December 2

Lecture Notes: December 2

References herein to Plato's work refer to the traditional, marginal page numbers.

Plato

Introduction

The basic metaphysical question with which we've been concerned all term is: What is there?
Descartes: Bodies, Minds, and God
Locke: Similar, though the minds could just be bodies, and we don't see any role for God
Berkeley: Minds and God
Plato: Forms

For Plato, there are two worlds: the material world, and the real world of forms.
The material world is full of contradictions, as Descartes, Locke, and Berkeley noted, later.
Plato's solution: this material world isn't the real world!

The Basic Epistemological Question: How do we know?
Descartes: reason
Locke, Berkeley: only experience
Plato: Recollection

For Plato, we have all our knowledge built-in before we are born, but we have to remember, or recollect, it.

This is the job of the philosopher: to help us recollect our knowledge.

Plato was a Greek philosopher, a student of Socrates.
He wrote dialogues, like plays, seeking answers to puzzling questions.

Most of these dialogues have as a character his teacher.
What is justice? What is friendship? What is knowledge? What is beauty?

All of these concepts have their true and immutable natures: they are forms.

Forms:
The real things, perfect, unchanging realities.
(Think of what Descartes sought.)
We learn about these through thinking, and reasoning.
We know them through recollection.
Our souls become acquainted with them in the netherworld, before our birth.
Sensory world is a world of shadow and illusion, and contradiction.
Knowledge is of forms.

Forms may be taken as the causes of the qualities of things.
Like universals.
x is blue because x participates in the form of blueness.
Read Phaedo (100b-101b)
Compare to Descartes' innate knowledge (see MIII, (AT 38))
See the Republic, analogy of the cave, for further details.

Why do we need forms?
How can we know if an act is just or pious if we don't know what justice or piety is?
That is, we need to understand the general concept before we can apply it in individual cases.
We are only sensorily acquainted with particulars, which won't give us the general rule.
To know some things are equal, we have to know what equality is: (Phaedo: 74d-75d)
Consider, how can we learn what blue is? (We can't point to a color.)

This may be unsatisfying, as it's just a sketch of the position.

We are not here going to argue for or against the forms.

We will examine next week his search for the form of piety, in the Euthyphro

Now, we will look at the trial of Socrates, and his beliefs about the life of a philosopher.

The Apology

The title is a transliteration of the Greek word for defense.

He is not apologizing, but defending himself at his trial.

At the end of the trial, he is convicted, and sentenced to death.

In the Phaedo, Plato describes the last days of his teacher, and the execution of his death sentence.
Here we see Socrates at his least charming, and we understand why he so angered the Athenians
He sees himself as a gadfly: 30e
The oracle had pronounced that he was the wisest man in Greece: 21a-e
After a sacrifice, a priestess of Apollo would answer in the name of the god, in a sort of riddle.
(Perhaps some sort of intoxicating cave airs facilitated this talk.)
He talks about this sort of embarrassing of other Athenians: 33b
(His mother had been a midwife, and this is a recurring theme: Socrates sees himself as a midwife of ideas.)
He had walked out of the council at the Battle of Arginusae (32b)
(This had been a big victory, and the Athenians were out for the blood of the generals.)
He badgers Meletus on the stand: 24c-28a
Trying to catch him in contradiction.
He uses a priori arguments: I wouldn't do such a thing as corrupt the young, willingly: Read 25c-26a
He tells the assembly that they can not harm him: 30c-d

Athens was a great power, having defeated the Persians
Merchants and sea power
He represents himself as above them, condescending, doing more important work: 31a-32a
He says he listens to a voice in his head.
And when it comes time for a punishment. He offers maintenance in the Prytaneum: 36d

Athens may have been a democracy, but it was a democracy of wealthy men, who owned slaves, and women.

These were powerful people, who likely thought much of themselves, and Socrates had angered them.

So, Socrates seems to think he is a good man
This means that he is some sort of wise man, since wisdom and goodness are linked, for him.
But he knows that he is ignorant: 21b
He has only human wisdom, as opposed to the wisdom of the gods.
In order to be virtuous, we must constantly examine ourselves: 38a
And our city: 29d-30a
Note the assertion that virtue is self-interested, will create wealth and other things.

Is Socrates here arguing that he wants to improve the city, by increasing wealth of the powerful?
Or is he a kind of revolutionary, attempting to overthrow the powerful?
Remember, he's a smart guy.
He's annoying and condescending.
But is he a threat?

Why, or why was he perceived so?

Crito

A religious observance (a ship to Delos and back) postpones Socrates' punishment.
Friends attempt to help him escape.
But he refuses to go.
This dialogue is an explication of his argument that it would be wrong to leave Athens to avoid the death sentence.

Along the way, he discusses the nature of our debt to the state, and anticipates Locke's social contract theory.

Crito pleads with Socrates to escape:
For the sake of money (they have plenty, and have bribed the guards)
For his children: 48d
For the reputation of his friends: 48a-b

But Socrates says tat only the good life is worth living.
Remember Apology 38a, and 39a-b
Socrates says, the only important question is whether it is right or wrong to do so. 48c-d
He argues:

1. One should never do wrong, even when one is wronged.
2. To injure people would be to do wrong.
3. So one must never injure people.
4. Violating a just agreement causes injury to people.
5. Escape would be a violation of a just agreement.
6. Escape is wrong.
So, Socrates should not escape.

Where is this argument weakest?
Probably in step 5.
Is the agreement just?

Socrates has the laws speak:
Leaving injures the laws, is an attempt to destroy them.
The city birthed him, and educated him (50d)
Your country should be honored, more than your parents (51a)
If you don't like the laws, you could have changed them (51b)
You could have left, if you wanted (51d)
By disobeying you do three wrongs:
disobey your parents
disobey those who nurtured you
having agreed (by staying), and not trying to change the laws, you break them

Read 52b-d

By remaining in the city, he has given his tacit consent for the state to do with him as it determines best/
Crito is convinced, it seems.
Does he do the right thing?

Back to Main Lecture Notes Page