The opening of Protagoras leads to a dramatic misunderstanding concerning the companion’s suspicion that Socrates has been in pursuit of the young Alcibiades. The remark that today Socrates paid him no attention and forgot about him, together with the announcement that the supposed reason for such a strange incident was the alleged wisdom of Protagoras, mitigates and confuses Socrates’ previous acknowledgement that indeed he has come from being with Alcibiades just now. The narration following the meeting with the (...) sophist reinforces that Alcibiades, while having been present and come to the aid of Socrates, was neither the aim of Socrates’ erotic pursuit, nor left the meeting to enjoy his company in private. However, previous studies claim that this impression could be false and prompted ironically by Socrates in the dialogue in order to redirect the attention of this companion, who would judge the relationship with Alcibiades inappropriate. This paper discusses previous studies and provides new textual evidence that could confirm that the drama indicates that Socrates, in spite of his dissimulation, actually appears to be in pursuit of Alcibiades. It also explains how Socrates’ feigned forgetting, which makes it possible to avoid the matter, may be read as a necessary precaution of the philosophy in its public appearance, to protect the course of a certain educational relationship with the youngster which has just begun. (shrink)

Socrates’ admirers and successors in the fourth century and beyond often felt the need to explain Socrates’ reputed relationship with Alcibiades, and to defend Socrates against the charge that he was a corrupting influence on Alcibiades. In this paper I examine Plato’s response to this problem and have two main aims. First, I will argue in Section 2 that (...) central points: that motivations associated with the spirited part of the soul play a decisive role in moral education, particularly in the case of exceptionally ambitious and talented individuals; and that the democratic Many themselves, not Socrates, are primarily responsible for the corruption of promising young men like Alcibiades. These points are connected, moreover: the Many exert a moral influence on the young by shaping and exploiting their spirited motivations. I aim to show that Plato develops and dramatizes this diagnosis of the problem of Alcibiades in three earlier dialogues—Protagoras, Gorgias, and Symposium—as well as in Book 6 of the Republic. My second main claim will be that the psychological and educational theories of the Republic are informed by Plato’s diagnosis of the problem of Alcibiades, and that they are conceived, at least in part, as a solution to that problem. (shrink)

Special volume of "Thaumàzein - Rivista di Filosofia" dedicated to the theme of Socratic Eudaimonia and care for others. It is a multilingual volume comprising twenty papers divided into six sections with an introduction by Linda Napolitano. Edited by Santiago Chame, Donald Morrison, and Linda Napolitano. -/- Despite the appearances given by certain texts, the moral psychology of Socrates needs not imply selfishness. On the contrary, a close look at passages in Plato and Xenophon (see Plato, Meno 77-78; Protagoras (...) 358; Gorgias 466-468; Euthydemus 278; Lysis 219; Xenophon, Memorabilia III 9, 4-5) suggests that the “egoist”’s welfare depends upon the welfare of others (i.e. family, friends or the whole city). Since the welfare of his family, friends and city is part of his own eudaimonìa, the “egoist” (phìlautos) has a direct and intrinsic motive to promote the welfare of these others. -/- This multilingual issue explores the role that other peoples’ welfare plays in Socratic ethics. Special attention is paid to test-cases in which the principle that moral action is always good only for the agent seems to have no validity. I.e., under which circumstances is the self-sacrifice for the sake of others (such as the soldier’s self-sacrifice on the battlefield) good for the agent (as in Alcibiades I 115a-116d)? Essays deal with contradictions or tensions of this sort, and relate them to more general views on eudaimonìa held within Socratic literature. Comparison between different Socratic authors is used as a means to identify the distinctive features of Socratic eudaimonìa if compared to other Greek theories of happiness, such as the Aristotelian theory of philautìa (NE IX, 1166a-1166b; 1168a-1169b). (shrink)

Although determination, perseverance, and high expectations appear to be laudable characteristics within our society, ambition seems to carry a hint of selfishness or self-promotion (perhaps especially at the cost of others). One can speak of the goals or aims of a team or group, but it seems more characteristic to ascribe ambition to a single individual. Etymologi-cally, ambition derives from the Latin word ambire, which can mean to strive or go around (ambo + ire), but the term also characterizes one (...) who canvasses for votes. It may also be telling that the Latin noun for canvassing (ambitio) is only two letters removed for the Latin term for election fraud (ambitus). It is thus welcome that in his Socrates and Alcibiades Ariel Helfer seeks to examine the notion of political ambition through a study of Plato’s dialogues concerning that most am-bitious of Athenians, Alcibiades, an Athenian general who seems to have epitomized both the German word Wunderkind and the French phrase enfant terrible in his short life. It was one that included leading, betraying, and then leading again the Athenian army and navy during the Peloponnesian Wars. Helfer examines the three dialogues of Plato that include Alcibiades as an interlocutor: First Alcibiades, Second Alcibiades, and the Symposium. He does so (in his words) “to gain a fuller understanding of the constellation of desires that gives political ambition its force, including the desire to be devoted to a noble cause, and to determine whether, in Plato’s understanding, these desires necessarily find their fullest expression in political life” (p. 7). (shrink)

The chapter relates Alcibiades's speech in the Symposium to the dialogue Alcibiades I. I believe, the encomium on Socrates in the Symposium should be interpreted together with the Alcibiades I. There, Plato offers a fuller picture of the relationship between Socrates and Alcibiades, one that gives a possible explanation of Alcibiades' failure and moral collapse, while keeping Socrates' position as a moral teacher intact. This approach presupposes that Plato wrote some of the dialogues in a deliberate order of the fictional (...) chronology. Interpreting the Symposium together with the Alcibiades I allows me then to make a broader claim concerning Plato's conception of the personal self. (shrink)

Ignorance is commonly assumed to be a lack of knowledge in Plato’s Socratic dialogues. I challenge that assumption. In the Protagoras, ignorance is conceived to be a substantive, structural psychic flaw—the soul’s domination by inferior elements that are by nature fit to be ruled. Ignorant people are characterized by both false beliefs about evaluative matters in specific situations and an enduring deception about their own psychic conditions. On my interpretation, akrasia, moral vices, and epistemic vices are products or forms (...) of ignorance, and a person who lacks knowledge is not necessarily ignorant. (shrink)

This article will contrast two portrayals of Protagoras: one in the "Theaetetus," where Socrates discusses Protagorean theory and even comes to his defense by imitating the deceased sophist; and another in the "Protagoras," where Socrates recounts his encounter with the sophist. I suggest that Plato wants listeners and readers of the dialogues to hear the dissonance between the two portraits and to wonder why Socrates so distorts Protagoras in the "Theaetetus." Protagoras in the "Protagoras" behaves (...) and speaks in ways that are incompatible with the Protagorean position presented in the "Theaetetus.". (shrink)

Are the long, wildly inventive etymologies in Plato’s Cratylus just some kind of joke, or does Plato himself accept them? This standard question misses the most important feature of the etymologies: they are a competitive performance, an agôn by Socrates in which he shows that he can play the game of etymologists like Cratylus better than they can themselves. Such show-off performances are a recurrent feature of Platonic dialogue: they include Socrates’ speeches on eros in the Phaedrus, his rhetorical discourse (...) in the Menexenus, and his literary interpretation in the Protagoras. The paper compares these cases to work out the ground rules, purposes and implications of the Platonic agôn, and the Cratylus etymologies in particular. (shrink)

In Plato’s early dialogues, the impossibility of talking to the crowd appears as a constitutive element of the opposition between rhetoric and dialectic and raises the understudied question of the role of the audience in Socratic thought. However, Xenophon’s Socrates constantly identifies public and private speech. But this likening is also found in the Alcibiades Major, which gives a key to understand the true meaning of this assimilation: one can convince an audience, by talking to each individual in the crowd. (...) The need to address each one implies an adaptation of language that can be found in the texts of different disciples of Socrates. The rhetorical aspects of the Phaedrus’ psychagogia should then be understood, not as a new Platonic concept which allows the good orator to address the many, but rather as a new for- mulation of a well-known and shared Socratic ideal. (shrink)

Enneads I: 8.14 poses significant problems for scholars working in the Plotinian secondary literature. In that passage, Plotinus gives the impression that the body and not the soul is causally responsible for vice. The difficulty is that in many other sections of the same text, Plotinus makes it abundantly clear that the body, as matter, is a mere privation of being and therefore represents the lowest rung on the proverbial metaphysical ladder. A crucial aspect to Plotinus’s emanationism, however, is that (...) lower levels of a metaphysical hierarchy cannot causally influence higher ones and, thus, there is an inconsistency in the Egyptian’s magnum opus, or so it would seem. Scholars have sought to work through this paradox by positing that Plotinus is a “paleolithic Platonist” or Socratic. The advantage of this approach is that one may be able to resolve the tension by invoking Socrates’s eliminativist solution to the problem of weakness of will, as found in The Protagoras. In the following article, I argue that such attempts are not wrong-headed just underdetermined. They take up the standard reading of Socratic moral intellectualism, namely the “informational” interpretation and, therefore, fail to render a coherent view of Plotinus’s moral philosophy. The following paper, in contrast, utilizes a new reading of intellectualism advanced by Brickhouse and Smith, which, when subtended with a “powers approach” to causality, resolves the aforementioned, problematic passage of Enneads. (shrink)

Intellectualism about human virtue is the thesis that virtue is knowledge. Virtue intellectualists may be eliminative or reductive. If eliminative, they will eliminate our conventional vocabulary of virtue words-'virtue', 'piety', 'courage', etc.-and speak only of knowledge or wisdom. If reductive, they will continue to use the conventional virtue words but understand each of them as denoting nothing but a kind of knowledge (as opposed to, say, a capacity of some other part of the soul than the intellect, such as the (...) will or the appetites). Virtue intellectualists may be pluralists or monists. If pluralist, they identify the virtues with distinct kinds of knowledge. If monist, they identify all the virtues with one and the same kind of knowledge. In a number of dialogues-including the Euthyphro, Apology, Charmides, Euthydemus, Laches, Lysis, Protagoras, and Republic I-Socrates gives arguments that support Reductive Monist Intellectualism (RMI) about human virtue. I disarm an influential objection to RMI as the correct interpretation of Socrates. (shrink)

In the Protagoras, Socrates argues that what appears to be akrasia is, in fact, the result of a hedonic illusion: proximate pleasures appear greater than distant ones. On the face of it, his account is puzzling: why should proximate pleasures appear greater than distant ones? Certain interpreters argue that Socrates must be assuming the existence of non-rational desires that cause proximate pleasures to appear inflated. In this paper, I argue that positing non-rational desires fails to explain the hedonic error. (...) However, careful consideration of Socrates’ treatment of appearances reveals that he is not without resources to explain the illusion. I argue that in the Protagoras, appearances are imagistic mental representations that appear true but tend to be false. I suggest that proximate pleasures produce inflated hedonic predictions because we represent them more vividly than distant ones, yielding greater anticipatory pleasure which causes us to overestimate their magnitude. (shrink)

