometimes suggest that these Forms are the only true objects of study that can provide us with genuine knowledge; thus even apart from the very controversial status of the theory, Plato's own views are much in doubt.[6] Plato spoke of Forms in formulating a possible solution to the problem of universals. Forms Terminology: the Forms and the forms The English word "form" may be used to translate two distinct concepts that concerned Plato—the outward "form" or appearance of something, and "Form" in a new, technical nature, that never ...assumes a form like that of any of the things which enter into her; ... But the forms which enter into and go out of her are the likenesses of real existences modelled after their patterns in a wonderful and inexplicable manner.... The objects that are seen, according to Plato, are not real, but literally mimic the real Forms. In the allegory of the cave expressed in Republic, the things that are ordinarily perceived in the world are characterized as shadows of the real things, which are not perceived directly. That which the observer understands when he views the world mimics the archetypes of the many types and properties (that is, of universals) of things observed.
    [Show full text]
  • The Apology of Socrates, by Plato
    The Apology of Socrates, by Plato The Project Gutenberg Edition Trans: Benjamin Jowett INTRODUCTION. Socrates has been put on trial by the citizens of Athens for multiple “crimes” all related to his teaching of philosophy. Meletus is his prosecutor, but he is addressing a jury of hundreds of his fellow citizens. In this famous work, Socrates defends his practice of questioning everything and describes the beauty of a philosophical life. He also antagonizes his fellow Athenians… Note, Plato was Socrates’ student and this is report of how the trial went from Socrates’ perspective. Socrates himself wrote nothing – his philosophical career was spent verbally debating his fellow Athenians. APOLOGY How you, O Athenians, have been affected by my accusers, I cannot tell; but I know that they almost made me forget who I was--so persuasively did they speak; and yet they have hardly uttered a word of truth. But of the many falsehoods told by them, there was one which quite amazed me;--I mean when they said that you should be upon your guard and not allow yourselves to be deceived by the force of my eloquence. To say this, when they were certain to be detected as soon as I opened my lips and proved myself to be anything but a great speaker, did indeed appear to me most shameless--unless by the force of eloquence they mean the force of truth; for is such is their meaning, I admit that I am eloquent. But in how different a way from theirs! Well, as I was saying, they have scarcely spoken the truth at all; but from me you shall hear the whole truth: not, however, delivered after their manner in a set oration duly ornamented with words and phrases.
    [Show full text]
  • Plato's Euthydemus
    PLATO’S EUTHYDEMUS: A STUDY ON THE RELATIONS BETWEEN LOGIC AND EDUCATION Plato’s Euthydemus is an unlucky dialogue. Few dealt with it in its own right, not just as part of a wider discussion of Plato, and fewer still saw in it more than a topic of sophistic fallacies. Some, of course, paid attention to the constructive sections of the dialogue, but only rarely do we come across a real attempt to unify its different aspects.1 In this paper I propose to show how, in the Euthydemus, Plato tries to distinguish between the Socratic and the Sophistic conceptions of education, by tracing them to their roots in the opposing views of the Sophists — and especially those of the second generation — and of Socrates about truth and about the role of logic. And although the eristic techniques of Euthydemus and Dionysodorus are obviously fallacious, they turn out to be developments of Protagoras’ views and follow from philosophical positions worthy of serious examination. The Euthydemus is a caricature, to be sure. But, as all good caricature, it has a serious intent. It sketches the degeneration of the Sophistic approach to education, in some of its aspects. More important­ ly, it distinguishes Socratic education from the methods and effects of its Sophistic counterpart. Euthydemus and Dionysodorus, the two sophist brothers, are reminis­ cent of the great Sophists of the Protagoras in more than one way. They are polymaths like Hippias, and at one time or another have taught a variety of arts, from forensic rhetoric to armed combat. Also, they have Prodicus’ penchant for linguistic analysis.
    [Show full text]