In the "Republic," Plato has Socrates attack poetry’s use of mimēsis, often translated as ‘imitation’ or ‘representation.’ Various scholars (e.g. Blondell 2002; Frank 2018; Halliwell 2009; K. Morgan 2004) have noticed the tension between Socrates’ theory critical of mimēsis and Plato’s literary practice of speaking through various characters in his dialogues. However, none of these scholars have addressed that it is not only Plato the writer who uses mimēsis but also his own character, Socrates. At crucial moments in several dialogues, (...) Socrates takes on a role and speaks as someone else. I call these moments “Socratic mimēsis.” While previous commentators have noticed some of these moments, they have either overstated their rarity or they have not studied them collectively. My dissertation is the first in-depth investigation of this phenomenon in the dialogues. Socrates’ dramatic imitation of others is way of teaching in a voice separate from his own, and it is also a way for Plato to speak to, and to educate, different kinds of audiences. Although “Socratic mimēsis” occurs throughout the Platonic corpus, I focus on three passages from three different dialogues, which are paradigm instances: [1] in the "Crito" Socrates plays the part of ‘the Laws’ (50a-54c); [2] in the "Theaetetus" he acts the part of ‘Protagoras’ (166a-168c); and [3] in the "Menexenus" he recites a funeral speech learned from ‘Aspasia’ (236d-249c). Instead of one-sidedly reading the dialogues as either only literary works of art or as only a series of philosophical arguments, this study gleans philosophic insights from the literary and dramatic details of the dialogues. In chapter one I argue that in the "Crito" Socrates tries to convince Crito of a universal and absolute ethics based on never committing injustice, but Crito is not able to understand. In order to make Crito more just—but not yet at the level of Socratic ethics—Socrates creates ‘the Laws’ to persuade Crito to expand his personal notion of justice. Socrates instills a political obedience in place of Crito’s existing lawlessness as a second-best recourse. Plato expects the astute listener or reader to see the contrast between Socrates’ earlier ethical principles, said in his own voice, with what he says in the voice of ‘the Laws.’ In chapter two I argue that in the part of the "Theaetetus" where Socrates defends Protagoras (often called ‘the Defense’), Socrates, by imitating ‘Protagoras,’ is actually criticizing Protagorean relativism. The Protagorean theory cannot account for mimēsis and Socrates’ mimetic act performatively contradicts the identity of appearance and reality, which the theory presupposes. Finally, in chapter three I argue that in the Menexenus the funeral oration that Socrates recounts for Menexenus that he heard from ‘Aspasia’ is actually a disguised criticism of political rhetoric and of Athenian imperialism. Although the speech is never interrogated within the dialogue, Plato provokes the listener or reader outside the dialogue to question its message and to see how it conflicts with many of Socrates’ positions in other dialogues. Beyond reconsidering the long-standing and persistent view that Plato was against poetry and mimetic performance, I re-examine the role that performance and role-playing can have in philosophy and pedagogy more generally. Actors, by taking on other personas, and audience members, in observing actors and their actions, are both involved in acts of imagination that can expand their horizon of thinking and feeling. (shrink)

The Alcibiades I concludes with an arresting image of an eye that sees itself by looking into another eye. Using the dialogue as a whole, I offer a detailed interpretation of this image and I discuss its implications for the question of self-knowledge. The Alcibiades I reveals both what self-knowledge is (knowledge of soul in its particularity and its universality) and how we are to seek it (by way of philosophical dialogue). This makes the pursuit of self-knowledge an inescapably social (...) pursuit. Yet as Socrates cautions us, our ability to gain self-knowledge—and indeed his very account of what it is—are limited. The dialogue is thus challenging us to take the inquiry further, thereby displaying the very matter being discussed. (shrink)

Plato’s Protagoras contains, among other things, three short but puzzling remarks on the media of philosophy. First, at 328e5–329b1, Plato makes Socrates worry that long speeches, just like books, are deceptive, because they operate in a discursive mode void of questions and answers. Second, at 347c3–348a2, Socrates argues that discussion of poetry is a presumptuous affair, because, the poems’ message, just like the message of any written text, cannot be properly examined if the author is not present. Third, at (...) 360e6–361d6, it becomes clear that even if the conversation between Socrates and Protagoras was conducted by means of short questions and answers, this spoken mode of discourse is problematic too, because it ended up distracting the inquiry from its proper course. As this paper 2 sets out to argue, Plato does not only make Socrates articulate these worries to exhibit the hazards of discursive commodifi cation. In line with Socrates’ warning to the young Hippocrates of the dangers of sophistic rhetoric, and the sophists’ practice of trading in teachings, they are also meant to problematize the thin line between philosophical and sophistical practice. By examining these worries in the light of how the three relevant modes of discourse are exemplifi ed in the dialogue, this paper aims to isolate and clarify the reasons behind them in terms of deceit, presumptuousness and distraction; and to argue that these reasons cast doubts on the common assumption that the dialogue’s primary aim is to show how sophistical rhetoric must succumb to Socratic dialectic. (shrink)

This essay proposes that Socrates practiced various spiritual exercises, including meditation, and that this Socratic practice of meditation was habitual, aimed at cultivating emotional self-control and existential preparedness. Contemporary research in neurobiology supports the view that intentional mental actions, including meditation, have a profound impact on brain activity, neuroplasticity, and help engender emotional self-control. This impact on brain activity is confirmed via technological developments, a prime example of how technology benefits humanity. Socrates attains the balanced emotional self-control that Alcibiades describes (...) in the Symposium because of the sustained mental effort he exerts that directly impacts his brain and his emotional and philosophical life. The essay concludes that Socratic meditative practices aimed at manifesting true dignity as human beings within the complexities of a technological world offer a promising model of self-care worthy of embracing today. (shrink)

We describe in our own words a visual phenomenon first described by Gallagher and Tsuchiya in 2020. The key to the phenomenon (as we describe it) is to direct one’s left eye at the image of one's left eye, while simultaneously directing one's right eye at the image of one's right eye. We suggest that one would naturally arrive at this phenomenon if one took a sufficiently literal reading of certain words of Socrates preserved in Plato's Alcibiades. We speculate that (...) perhaps Socrates was aware of the visual phenomenon in question. (shrink)

Vlastos, G. Introduction: the paradox of Socrates.--Lacey, A. R. Our knowledge of Socrates.--Dover, K. J. Socrates in the Clouds.--Robinson, R. Elenchus.--Robinson, R. Elenchus, direct and indirect.--Robinson, R. Socratic definition.--Nakhnikian, G. Elenctic definitions.--Cohen, S. M. Socrates on the definition of piety: Euthyphro 10A-11B.--Santas, G. Socrates at work on virtue and knowledge in Plato's Laches.--Burnyeat, M. F. Virtues in action.--Walsh, J. J. The Socratic denial of Akrasia.--Santas, G. Plato's Protagoras and explanations of weakness.--Woozley, A. D. Socrates on disobeying the law.--Allen, R. (...) E. Plato's earlier theory of forms. (shrink)

Victor Eremita proposes that the reader understand parts I and II of Either/Or as parties in a dialogue; most readers in fact view II as a devastating reply to I. I suggest that part I be read as a reaction or follow-up to Kierkegaard’s dissertation. Much of part I presents reflective characters who are aware of their freedom but reluctant or unable to adopt the ethical life. The modern Antigone and the Silhouettes are sisters of Alcibiades—failed students of Socrates. I (...) articulate and defend their modes of loving, which are significantly different from Don Giovanni’s and Johannes the Seducer’s purely aesthetic approaches to love. Such feminine love, I argue, dwells in the disputed territory between passion and action, substance and freedom, the aesthetic and the ethical. Antigone’s love is a passion she both suffers and tries to appropriate. The Silhouettes’ devotion to their beloved makes them dependent on him. I defend this dependence even though it is undoubtedly a form of despair. By appealing to Sartre’s account of love, I argue moreover that this love involves a recognition and appraisal of the beloved absent in the love exemplified by Fear and Trembling’s knight of infinite resignation. (shrink)

What is paradoxical about the Socratic paradoxes is that they are not paradoxical at all. Socrates famously argued that knowledge is sufficient for virtue and that no one errs willingly. Both doctrines are discussed in the Protagoras between Socrates and the Abderian sophist, however the argumentative line that Socrates chooses to follow in order to refute ‘the many’ has raised a serious degree of controversy among scholars. Is Socrates upholding the hedonistic view? Or, is he only trying to show (...) the bankruptcy of the explanation of akrasia as ‘being overcome by pleasure’ which ‘the many’ advocate? Socrates intends to do the latter, showing that this hedonistic explanation of akrasia leads to absurdity. Plato’s and Socrates’ identification of goodness with pleasure would mark a sudden and unexplained departure from their moral theories, and would render the Socratic denial of akrasia an argument with limited range –only for those assuming hedonism. If we are correct to hold that Socrates does not intend to identify the good with the pleasant, then we are immediately put against a new and much more difficult challenge; that is, to suggest how the Socratic denial of akrasia could regain its catholic plausibility against the commonsensical stance to akrasia, namely that people act against their best judgment due to their impotence to resist to motivational forces such as pleasure, pain, fear, passion and love. Socrates does not offer any other explicit account –apart from the hedonistic one- of how his doctrine could be catholically defended; hence the task of decoding the Socratic line of thought is far from an easy one. The key move in order to decode the puzzling Socratic doctrine is to understand how Socrates treats the notion of ‘knowledge’. For Socrates, moral knowledge is distinguished from mere belief; in this sense, only knowledge has the commanding power which enables one to sustain his best evaluative judgment against other motivational forces and only knowledge is sufficient for the virtuous conduct. By contrast, as mere belief is susceptible to other motivational forces like pleasure, pain, fear, etc. its possessor will, in turn, be susceptible to the revision of his intentions which derive from his best value judgment. In the Protagoras, Socrates implies that intentions grounded on belief can be ‘dragged around’ by desire; and according to my view in this paper, this Socratic stance allows a non-epistemic interpretation of his thesis. According to the traditional epistemic interpretation of the Socratic denial of akrasia, one’s wrongdoing is always a miscalculation that takes place on his practical syllogism. However, my understanding of the Socratic denial of akrasia allows cases of one even going against his best judgment, when his judgment is based on belief. In that sense, a judgment grounded on belief has insufficient power to guarantee that the chosen action will follow, whereas only judgments grounded on knowledge have a commanding and lordly power. For Socrates, everyone always goes for the good but only those with knowledge can infallibly discover and act on the good. Those with mere belief can only reach an apparent good, which may be good or bad. The motivation for the good is not unshakeable for those with mere belief since the grounding of their belief is scarcely strong enough to hold on the correct intention. Socrates therefore holds that the grounding of knowledge influences the motivational state of the moral agent. Thereupon, my interpretation differs from others in suggesting that for Socrates not all the cases of akrasia are cognitive mistakes in their judgment. Rather I hold, in opposition to the received stance on akrasia, that Socrates allows that one could act against his best judgment, when the latter is grounded on mere belief. (shrink)

The common 4th century B.C. view according to which Homer was regarded as a poet and a wise man, the leading and most honorable, to the point of being considered “the educator of Greece” (Pl. Resp. 606e-607a), is strongly supported by the Platonic dialogues. The works of Plato are the main available source to get to know not only the great pedagogical esteem for Homer, but also the several educational traditions that used or relied on Homeric poetry in Classical Athens. (...) We are certainly used to thinking of Socrates as standing out for contesting or blaming such customs and methods provided by rhapsodes, sophists and common people (Pl. Resp.; Ion; Hp. mi.). But conversely, he is also often depicted quoting, alluding to or remaking on Homeric passages when presenting his own views. Socrates even claims to feel a certain friendship or reverence for the poet and declares to be charmed by contemplating things through him, whom he considers to be amongst the few deserving to be called “philosophers” (Pl. Resp. 595b; 607c-d; Phdr. 278b-279b). The puzzling twofold nature of the Socratic attitude towards Homer, coupled with the fact that Plato would become a figure as honored as the poet was, led ancient literary criticism to focus on the Platonic use and sharing of material and techniques proper to Homeric poetry. Works like those of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Maximus of Tyre, Longinus and above all Proclus, not only pointed out the philosopher’s debt to the poet, but even considered him to be an admirer of the Homeric genius unlike anyone else, and whose emulation basically attempted to reach and outperform the pedagogical power that the legendary poet had (Dion. Hal. Pomp. I, 13; Max. Tyr. Or. 26; [Longinus]; Subl. XIII, 2-3; Procl., In R. VI, 163.13-164.7; 202.7-205.23). With an analogous spirit, studies of contemporary Platonists suggest that the dialogues were shaped using the Homeric text, especially the Odyssey, as a template, and making Socrates appear as going through equivalent experiences to those of Odysseus’ “νόστος”. With respect to Protagoras, previous attempts focused on explicit references to books X and XI, placing the dispute with the sophist and the events at Callias’ house in the symbolic context of Odysseus’ encounter with Circe and the following journey into the underworld. I attempt to bring that reading one step further, paying special attention to the narrated character and the dramatic context for the singing of those episodes and the parallel ones in Protagoras. In first place, I consider the whole dialogue refiguring the episode in the Odyssey that works as a dramatic frame for the singing of Odysseus’ past adventures, the arrival at Phaeacia and the reception at Alcinous’ court. I regard Odysseus’ need to sing the Apologue as a call for hospitality to secure a safe passage home, working as a pattern for Socrates’ need of a tale at his own appearance in Athens to fulfill and secure a philosophical education in the city. In second place, I take into consideration the metanarrative dimension of such remaking. Since Socrates’ narration comes in response to a certain “Ὁμήρου ἐπαινέτης”, a “praiser of Homer” (Pl. Prt. 309b1), as Odysseus’ Apologue is to Demodocus the “ἀοιδὸς”, I examine how the dialogue could evince a dispute for pedagogical primacy amongst the different narratives and uses of poetry in Athens, a dispute that the Platonic narrative would attempt to surpass precisely by imitating Homer. (shrink)

In the Protagoras, Socrates argues that all the virtues are the very same knowledge of human wellbeing so that virtue is all one. But elsewhere Socrates appears to endorse that the virtues-such as courage, temperance, and reverence-are different parts of a single whole. Ambiguity interpretations harmonize the conflicting texts by taking the virtue words to be equivocal, such as between theoretical and applied expertise, or between a power and its deeds. I argue that such interpretations have failed in their (...) specifics and in general, as I defend an alternative that takes into account Socrates' higher purpose in testing others, namely to show them their ignorance of virtue. (shrink)

I offer a reading of the two conceptions of the good found in Plato’s Protagoras: the popular conception—‘the many’s’ conception—and Socrates’ conception. I pay particular attention to the three kinds of goods Socrates introduces: (a) bodily pleasures like food, drink, and sex; (b) instrumental goods like wealth, health, or power; and (c) virtuous actions like courageously going to war. My reading revises existing views about these goods in two ways. First, I argue that the many are only ‘hedonists’ in (...) a very attenuated sense. They do not value goods of kind (b) simply as means to pleasures of kind (a); rather, they have fundamentally different attitudes to (a) and (b). Second, the hedonism that Socrates’ defends includes a distinction between kinds of pleasures: (a) bodily pleasures and (c) the pleasures of virtuous actions. This distinction between kinds of pleasures—some that do and some that do not exert the ‘power of appearance’—allows Socrates to address one of the central beliefs in the popular conception of akrasia, namely that it involves a special kind of unruly desire: non-rational appetites for pleasures like food, drink, or sex. Socrates replaces the motivational push of non-rational appetites with the epistemic pull of the appearance of immediate pleasures like food, drink, and sex. (shrink)

This paper argues that Plato recognized that Socrates’ rational, reflective love, learned from the wise Diotima, is the only means of achieving secure, self-sufficient happiness and so the only way to avoid tragedy in human life.

Commentators have often been puzzled by the structure of the _Symposium_; in particular, it is unclear what the relationship is between Socrates’ speech and that of the other symposiasts. This chapter seeks to make a contribution to that debate by highlighting parallels between the first four speeches of the _Symposium_ and the goals of the early education in the Republic. In both dialogues, I contend, we see Plato concerned with educating people through (a) activating and cultivating spirited motivations, (b) becoming (...) lawful and taking virtue as a goal, (c) harmonizing the opposing forces in their soul, and (d) minimizing the appetites and making them orderly. While these are familiar points from the moral education of the Republic, I argue that they also map onto the first four speeches of the _Symposium_ respectively. Because in the _Republic_ this moral education is necessary to make progress on the epistemic ascent, we can speculate that there is a similar point to be made in the _Symposium_ – without first training our character adequately, we will not be able to climb the ladder of love. While the positive effects of Eros described in the early speeches of the _Symposium_ are only imitations of the ideal education regime of Kallipolis, they nevertheless improve one’s character in such a way that better prepares the soul for philosophy. Finally, I argue that the importance of this moral education is dramatized at the end of the _Symposium_ through Agathon’s amicable refutation by Socrates on the one hand, and the drunken entrance of Alcibiades on the other. Agathon shows potential for philosophy whereas Alcibiades is the exemplar of what happens when somebody comes to philosophy without a harmonized soul. (shrink)

This article explores the motif of psychic nourishment in Plato’s Protagoras. It does so by analyzing what consequences Socrates’ claim that only a physician of souls will be able adequately to assess the quality of such nourishment has for the argument of the dialogue. To this purpose, the first section of the article offers a detailed analysis of Socrates’ initial conversation with Hippocrates, highlighting and interpreting the various uses of medical metaphors. Building on this, this section argues that the (...) warning Socrates utters against sophistry is much more complex than commonly assumed, and further that Socrates demonstrates his own skill as a physician of souls during this conversation. The second part analyzes the first half of Socrates’ discussion with Protagoras, arguing that Socrates here demonstrates another aspect of his expertise as a physician of souls by making Protagoras participate, although against his will, in bringing the unhealthy character of his teachings to light. (shrink)

We provide an intuitive motivation for the hyperreal numbers via electoral axioms. We do so in the form of a Socratic dialogue, in which Protagoras suggests replacing big-oh complexity classes by real numbers, and Socrates asks some troubling questions about what would happen if one tried to do that. The dialogue is followed by an appendix containing additional commentary and a more formal proof.

Aristotle (384-322 B.C), a well know Greek philosopher, physician, scientist and politician. A variety of identifying researches have been written on him. It is therefore a considerable pride for the researcher to write something about him when even mentioning his name and his father's name is a point of prestige in the Greek Language. His name means the preferable sublimity whereas Nicomachus (his father's name) means the definable negotiator. His father's and mother's origin belongs to Asclepiade, the favorite origin in (...) Greek. Points of view regarding this figure are controversial some praise him and consider him the peak of philosophical thinker which makes humanity in general owe this genius thinker a great deal. Others believe that the effect of his thought on humanity is the reason behind the non-progress of science. Whatever ones opinion is, his thoughts have a wonderful force in stimulating and positively affecting the people's thinking. His philosophy is the greatest philosophy which the world has ever witnessed or which may ever witness., if it couldn’t solve some of the problems of philosophy, it at least, makes the world more rational than before. He is the founder of the philosophical language in describing a large number of philosophical terms which are still in use nowadays. Moreover his books and platonic dialogues are considered encyclopedias in providing a basis for philosophy even before Socrates. For theses among other reasons, I am choosing Aristotle as a subject for research and concentrating on natural philosophy. The critical side deals with the criticism of natural philosophers. In order to fully understand Aristotle, we should understand his predecessors. Their virtue is undeniable. Without them, Aristotle's and Plato's genius would never be in this ideal shape. In addition to that, they are philosophers and scientists who mixes between science, philosophy, morality and politics in a complementary form. They are a source of illumination to the human thinking in general. Without them humanity could never have got rid of mythology. This is the code of life, for many generations should pass before the rare genius could attain a prominent idea. When Tales formulates the philosophical question, where does the world come from? This is a decisive moment in human thinking similar to the coming moments, the one Parmenides, and Protagoras statement: man is the norm for all things. Pre-Socrates philosophers are all considered glowing points in drawing Aristotle's philosophy. Thus my book is entitles (Aristotle's criticism of Pre-Socratic Natural Philosophy) which means the concentration on the critical operation through which the natural side of the previous philosophers appears. The nature of the title forces me to deal with Aristotle's ideas from every point of view. Thus the book proceeds according to structure and criticism and the construction of Aristotle's philosophy. Because the title is comprehensive and limited simultaneously, I have chosen the critical subjects in the lights of the natural philosophy. I have divided the book into four chapters with fourteen sections in addition to the implemented parts included in every section purporting to cover every part of criticism looking for comprehensiveness. I have found it obligatory to mention something about Aristotle's view in criticism, in addition to a precise delimitation of nature and its subjects. This is the subject of the first chapter. The second chapter deals with the principles of natural body, i.e., the principles dealt with pre-Aristotle philosophy and then these three principles (Hyle, form ,and Non-being). After delaminating these sides, it is possible to deal with the details (Movement, Place, Time, Vacuum and Infinite) which are natural concepts for the third chapter. As a complementation to the natural sides, the chapter four deals with two topics , Universal and corruption, and theory of elements. This book, in my own opinion, is comprehensive to the majority of natural philosophers and it focuses on the argument of Aristotle's criticism to the views of natural philosophers before Socrates together with the discussion of the Aristotelian alternative from these points of view. Aristotle sometimes tends to praise the previous philosophers. This does not mean the non-conformity between what he wants to say and what they described. When he, for example, says that the previous philosophers realized the material defect in Thales idea that water is the origin of all things but Thales’ water is not like Aristotle's Hyle, it is completely different thing. Finally I have viewed the index of Arab Library, and was unable to trace a book which is especially oriented in this subject i.e. writings on Aristotle's criticism to natural philosophy before Socrates. Therefore I have been stimulated to write about a very new subject. This subject fills a gap in Arab studies. (shrink)

The Protagoras is the touchstone of Socrates’ moral intellectualist stance. The position in a nutshell stipulates that the proper reevaluation of a desire is enough to neutralize it.[1] The implication of this position is that akrasia or weakness of will is not the result of desire (or fear for that matter) overpowering reason but is due to ignorance. -/- Socrates’ eliminativist position on weakness of will, however, flies in the face of the common-sense experience regarding akratic action and thus (...) Aristotle was at pains to render Socrates’ account of moral incontinence intelligible. The key improvement Aristotle makes to Socrates’s model is to underscore that the conditioning of the akratic’s body plays a critical role in determining the power of one’s appetites and, accordingly, the capacity of one to resist the temptations these appetites present for rational evaluation. As Aristotle puts it, “For the incontinent man is like the people who get drunk quickly and on little wine, i.e., on less than most people.” (1151a 3-4). Aristotle presents what I shall call a somatic paradigm (i.e. the drunkard analogy) in order to tackle the problem of akrasia and it is this somatic solution that marks a significant improvement over Socrates’s intellectualist or informational model or so the tradition tells us. -/- In this paper, I wish to push back on the above Aristotelian explanation. I argue that when one fully examines Socrates’ account of weakness of will that Aristotle’s solution is less effective than is traditionally thought. In fact, Socrates can bring Aristotle’s model into his own; just as Aristotle absorbs what is right about Socrates’s model, namely, that akratic action utilizes reason but to a limited degree, Socrates in Meno (77C-78A) develops his own somatic model of weakness of will that connects to the intellectualist paradigm of the Protagoras. To achieve this rapprochement between the two models, I zero in on the description provided by Socrates of those individuals who desire bad things knowing they are bad as “ill-starred” or “bad spirited” (κακοδαίμων ). The “bad-spirited” is the coward and, in contrast to Aristotle’s drunkard, becomes fearful quickly from little danger. This additional somatic component, when connected to Socrates’s position on akrasia in Protagoras adds a new twist to Socrates’s model in the following way: while no one wishes to be ill-starred such that more harm than good will befall one, one may become so as a result of the bad choices one knowingly makes. -/- -/- [1] “After him came Socrates, who spoke better and further about this subject, but even he was not successful. For he used to make the virtues into sciences, and this is impossible. For the sciences all involve reason, and reason is to be found in the intellectual part of the soul. So that all the virtues, according to him arise in the rational part of the soul. The result is that in making the virtues into sciences he is doing away with the nonrational part of the soul and is thereby doing away with passion and character…” (Aristotle, Magna Moralia 1.1. 1182 a15-26). (shrink)

In Plato’s Protagoras, Socrates argues that ‘the many’ are confused about the experience they describe as ‘being overcome by pleasure’. They think the cause is ‘something other than ignorance’. He argues it follows from what they believe that the cause is ‘ignorance’ and ‘false belief’. I show that his argument depends on a premise he does not introduce but they should deny: that when someone is overcome by pleasure, the desire stems from a belief. To explain why Plato does (...) not make Socrates introduce this premise, the account I construct is speculative. It starts from the assumption that Plato is thinking through an understanding of human beings and what they must do to live good lives that he takes the historical Socrates to set out. (shrink)

In this paper I investigate the understanding of eros expressed in the speeches of Phaedrus and Agathon in Plato’s Symposium, two speeches often neglected in the literature. I argue that they contain crucial insights about the nature of eros that reappear in Diotima’s speech. Finally, I consider the relation of Socrates and Alcibiades in light of these insights, arguing that the figure of Alcibiades should be seen as a negative illustration of the notion of erotic education described by Diotima.

The paper argues that thumos, which is never explicitly mentioned as a part of the soul in the Symposium, plays a major role in the dialogue. In light of the Republic’s characterization of thumos as the source of emotions such as of love of honor, love of victory, admiration for courage, shame, anger, and the propensity to become indignant at real or imaginary wrongs, the paper argues that both Phaedrus’ speech and the speech of Alcibiades are shaped by thumoeidetic motivations. (...) While Phaedrus’ stress on shame, honor, glory and courage aims at proving that Eros inspires virtue, the speech of Alcibiades shows that thumoeidetic motivations are not sufficient to shape a noble character. The dependence on recognition, the ambiguous role played by shame, and the tension between what is admirable and what just happens to be admired are implicit shortcomings in Phaedrus’ speech. When the same themes come back in Alcibiades’ speech they work as negative counterpoints to Phaedrus’ main arguments. Alcibiades’ obsession with power and victory dominates his ambivalent encomium of Socrates. The speech does not reveal who Socrates really is. Rather, it shows how the philosophical life can be misunderstood when reason’s best ally takes over in the souls of men. (shrink)

In this essay, I propose a reading of two contrasting passions, two kinds of erōs, in the "Symposium." On the one hand, there is the imperialistic desire for conquering and possessing that Alcibiades represents; and on the other hand, there is the productive love of immortal wisdom that Diotima represents. It’s not just what Alcibiades says in the Symposium, but also what he symbolizes. Alcibiades gives a speech in honor of Socrates and of his unrequited love for him, but even (...) here Alcibiades recounts his attempted seduction of Socrates as a failed conquest, as an unsuccessful attempt to violently take possession of something that Socrates has within him. Even more importantly, in 416 BCE (the dramatic date of Agathon’s symposium) Alcibiades was soon to encourage his fellow countrymen to set off on the ruinous Sicilian expedition. Alcibiades’s actions behind-the-scenes of the "Symposium" reveal the clearest manifestation of his imperialistic erōs (for political power in Athens). They also constitute some necessary background to the dialogue, which Plato’s Athenian readers would have had in mind. Where else can we catch a glimpse of this disastrous desire? It is best illustrated in Thucydides’s "History." I show that the beginnings of this political passion can already be seen in Pericles’s funeral oration (2.35-46, specifically 2.43.1) and that after Pericles’s death, Alcibiades stokes this erōs to such a fevered pitch that the Athenians agree to launch the tragic venture against Sicily. Opposed to this political passion, is Diotima’s. She tries to reorient this misguided erōs and presents an alternative form of desire for everlasting wisdom (philosophia). (shrink)

The digression of Plato’s Theaetetus (172c2–177c2) is as celebrated as it is controversial. A particularly knotty question has been what status we should ascribe to the ideal of philosophy it presents, an ideal centered on the conception that true virtue consists in assimilating oneself as much as possible to god. For the ideal may seem difficult to reconcile with a Socratic conception of philosophy, and several scholars have accordingly suggested that it should be read as ironic and directed only at (...) the dramatic character Theodorus. When interpreted with due attention to its dramatic context, however, the digression reveals that the ideal of godlikeness, while being directed at Theodorus, is essentially Socratic. The function of the passage is to introduce a contemplative aspect of the life of philosophy into the dialogue that contrasts radically with the political-practical orientation characteristic of Protagoras, an aspect Socrates is able to isolate as such precisely because he is conversing with the mathematician Theodorus. (shrink)

This study asks after the fate of sophistry in the Eleatic Stranger's investigation of the best of the six regimes governed by law, and outlines as far as possible the role of the rhetor under the supervision of the true statesman, as well as the function and effects of myth on the citizens of the best regime. In short, I argue that Socrates' competitors do, in a qualified manner, still have a place in such a polis precisely where the work (...) of gathering intelligence finds its civic limit. (shrink)

O elenchus é o método pelo qual Sócrates evidencia as incoerências entre a tese de seu interlocutor e seu sistema de crenças. Na visão de Gregory Vlastos, o método utilizado por Sócrates no Teeteto não é elêntico porque ele não visa a refutação direta da tese inicial de Teeteto. Argumentando contra a visão de Vlastos defendo que Sócrates constrói ao final da primeira parte do diálogo objeções fundamentadas em premissas aceitas por Teeteto que culminam no objetivo clássico do elenchus. Além (...) disso, argumento que mesmo que Sócrates não tivesse de fato refutado a tese original de Teeteto, ainda poderíamos defender que o método é elêntico, pois Teeteto consente com as premissas que igualam sua tese a tese de Protágoras. (shrink)

This textbook has been written to discuss the fundamental problems of Greek Philosophy. There has been many philosophical Problems which Greek philosophers has discussed and examined with rational approach. The philosophical problems which we have mentioned in this book are: Greek Rationalism, Greek Naturalism, Greek Idealism, Greeks on human mind, Number theory and Greek Metaphysics. We have defined some significant issues like Greek atomism, Nihilism, Solipsism, Dogmatism, Sophism and Pluralism. Philosophy is the subject which studies the fundamental Problems of the (...) world. The problems which Philosophy studies are reality, existence, mind, thought, language, essence, experience, perception, knowledge, God, and so on. This book ‘Problems of Greek Philosophy’ is divided into six chapters while first Chapter ‘Introduction to western Philosophy’ deals with overall discussion and argumentation of western philosophy and also some valuable introductory information on Greek Philosophy. Second Chapter ‘Greeks on Nature’ attempts to discuss the lonian classification and examination of natural elements like water, air, Aperion, fire and reality. This chapter deals with the ultimate constituents of the natural stuff. Third chapter ‘Greek Rationalism’ deals with the role of reason in explanation of the world. Greek rationalists have used reason as the fundamental constituent of the universe. Fourth chapter ‘Number theory and Greek Metaphysics’ deals with the contribution of great mathematicians like Pythagoras and Zeno to the world. This chapter has highlighted the philosophy of number and metaphysics. Fifth Chapter ‘Greek Idealism’ highlights the philosophy of Greek idealists; Protagoras, Socrates and Plato. Sixth Chapter ‘Mind in Greek Philosophy’ deals with the concept of mind and thought in Greek philosophy. This section examines the contribution of Anaxagoras and Empedocles. (shrink)

As Reginald Allen has observed, ‘the afterlife and influence of Plato’s Symposium is nearly as broad as the breadth of humane letters in the West.’ I argue here that the dialogue’s appeal can be traced back to six features: (1) the high degree of artistry with which Plato organized the speeches in honor of the god Eros; (2) the symposium format which allows for the presentation of competing intellectual traditions and contrasting personalities; (3) the provision of a philosophical framework through (...) which to understand the process through which the soul ascends from a physical to a spiritual realm: (4) the identification of a distinctively intellectual and spiritual kind of interpersonal relationship later known as ‘Platonic love’: (5) the presentation of a memorable portrait of Socrates in Alcibiades’ speech; and (6) an insightful account of the role played by passionate desire across a wide range of human activities. -/- . (shrink)

The feeling of shame discussed by Socrates differs from the one considered in the classic distinction between shame culture and guilt culture [Dodds 1951; Williams 1993]. Dodds refers to 9th-century Homeric society and focuses on αἴδομαι understood as fear towards public opinion. What Socrates talks about, instead, is aischýne (αἰσχύνη), such as the feeling of shame Alcibiades only has towards Socrates, for which not public opinion but one’s own conscience matters (Smp. 216 b-c). Socrates’ standpoint does not coincide at all (...) with the dominant dòxa, nor does it intend to undermine Alcibiades’ moral autonomy by inducing his sense of shame. On the contrary, it performs a cathartic function that is essential for the care of the soul, which is an indispensable premise for Alcibiades to learn to govern himself. (shrink)

It is widely held by commentators that in the Protagoras, Socrates attempts to explain the experience of mental conflict and weakness of the will without positing the existence of irrational desires, or desires that arise independently of, and so can conflict with, our reasoned conception of the good. In this essay, I challenge this commonly held line of thought. I argue that Socrates has a unique conception of an irrational desire, one which allows him to explain the experience of (...) mental conflict and weakness of the will, while still holding the Socratic thesis that we always do what we think is good. The resulting picture is both psychologically plausible and philosophically distinctive. (shrink)

In this contribution, I aim to show how locating the Platonic dialogues in the intellectual context of their own time can illuminate their philosophical content. I seek to show, with reference to a specific dialogue (the Theaetetus), how Plato responds to other thinkers of his time, and also to bring out how, by reconstructing Plato’s response, we can gain deeper insight into the way that Plato shapes the structure and form of his argument in the dialogue. In particular, I argue (...) that the subtler thinkers (hoi kompsoteroi) discussed by Plato’s Socrates at Tht. 156a3 are Aristippus and the early Cyrenaics. (Recent scholars, such as Giannantoni and Tsouna, have rejected this identification, which was earlier defended by Schleiermacher, Grote, Zeller and Mondolfo.) Further, I claim that, once we recognise that the subtler thinkers are most likely to be the early Cyrenaics, we can make better sense of the scope and content of the arguments Plato puts forward at Tht. 156a - 160e (especially 156a - 157c). Also, I suggest that this identification helps us to understand a crucial part of Tht. 184b - 186e. Here Plato, in exploring the account of perception offered at 156a - 157c, uses the metaphor of the Wooden Horse to illustrate the conception of perception that he attributes to thinkers such as Protagoras and, in my view, the early Cyrenaics, who maintain that knowledge is a form of perception. (shrink)

Based on the dispute between Protagoras and Socrates on the origin of ethics, one can ask the question of whether the principle of ethics is reason orfeeling/emotion, or whether ethics is grounded on reason or feeling/emotion. The development of Kant’s thoughts on ethics shows the tension between reason and feeling/emotion. In Kant’s final critical ethics, he held to a principle of “rational a priori.” On the one hand, this is presented as the rational a priori principle being the binding (...) principle of judgment. On the other hand, it is presented as the doctrine of “rational fact” as the ultimate argument of his ethics. Husserl believed that Kant’s doctrine of a rational a priori totally disregarded the a priori essential laws of feeling. Like Husserl, Scheler criticized Kant’s doctrine of a rational a priori, and therefore developed his own theory of an “emotional a priori”. Both of them focused their critiques on the grounding level of ethics. Scheler, however, did not follow Husserl all the way, but criticized him and reflected on his thoughts. At last, he revealed the primary status of a phenomenological material ethics of value. (shrink)

That i) there is a somehow determined chronology of Plato’s dialogues among all the chronologies of the last century and ii) this theory is subject to many objections, are points this article intends to discuss. Almost all the main suggested chronologies of the last century agree that Parmenides and Theaetetus should be located after dialogues like Meno, Phaedo and Republic and before Sophist, Politicus, Timaeus, Laws and Philebus. The eight objections we brought against this arrangement claim that to place the (...) dialogues like Meno, Phaedo and Republic both immediately after the early ones and before Parmenides and Theaetetus is epistemologically and ontologically problematic. -/- Key Words: Plato; chronology; knowledge; being; Parmenides -/- Introduction While the ancient philosophers, doxographers and commentators from Aristotle onward considered, more or less, the question of the date and arrangement of the dialogues (cf. Irwin 2008, 77 n. 69), they would not observe a firm necessity to consider the progress of Plato’s theories in dialogues, maybe because they did not think of any essential shift in there. We might be able to say, nevertheless, that the most prominent feature of the ancient attitude to Plato was its peculiar attention to the Republic and the Timaeus as the most mature works in his philosophy and also the consideration of Laws as a later work. This tendency can be discovered from the general viewpoint of the first chronologies of the early 19th century after starting to deal with the issue. That Schleiermacher observed Republic as the culmination of Plato’s philosophy and as one of the latest dialogues besides Laws and Timaeus could reflex the implicit chronology of the tradition in the first mirrors it found. Another tendency in Schleiermacher is taking the triology of Theaetetus, Sophist and Politicus as relatively early. From the last quarter of 19th century onward, stylometry helped scholars to establish a new framework to constructa new arrangement between the dialogues. Based on stylistic as well as literary findings, Campbell (1867, xxxff.) argued for the closeness of the style of Sophist and Politicus with Timaeus, Critias, Philebus and Lawsthat, especially because of the certain evidence about this last dialogue’s lateness, led to the consideration of all as late dialogues. Almost every other stylistic effort after Campbell approved the similarities between Sophist and Politicus with Timaeus, Critias, Philebus and Laws. The result of all such investigations led to a new chronology that, despite some differences, has a fixed structure in all its appearances. 1. The Standard Chronology of the Dialogues The chronologies that are now commonly accepted are mostly based on the arrangement of dialogues to three groups corresponding to three periods of Plato’s life, which became predominant after applying stylistic features in assessing the similarities between dialogues. The fact that all the stylometric considerations reached to the similar results about the date of dialogues while they were assessing different stylistic aspects helped the new chronology become prevailing not only among stylistic chronologies but also between those like Fine, Kahn and Vlastos who were inclined more to the content-based arrangements. Even this latter group could not neglect the apparently certain results of using the method of stylometry. This was the main reason, I think, that made what they called content-based chronology be under the domination of stylometry much more than they could expect. The division of the dialogues into three separate groups became something that most of the scholars took for granted so far as Kahn thinks this division 'can be regarded as a fixed point of departure in any speculation about the chronology of the dialogues' (1996, 44). Thereafter, all the chronologists are accustomed to divide the dialogues to three groups of early, middle and late corresponding to the three stages of Plato’s life. Nevertheless, some of them tried to make subdivisions among each group and introduce some of the dialogues as transitional between different periods and thus reached to a fourfold classification of the dialogues. Although theycould never achieve to a consensus about the place of some dialogues, about which we will discuss soon, the whole spirit of theirchronological arrangements is the same and thus compelling enough for us to unify all of them with the label of 'Standard Chronology of Dialogues' (SCD). We brought together some of the most famous chronologies in the table below to make a comparison easier and to show how all are approximately of the same opinion about the place of some dialogues. The following points must be noted about this table: 1. I divided the dialogues to eight groups of early, late early, transitional, early middle, late middle, post-middle, early late, and late. Although none of the chronologists applies this classification, it can be helpful to compare them. In this table, for example, if one of the chronologist’s beholds one of the dialogues as later than all the dialogues of middle group, it is considered here as late middle. Otherwise, if it is emphasized that it is after all of them, it is considered as post-middle. The same is true about the dialogues of the late group in which I regarded the first dialogues of that period as early late only in those who explicitly considered some dialogues as earlier than other ones in the late group. Though, therefore, some of the dialogues might have not been considered as forming a distinct class, they are distinguished here. A. SCD’s Early and Transitional Dialogues When we move from stylometric to content-based chronologies, the homogeneity between the dialogues of each group is more understandable. Guthrie (1975, v. 4, 50) distinguishes three groups, the first of them includes Apology, Crito, Laches, Lysis, Charmides, Euthyphro, Hippias Minor, Hippias Major, Protagoras, Gorgiasand Ion. In addition to Meno, Phaedo and Euthydems, his first group does not include Cratylus and Menexenus. Unlike Guthrie, almost all the other content-based chronologiesof our study desire to distinguish two categories inside the first group of which the latter must be considered as the transitional group leading to the dialogues of the middle period. Kahn distinguishes four groups of dialogues and arranges two of them before middle period dialogues. The first group including Apology, Crito, Ion, Hippias Minor, Gorgiasand Menexenus he calls 'early' or 'presystematic' dialogues (1998, 124). The second group he calls the 'threshold', 'pre-middle' or 'Socratic' dialogues including seven: Laches, Charmides, Lysis, Euthyphro, Protagoras, Euthydemus and Meno. Based on Vlastos’ arrangement we must distinguish Euthydemus, Hippias Major, Lysis, Menexenus and Meno as 'transitional' dialogues from the 'elenctic' dialogues that are the other dialogues of Kahn’smentioned first two groups plus the first book of theRepublic. Fine also distinguishes 'transitional' dialogues from early or 'Socratic' dialogues,but her transitional dialogues are Gorgias, Meno, Hippias Major, Euthydemus and Cratylus of which she thinks the last two dialogues are 'controversial' (2003, 1). Her Socratic dialogues are all the remaining dialogues of Kahn’s first two groups. In spite of all the differences between the mentioned chronologies, it can be seen that all of them are inclined to arrange the early dialogues in a way that: i) Besides the dialogues that are considered as late, it never includes Republic II-X, Theaetetus, Phaedrus and Parmenides. ii) It intends to consider the dialogues like Euthydemus and Hippias Majorthat look more critical as later among the earlier dialogues or as transitional group. iii) Those who do not consider Meno as a middle period dialogue place it in their second or transitional group. iv) None of the content-based chronologies considers Phaedo and Symposium as early. Stylometric chronologies also intend to put them either as last dialogues among their early ones or as middle. B. SCD’s Middle Period Dialogues Campbell listed Republic, Phaedrus, Parmenides and Theaetetus as his second group of dialogues, an idea thatwas accepted by Brandwood. Ledger’smiddle period dialogueshad Euthydemus, Symposium and Cratylus in addition to the dialogues that Campbell and Brandwood had mentioned as middle. Among content-based chronologies, Guthrie’s list of middle period dialogues did not include Parmenides but some dialogues which had been considered as early in stylometric ones: Meno, Phaedo, Republic, Symposium, Phaedrus, Euthydemus, Menexenus and Cratylus. In sofar as I know, Euthydemus and Menexenus have not been considered as middle by other content-based chronologists and Guthrie is an exception among them. That Phaedo, Phaedrus, Symposium and Republic were middle period dialogues almost all the philosophical chronologists like Kahn, Fine, Vlastos (except Rep.I), Irwin andKraut came along. The dialogues they do not string along about are Meno, Cratylus, Parmenides and Theaetetus. Those like Guthrie, Kraut and Irwin who did not consider Meno as early presumably posit it among middles. The same can be said about Cratylus in the suggested chronologies of Guthrie, Kahn, Vlastos and Kraut. Nonetheless, it is different in case of Parmenides and Theaetetus. Whereas all the mentioned stylometric chronologists like Campbell, Brandwood and Ledger set them among middle period dialogues,the philosophical chronologists, it might seem at first, did not arrive at a consensus about them. While Guthrie and Fine put them as the first dialogues of the late group, Vlastos and Kraut set them as the latest of the middle group, as well as Kahn who puts them as post-middle and amongst the late period dialogues. Regardless the way they classify their groups, their disagreement does not affect the arrangement of the dialogues: they all posit Parmenides and Theaetetus after the series of Meno, Phaedo, Phaedrus, Symposium and Republic and before Sophist, Politicus, Timaeus, Philebus and Laws. To sum up SCD’s arrangement of the middle period dialogues we can add: v) Republic and Phaedrus have been considered by all the mentioned chronologists as dialogues of the middle period. vi) All the philosophical chronologies have reached a consensus about setting Phaedo and Symposium alongside with Republic and Phaedrus as middle. vii) While Stylometric alongside some philosophic chronologists arrange Parmenides and Theaetetus among their middle period dialogues and mostly as the latest among them, other philosophical chronologists put them as the early among the late dialogues. We can conclude then that SCD intends to locate these two dialogues at the boundary between the middle and late period dialogues. -/- . (shrink)

Regarding the relation of Plato’s early and middle period dialogues, scholars have been divided to two opposing groups: unitarists and developmentalists. While developmentalists try to prove that there are some noticeable and even fundamental differences between Plato’s early and middle period dialogues, the unitarists assert that there is no essential difference in there. The main goal of this article is to suggest that some of Plato’s ontological as well as epistemological principles change, both radically and fundamentally, between the early and (...) middle period dialogues. Though this is a kind of strengthening the developmentalistic approach corresponding the relation of the early and middle period dialogues, based on the fact that what is to be proved here is a essential development in Plato’ ontology and his epistemology, by expanding the grounds of development to the ontological and epistemological principles, it hints to a more profound development. The fact that the bipolar and split knowledge and being of the early period dialogues give way to the tripartite and bound knowledge and benig of the middle period dialogues indicates the development of the notions of being and knowledge in Plato’s philosophy before the dialogues of the middle period. -/- Keywords Plato; early dialogues; middle dialogues; being; knowledge; development -/- Introduction The differences between two groups of the early and middle period dialogues have always been a matter of dispute. Whereas the developmentalists like Vlastos, Silverman (2002), Teloh (1981), Dancy (2004) and Rickless (2007) think that from the early to the middle dialogues Plato’s philosophy changes, at least in some essential points, the unitarists like Kahn, Cherniss and Shorey believe that there happens no development and the differences must be taken as natural, ignorable and even pedagogic. In his well-known article, Socrates contra Socrates in PLATO, Vlastos lists ten theses of difference between two groups of dialogues. The first group which includes Plato’s early dialogues he divides to 'elenctic' (Apology, Charmides, Crito, Euthyphro, Gorgias, Hippias Minor, Ion, Laches, Protagoras and Republic I) and 'transitional' (Euthydemus, Hippias Major, Lysis, Menexenus and Meno) dialogues. These transitional come after all the elenctic dialogues and before all the dialogues of the second group which compose Plato’s middle period dialogues, including (with Vlastos' chronological order) Cratylus, Phaedo, Symposium, Republic II-X, Phaedrus, Parmenides and Theaetetus (1991, 46-49). Vlastos asserts strictly that his list of differences are 'so diverse in content and method that they contrast as sharply with one another as with any third philosophy you care to mention, beginning with Aristotole’s' (ibid, 46). Vlastos’ list of differences between two Socrateses is considered a view breaking sharply between the early and the middle dialogues. Besides all ten differences between the two Socrateses in Vlastos’ list that can be supportive for our doctrine here, we intend to focus on some ontological as well as epistemological distinctions that have not completely been discussed hitherto. Contrary to the developmentalist theory of Vlastos, unitarian theory of Charles Kahn wishes to eliminate any substantial difference between the early and the middle dialogues. He distinguishes seven 'pre-middle' or 'threshold' dialogues including Laches, Charmides, Euthyphro, Protagoras, Meno, Lysis and Euthydemus from the other Socratic dialogues which he calls 'earliest group' (1996, 41). The threshold dialogues, Kahn thinks, 'embarke upon a sustained project' that is to reach to its climax in the middle period dialogues, namely Phaedo, Symposium and Republic. Believing in that there is no 'fundamental shift'between the early and middle dialogues (ibid, 40), Kahn thinks the Socratic dialogues are just the 'first stage' with a 'deliberate silence' towards the theories of later periods (ibid, 339). One of the reasons of the surprising fact that Plato gives no hint of the metaphysics and epistemology of the Forms in the early dialogues, he thinks, is the pedagogical advantages of aporia. He thinks that Plato 'obscurely', and mostly because of education, hinted to some doctrines and conceptions in his early dialogues and with the aim of clarifying them only in the later ones (ibid, 66). The seven threshold dialogues, Kahn asserts, 'had been designed from the first' to prepare the pupils and readers for the views expounded in the middle period dialogues (ibid, 59-60). To show that the differences of the two Socrateses of the early and middle period dialogue are in their onto-epistemological grounds and thence cannot be explained by a unitaristic view, we try to draw the ontological and epistemological principles of the early dialogues in the first part below in order to show, in the second part, that those principles have been developed in the middle period dialogues. -/- A. The Onto-Epistemologic Principles of the Early Dialogues Socratic dialogues are paradoxical about knowledge because while being knowledge-oriented always searching for knowledge, they deny it and even never discuss it directly. Three elements of Socrates’ way of searching Knowledge throughout the early dialogues, i.e. Socratic 'what is X?' question, his disavowal of knowledge and his elenctic method combined together produce something like a circle which works, more or less, in the same way in these dialogues. Though this circle is an embaressing inquiry always resulting in ignorance instead of knowledge, its motivation is surprisingly Socrates’ passionate enthusiasm for knowledge, an intensive love of wisdom. The starting point of this circle is Socrates’ confession of having no knowledge which might be explicitly asserted or presupposed, maybe because it was one of the famous characteristics of Socrates; a confession always paradoxically accompanied with his intense longing for knowledge (e.g., Gorgias 505e4-5). Every time Socrates encounters with someone who thinks he knows something (οἴεταί τι εἰδέναι) (Apology 21d5) and tries to examine him. This examination seems to be the simplest one asking just what it is that he knows. Socrates’ elenchus, therefore, is always connected with 'what is X?' (τίς ποτέ ἐστιν) question, a question that most of the early dialogues of Plato are concerned with; 'what is courage?' in the Laches, 'what is piety?' in Euthydemus, 'what is temperance?' in Charmides and 'what is beauty?' in Hippias Major. This question we call here 'Socratic question' and probably is the very question the historical Socrates used to employ, is tightly interrelated with both his disavowal and his elenchus. He disclaims knowledge because he cannot find the answer to the question himself and he rejects others’ since they cannot offer the correct answer too. Every interlocutor can claim he knows X, if and only if he can answer the Socratic question. Otherwise, he is more of an ignorant than of a knower of τί ποτέ ἐστι X. Knowing the answer to this question is, thus, knowledge’s criterion for Socrates. Having found out that he cannot answer what it is which he would claim to know, the interlocutor comes to the point Socrates was there at the beginning. The least advantage of this circle is that he becomes as wise as Socrates does about the subject, becoming aware that he does not know it. At the end of the circle they are both still at the beginning, not knowing what X is. So let us first take a glance at these three elements. Socratic disavowal of knowledge is strictly asserted in some passages. At Apology 21b4-5, Socrates says: -/- I do not know of myself being wise at all (οὔτε μέγα οὔτε σμικρὸν σύνοιδα ἐμαυτῷ σοφὸς ὤν) -/- Moreover, at 21d4-6: -/- None of us knows anything worthwhile (καλὸν κἀγαθὸν εἰδέναι) …. I do not know (οἶδα) neither do I think I know. -/- In Charmides Socrates speaks about a fear about his probable mistake of thinking that he knows (εἰδέναι) something when he does not (166d1-2). The somehow generalization of this disavowal can be seen in Gorgias. After calling his disavowal 'an account that is always the same' (509a4-5), Socrates continues (a5-7): -/- I say that I do not know (οἶδα) how these things are, but no one I have ever met, like now, who can say anything else without being absurd. -/- At the end of Hippias Major (304d7-8), Socrates affirms his disavowal of knowledge of 'what is X?' this time about the fine: -/- I do not know (οἶδα) what that is itself (αὐτὸ τοῦτο ὅτι ποτέ ἐστιν). Some other passages, however, made a number of scholars dubious about Socrates’ disavowal. Vlastos mentions Apology 29b6-7 as an evidence : 'that to do wrong and to disobey one’s master, both god and men, I know (οἶδα) to be evil and shameful'. He thinks that if we give this single text 'its full weight' it can suffice to show that Socrates does claim knowledge of a moral truth (1985, 7). Vlastos’ claim is not admittable since it would be too strange, I think, for a man like Socrates to violate his disavowal claim just after emphasizing it. We can see his claim just before the already mentioned passage: -/- And surely it is the most blameworthy ignorance to believe that one knows what one does not know. It is perhaps on this point and in this respect, gentlemen, that I differ from the majority of men and if I were to claim that I am wiser than anyone in anything it world be in this, that, as I have no adequate knowledge (οὐκ εἰδὼς ἱκανῶς) of things in the underworld, so I do not think I have (οὐκ εἰδέναι) (Apology 29b1-6) Vlastos tries to solve what he calls the 'paradox' of Socrates’ disavowal of knowledge distinguishing the 'certain' knowledge from 'elenctic' knowledge (1985, 11) and thinking that when Socrates avows knowledge, we must perceive it as an elenctic knowledge, a knowledge its content 'must be propositions he thinks elenctically justifiable' (ibid, 18). Irwin’s solution is the distinction of knowledge and belief. He approves that Socrates does not 'explicitly' make such a distinction, but still thinks that Socrates’ 'test for knowledge would make it reasonable for him to recognize true belief without knowledge, and his own claims are easily understood if they are claims to true belief alone' (1977, 40). While I agree with Vlastos up to a point, I strongly disagree with Irwin about the early dialogues. As I will try to show below, we are not permitted to consider any kind of distinction within knowledge in Socratic dialogues because only one category of knowledge is alluded to there and the distinction of knowledge and belief thoroughly belongs to the second Sorcates. Although no kind of distinction can be admittable here, I think Vlastos’ distinction can be accepted only if we regard it as a distinction between knowledge, which is unique and without any, even incomparable, rival, and a semi-idiomatic and ordinary one that is a necessary requirement for any argument, and thus, unavoidable even for someone who does not claim any kind of knowledge. An apparent evidence of this is Gorgias 505e6-506a4: -/- I go through the discussion as I think it is (ὡς ἄν μοι δοκῇ ἔχειν), if any of you do not agree with admissions I am making to myself, you must object and refute me. For I do not say what I say as I know (οὐδὲ γάρ τοι ἔγωγε εἰδὼς λέγω ἃ λέγω) but as searching jointly with you (ζητῶ κοινῇ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν). -/- The minimal degree of knowledge everyone must have to take part in an argument, conduct it and use the phrase "I know" when it is necessary is what Socrates cannot deny. We can call it elenctic knowledge only if we agree that it is not the kind of knowledge that Socrates has always been searching, the one that can be accepted as the answer of Socratic 'what is X?' question. His disavowal of knowledge is applied only to the knowledge which can truly be the answer of Socratic question and pass the elenctic exam; a knowledge that, I believe, is never claimed by first Socrates. Socrates conducts his method of examining his interlocutors’ knowledge, our second element here, by almost the same method repeated in Socratic dialogues. That whether we are allowed to regard all the examinations of Socrates in the early dialogues as based on the same or not has been a matter of dispute. Vlastos himself (1994, 31) distinguished Euthydemas, Lysis, Menexenns and Hippias Major from the other Socratic dialogues because he thinks Socrates has lost his faith to elenchus in there. Irwin (1977, 38) distinguishes Apology and Crito where Socrates’ own convictions is present. Contrary to some scholars like Benson (2002, 107) who take elenchus in all the Socratic dialogues as a unique method, Michelle Carpenter and Ronald M. Polansky (2002, 89-100) argue pro the variety of methods of elenchus. Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith (2002, 145-160) even reject such a thing as Socratic elenchus which can gather all of the Socrates’ various arguments under such a heading. There can be no solution for the problem of elenchus, they think, is due to 'the simple reason that there is no such thing as 'the Socratic elenchos"'(p.147). Though we consider elenchus a somehow determined process and a part of Socratic circle in the early dialogues, all we assume is that whatever differences it might have in different dialogues, it has the same onto-epistemological principles and, thus, we are not going to take it necessarily as a unique method. This method sets out to prove that the interlocutors are as ignorant as Socrates himself is. That whether elenchus is constructive, capable of establishing doctrines as Vlastos (1994) or Brickhouse and Smith (1994, 20-21) believe or not is another issue to which this paper is not to claim anything. What is crucial for our discussion here is that elenchus does not reach to the very knowledge Socrates is looking for. This is strictly against Irwin who thinks that not only elenchus leads to positive results, 'it should even yield knowledge to match Socrates’ conditions'(1977, 68, cf. 48). He does not explain where and how they really yield to that kind of knowledge. He explains his elenctic method in his apology in the court (Apology 21-22), that how he used to examine wise men, politicians, poets and all those who had the highest reputation for their knowledge and every time found that they have no knowledge. If we accept, as I strongly do, that Socrates’ disavowal of his knowledge is not irony, it might seem more reasonable to agree that the process that has that disavowal as its first step cannot be irony as well. The key of the circle which can explain why Socrates disclaims knowledge and how he can reject others’ claim of having any kind of knowledge lies in the third element, Socratic question. In Hippias Major (287c1-2), Socrates asks: 'Is it not by Justice that just people are Just? (ἆρ᾽ οὐ δικαιοσύνῃ δίκαιοί εἰσιν οἱ δίκαιοι). He insists at 294b1 that they were searching for that by which (ᾧ) all beautiful things are beautiful (cf. b4-5, 8). At Euthyphro 6d10-11 it is said that the Socratic question is waiting for 'the form itself (αὐτὸ τὸ εἶδος) by which (ᾧ) all the pious actions are pious; and at 6d11-e1: -/- Through one form (που μιᾷ ἰδέᾳ) impious actions are impious and pious actions pious. -/- Since the X itself is that by which X is X, knowing 'X itself' is the only way of knowing X. It is probably because of this that Socrates makes the distinction between the ousia as a right answer to the question and effect as a wrong one: -/- I am afraid, Euthyphro, that when you were asked what piety is (τὸ ὅσιον ὅτι ποτ᾽ ἐστίν) you did not wish to make clear its nature itself (οὐσίαν … αὐτοῦ) to me, but you said some effect (πάθος) about it. (Euthp. 11a6-9) -/- 1. Knowledge of what X is Now it is time to look for the onto-epistemological principles of Socratic circle and its three elements. It cannot reasonably be expected from the first Socrates to present us explicitly and clearly formulated principles of his onto-epistemology when such explications cannot be found even in the second Socrates who has some obviously positive theoris. Since there must be some principles underlying this first systematic inqury of knowledge, we must seek to them and be satisfied with elicitation of the first Socratas’ principle. What will be drawn out as his principles cannot and must not, thus, be taken as very fix and dogmatic principles. Some very slightest principles and grounds suffice for our purposes here. The first principle that is the prima facie significance of the Socratic question and his implementation of all those elenctic arguments I call the principle of 'Knowledge of What X is' (KWX): -/- KWX To know X, it is required to know what X is. -/- Aristotle (Metaphysics 1078b23-25, 27-29, 987b4-8) takes Plato’s τί ἐστι question as seeking the definition of a thing that is the same as historical Socrates’ search but applying to a different field. That Plato’s 'what is X?' question was a search for definition became the prevailed understanding of this question up to now. I am going neither to discuss the answer of Socratic question nor to challenge taking it as definition. What I am to insist is that knowledge is attached firmly to the answer of the question: Knowledge of X is not anything but the knowledge of what X is. It entails, certainly, the priority of this knowledge to any other kind of knowledge about X but it also has something more fundamental about the relation of knowledge and Socratic question. Socrates’ exclusive focus on the answer of his question can authorize the consideration of such an essential role for KWX in his epistemolgoy. The total rejection of his interlocutors’ knowledge when they are unable to answer the question can be regarded as a strong evidence for it. Socrates’ elenctic method and his rejection of others’ knowledge in the early dialogues, which all end aporetically with no one accepted as knower and nothing as knowledge, prevent us from finding any positive evidence for this. We have to be content, therefore, of negative evidences which, I think, can be found wherever Socrates rejects his interlocutors’ knowledge when they are not able to give an acceptable answer to his 'what is X?' question. 2. Bipolar Epistemology Socrates’ rejection of his interlocutors’ knowledge has another epistemological principle as its basis. Let me call this principle Bipolar Epistemology' (BE): BE There is no third way besides knowledge and Ignorance. -/- BE says that about every object of knowledge there are only two subjective statuses: knowledge and Ignorance. Socrates’ disavowal, however, says nothing but that he is ignorant of knowledge of X because he does not know what X is. This means that BE is presupposed here. Socrates’ elenchus and his rejection of interlocutors’ having any kind of knowledge are the necessary results of the fact that he does not let any third way besides knowledge and ignorance. The first Socrates never let anyone partly know X or have a true opinion about it, as he would not let anyone know anything about X when he did not know what X is. -/- 3. Bipolar Ontology The principle of BE in first Socrates’ epistemology is parallel to another principle in his ontology. Plato’s bipolar distinction between being and not being is as strict and perfect as his distinction between knowledge and ignorance. This principle I shall call the principle of 'Bipolar Ontology' (BO): BO Being is and not being is not. BO is apparently the same with the well-known Parmenidean Principle of being and not being (cf. Diels-Kranz (DK) Fr. 2.2-5). Euthydemus’ statement against the possibility of false knowledge can be good evidence for this principle: -/- The things which are not surely do not exist (τὰ δὲ μὴ ὄντα … ἄλλο τι ἢ οὐκ ἔστιν). (Euthydemus 284b3-4) -/- He continues (b4-5): -/- There is nowhere for not being to be there (οὖν οὐδαμοῦ τά γε μὴ ὄντα ὄντα ἐστίν). -/- That BE does not let true opinion as a third option besides knowledge and ignorance seems to be related to BO’s rejecting a third option besides being and not being, which is itself the basis of the impossibility of false belief. Socrates’ elaborate discussion of the problem of false belief in Theatetus that leads to a more decisive discussion and finally to some solutions in Sophist can make our consideration of BO for the first group of dialogues authentive. -/- 4. &5. Split Knowledge and Split Being The fourth principle I shall call the principle of 'Split Knowledge' (SK): -/- SK Knowledge of X is separated from any other knowledge (of anything else) as if the whole knowledge is split to various parts. -/- This Principle is hinted and criticized as Socrates’ way of treating with knowledge in Hippias Major: -/- But Socrates, you do not contemplate the entireties of things, nor do people you have used to talk with (τὰ μὲν ὅλα τῶν πραγμάτων οὐ σκοπεῖς, οὐδ᾽ ἐκεῖνοι οἷς σὺ εἴωθας διαλέγεσθαι). (301b2-4) -/- Contrary to Rankin who regards the passage as 'antilogical, almost eristic in tone rather than presenting a serious philosophy of being' (1983, 54), I think it can be taken as serious. Hippias criticizes Sorcates that he does not contemplate (σκοπεῖς) the entireties of things (ὅλα τῶν πραγμάτων), a critique which Socrates is not its only subject but all those whom Socrates accustomed to talk with (ἐκεῖνοι οἷς σὺ εἴωθας διαλέγεσθαι). This last phrase, I think, extends this critic beyond this dialogue to other Socratic dialogues. Hippias’ use of the perfect tense of the verb ἔθω (to be accustomed) is a good evidence of this extension. We can get, thus, these ἐκεῖνοι as Socrates’ interlocutors in his other dialogues that hints that this criticism has the epistemological groundings of the previous dialogues as its subject. What ἐκεῖνοι οἷς σὺ εἴωθας διαλέγεσθαι points to is that Hippias does not have in mind Socrates’ way of treating things only in this dialogue, but he is also criticizing Socrates’ way throughout his dialogues. At 301b4-5, Socrates and his interlocutors’ way of beholding things is described as such: -/- You people knock (κρούετε) at the fine and each of the beings (ἕκαστον τῶν ὄντων) by taking each being cut up in pieces (κατατέμνοντες) in words (ἐν τοῖς λόγοις). This leads us to our next principle that is parallel to, and the ontological side of, SK, the principle of 'Split Being'(SB): -/- SB Everything (being) is separated from any other thing as if the whole being is split to many beings. -/- Socrates and his interlocutors and thus, as we saw, the Socratic dialogues are accused to regard everything as it is separated from all other things. This separation is en tois logois that, I think, can reasonably be taken as saying that Socratic dialogues (it refers of course to the dialogues before Hippias Major) cut up all things which have the same name/definition from all other things and try to understand them separately, without considering other things that are not in their logos. They, for example in Hippias Major, are cutting up to kalon and try to understand what it and all others inside this logos are by separating it from all other things. This is directed straightly against Socratic question and the way Socratic dialogues follow to find its answer, every time separating one logos. As Meyer (1995, 85) points out, every question 'presupposes that the X in question in a logos is something' and 'every answer to every question aims at unity' (84). The critique of Hippias Major is, therefore, at the same time a critique of SK and SB. It is also a critique of KWX because it is only based on KWX that Socratic dialogues could search for the answer of 'what is X' question supposing that knowing what X is is enough for the knowledge of X. SK and KWX are absolutely interdependent. What Socrates and all his previous interlocutors have neglected in Socratic dialogues, Hippias says, was 'continuous bodies of being' (διανεκῆ σώματα τῆς οὐσίας) (301b6). Either this theory actually belongs to the historical Hippias as it is being said or not, it is strictly criticizing SB. We have the same phrase with changing sūma to logos some lines later at 301e3-4: διανεκεῖ λόγῳ τῆς οὐσίας. Although this theory that can be observed as both an ontological and an epistemological theory is rejected by Socrates (301cff.), it is still against first Socrates’ onto-epistemological principles and might let us look at what is rejected as Socratic prineple. -/- 6. Knowledge is of Being The sixth principle that I think is presupposed by the first Socrates, is the 'Knowledge of Being' Principle (KB): -/- KB Knowledge is of Being. -/- This principle is obviously the source of the problem of false knowledge, a very important problem throughout Plato’s philosophy. We face this problem maybe for the first time in Euthydemus. In less than 20 Stephanus’ pages, 276-295, we are encountered with different interwoven problems about knowledge , all grounded in the problem of false opinion. Having challenged the obvious possibility of telling lies at 283e, at 284 Euthydemus discusses it saying that the man who speaks is speaking about 'one of those things that are (ἓν μὴν κἀκεῖνό γ᾽ ἐστὶν τῶν ὄντων)' (284a3) and thus speaks what is (λέγων τὸ ὄν) (a5). He must necessarily be saying truth when he is speaking what is because he who speaks what is (τὸ ὄν) and the things that are (τὰ ὄντα) speaks truth (τἀληθῆ λέγει) (a5-6). This is based on Parmenidean principle of the impossibility of being of not being which Euthydemus restates (284b3-4) and we mentioned discussing BO principle above. The things that are not are nowhere (οὐδαμοῦ) and there is no possibility for anyone to do (πράξειεν) anything with them because they must be made as being before anything else can be done, which is impossible (b5-7). The words, then, are of things that exist (εἰσὶν ἑκάστῳ τῶν ὄντων λόγοι) (285e9) and as they are (ὡς ἔστιν) (e10). The result is that no one can speak of things as they are not. It is this impossibility of false speach that is extended to thinking (δοξάζειν) at 286d1 and leads to the impossibility of false opinion (ψευδής … δόξα) (286d4). The general conclusion is asserted at 287a extending this impossibility to actions and making any kind of mistake. Not only knowledge is of being but speech, thought and action are of being simply because of the fact that nothing can be of not being. -/- B. First Socrates’ Principles in the Middle Period Dialogues Out of what were presupposed or criticized mostly in five dialogues, Euthyphro, Euthydemus, Hippias Major, Laches and Charmides, we tried to draw the first Socrates’ principles. Our inquiry here is directed to find out the fate of these principles in the three dialogues of the middle period, Meno, Phaedo and Republic. To do this, first we ought to check the situation of Socratic circle in these dialogues. The Socratic circle that was predominant in the early dialogues, does not look like a circle here anymore though they certainly have some features in common. Meno, Phaedo and Republic II-X are not committed to the principles of the circle and the whole circle in disrupted in them. The difference of the two Socrateses towards acquiring knowledge is obvious. The Socrates of Meno, Phaedo and Republic is evidently more self-confident that he can get to some truths during his arguments as he does. They are in their first appearance, as almost all other dialogues, committed to Socrates’ disavowal. All of them try to keep the shape of the Socratikoi Logoi genre, which is committed to the historical Socrates’ way of discussion; a dramatic personage who is to challenge his interlocutors, ask them and refuse the answers. Nevertheless, the fact is that what we have in common between two groups of dialogues is mostly a dramatic structure. Whereas the first group’s arguments are based on Socrates’ disavowal and lead to no positive results, the second group is decisively going to achieve some positive results. The aim of the first Socrates was to show others that they are ignorant of what they thought they knew. The new Socrates of Meno, on the opposite, makes so much efforts to show that the slave boy has within himself true opinions (ἀληθεῖς δόξαι) about the things that he does not know (οἶδε) (85c6-7). Despite his lack of knowledge, he has true opinions nevertheless. The way from these true opinions to knowledge, as Socrates states, is not so long. These true opinions are now like a dream but 'can become knowledge of the same things not less accurate than anyone’s' (οὐδενὸς ἧττον ἀκριβῶς ἐπιστήσεται περὶ τούτων) (c11-d1), if they be repeated by asking the same questions. The most outstanding text regarding Socrates’ disavowal is Meno 98b where he explicitly claims knowledge: -/- And indeed I also speak as (ὡς) one who does not know (εἰδὼς) but is guessing (εἰκάζων). However, [about the fact] that true opinion and knowledge are different, I do not altogether expect (δοκῶ) myself to be guessing (εἰκάζειν), but if I say about anything that I know (εἰδέναι) -which about few things I say- this is one of the things that I know (οἶδα). (98b1-5) This passage is very significant about Plato’s disavowal of knowledge. There can hardly be found, I think, anywhere else in Plato’s corpus where Socrates speaks about his knowledge of something as such. He says first that he speaks as someone who does not know. This ὡς οὐκ εἰδὼς λέγω comparing with what he used to say in the first group, οὐκ οἶδα, has this added ὡς. Socrates does not claim strongly anymore that he does not know anything but speaks only as someone who does not know. He needs this ὡς not only because he is going to accept that he does know some, though few, things immediately after this sentence, but also because he needs his previous disavowal to be loosened from Meno on. He does not merely say here that he knows something. It is then different from the examples mentioned before which could be taken as idiomatic or at least not emphatic. Socrates’ remarkable emphasis on distinguishing εἰδέναι from εἰκάζειν departs it from all other passages where he says only he knows something. Moreover, he claims definitely that he has knowledge about few (ὀλίγα) things. From the early to the middle dialogues, Socrates’ attitude to knowledge has totally renewed its face. He brings forth a new concept, true opinion, and he does not speak of knowledge as he used to before; the rough, perfect and unachievable knowledge of the first group has turned to something more smooth, realistic and achievable. Comparing with the early dialogues that did not set out from the first to reach positive results, the middle ones are extraordinarily and surprisingly positive and hence destroy the basis of the Socratic circle. The questions and answers are purposely directed to some specific new theories; most of them are not directly related to the topics or the main questions of the dialogues. They are suggested when Socrates draws the attention of the interlocutor away from the main question because of the necessity of another discussion. Even if the main question remains unanswered, we have still many positive theories, prominently of metaphysical type. These theories are so abundant and dominant in these dialogues, especially Phaedo and Republic, that one might think that they may appear to be arbitrarily sandwiched in there. This helps dialogues to keep their original Socratic structure while they are suggesting new theories. Hence, the Socratic question of 'what is X?', though is still used to launch the discussion, is loosened and is forgotten for most part of the dialogues. Meno that has first a differently formulated question, 'can virtue be taught?', leads finally to the Socratic question of 'What is virtue?'. Phaedo is dedicated to the demonstration of the immortality of soul and the life after death without having a central Socratic question. The case of Republic is more complicated. The first book, on the one hand, has all the criteria of a Socratic circle: its 'what is justice?' question, Socrates’ strong disavowal (e.g. 337d-e), his rejection of all answers and coming back to the first point without finding out any answer. This Book, considered alone, is a perfect Socratic dialogue, as many scholars regard it as early and separated from other books. The books II-X are, on the other hand, far from implementing a Socratic circle. They have still the 'what is justice?' question as their incentive leading question, but they are, in most of the positive doctrines and methods that encompass the main parts, ignoring the question. Even these books that, I believe, are the farthest discussions from the Socratic circle are so cautious not to break the Socratic structure of the dialogue as long as it is possible. What is changed is not the structure of the dialogue but the ontological and epistemological grounds based on which new theories are suggested. -/- 1. Knowledge of the Good We can clearly see in the second group of dialogues that the KWX principle loses the place it had before in our first group. It is not, of course, rejected, but still we cannot say that it has the same situation. KWX that was based on Socratic question, as we discussed before, was the leading principle of the first Socrates’ epistemology and of the highest position. Other epistemological principles, SK directly and BE indirectly, were relying on Socratic question and therefore on KWX. Such a position does not belong to KWX from Meno on. What makes it different in the second Socrates is another principle that is needed it not only as its complementary principle but also as what is more fundamental. Plato, then, does not reject KWX in this period, but, it seems, he transcends to another more basic principle; a principle we shall call the principle of 'Knowledge of the Good' (KG): -/- KG Knowledge of X requires knowledge of the Good. -/- Whereas all the dialogues of our first group are free from any discuscon about KG, it bears a very important role in the second group so as becomes the superior principle of knowledge in Republic. Trying to solve the problem of teachability of virtue, Socrates says that it can be teachable only if it is a kind of knowledge because nothing can be taught to human beings but knowledge (ἐπιστήμην) (Meno 87c2). The dilemma will be, then, whether virtue is knowledge or not (c11-12) and since virtue is good, we can change the question to: whether is there anything good separate from knowledge (εἰ μέν τί ἐστιν ἀγαθὸν καὶ ἄλλο χωριζόμενον ἐπιστήμης) (d4-5). Therefore, the conclusion will be that if there is nothing good which knowledge does not encompass, virtue can be nothing but knowledge (d6-8). What let us discuss KG as an epistemological principle for the second Secrates is the relation he tries to establish between knowledge and the Good which, though is alongside with the mentioned thesis and the idea of virtue as knowledge, goes much deeper inside epistemology asking to regard the Good as the basis of knowledge. The effort of Phaedo cannot succeed in establishing the Good as the criterion of explanation and knowledge since, I think, it needs a far more complicated ontology of Republic where Socrates can finally announce KG. What is said in Republic is totally compatible with Phaedo 99d–e and the metaphor of watching an eclipse of the sun. In spite of the fact that we do not have adequate knowledge of the Idea of the Good, it is necessary for every kind of knowledge: 'If we do not know it, even if we know all other things, it is of no benefit to us without it' (505a6-7). The problem of our not having sufficient knowledge of the Idea of Good is tried to be solved by the same method of Phaedo 99d-e, that is to say, by looking at what is like instead of looking at thing itself (506d8-e4). It is this solution that leads to the comparison of the Good with sun in the allegory of Sun (508b12-13). What the Good is in the intelligible realm corresponds to what the sun is in the visible realm; as sun is not sight, but is its cause and is seen by it (b9-10), the Good is so regarding knowledge. It has, then, the same role for knowledge that the sun has for sight. Socrates draws our attention to the function of sun in our seeing. The eyes can see everything only in the light of the day being unable to see the same things in the gloom of night (508c4-6). Without the sun, our eyes are dimmed and blind as if they do not have clear vision any longer (c6-7). That the Good must have the same role about knowledge based on the analogy means that it must be considered as a required condition of any kind of knowledge: -/- The soul, then, thinks (νόει) in the same way: whenever it focuses on what is shined upon by truth and being, understands (ἐνόησέν), knows (ἔγνω) and apparently possesses understanding (νοῦν ἔχειν). (508d4-6) -/- Socrates does not use agathon in this paragraph and substitutes it with both aletheia and to on. He links them with the Idea of the Good when he is to assert the conclusion of the analogy: -/- That which gives truth to the objects of knowledge and the power of knowing to the knower, you must say, is the Idea of the Good: being the cause of knowledge and truth (αἰτίαν δ᾽ ἐπιστήμης οὖσαν καὶ ἀληθείας) so far as it is known (ὡς γιγνωσκομένης μὲν διανοοῦ). (508e1-4) Knowledge and truth are called goodlike (ἀγαθοειδῆ) since they are not the same as the Good but more honoured (508e6-509a5). KG, which had been implicitly contemplated and searched in Phaedo, is now explicitly being asserted in Republic. As what was quoted clearly proves, this principle is the very one which we can observe as the most fundamental principle of the second Socrates in Republic, corresponding to the role KWX had in the first Socrates. The Form of the Good in Republic, of which Santas speaks as 'the centerpiece of the canonical Platonism of the middle dialogues, the centerpiece of Plato’s metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and …' (1983, 256) much more can be said. Plato’s Cave allegory in Book VIII dedicates a similar role to the Idea of the Good. The Idea of the Good is there as the last thing to be seen in the knowable realm, something so important that its seeing equals to understanding the fact that it is the cause of all that is correct and beautiful (517b). Producing both light and its source in visible realm, it controls and provides truth and understanding in the intelligible realm (517c). -/- 2. Tripartite Epistemology BE is thoroughy rejected in the second Socrates and substituted by its opposite, the principle of 'Tripartite Epistemolgy' (TE): -/- TE Opinion is an epistemological status between knowledge and ignorance. BE of the first Socrates was denying any third way besides knowledge and ignorance which was the foundation of Socratic circle without which Socrates could not reject his interlocutors’ possessing any kind of knowledge. We cannot say, however, that the first Socrates had a third epistemological status in mind but rejected it. Such a status was unacceptable for him so that one can say that he would reject any kind of such status if suggested. There were only two possibilities about knowledge: either one knows something or he does not know it. TE, thus, was not the first Socrates’ discovery and, I think it is not the second Socrates’discovery. All we can see in our second group of dialouges is that he uses this principle as an already demonstrated one. Having examined the slave boy in Meno for the prupose of showing the working of recollection, it truns out that he has some opinions in him while he still does not know. Without trying to prove it, Socrates takes this as the distinction between knowledge and opinion: -/- So, he who does not know (οὐκ εἰδότι) about what he does not know (περὶ ὧν ἂν μὴ εἰδῇ) has within himself true opinions (ἀληθεῖς δόξαι) about the same things he did not know (περὶ τούτων ὧν οὐκ οἶδε) (85c6-7). -/- The same distinction is set between ὀρθὴν δόξαν and ἐπιστήμην at 97b5-6 ff. (also cf. 97b1-2: ὀρθῶς μὲν δοξάζων … ἐπιστάμενος). He connects then their difference to the myth of Daedalus, the statue that would run away and escape. So are true opinions, not willing to remain long in mind and thus not worthy until one ties them down by αἰτίας λογισμῷ (98a3-4). Socrates says that this tying down is anamnesis. We face, in Phaedo, the same relation is settled between knowledge as the process of being tied down and getting the capability to give an account, on the one hand, and anamnesis, on the other hand. When a man knows, he must be able to give an account of what he knows (Phaedo 76b5-6) and since not all people are able to give such an account, those who recollect, recollect what once they learned (76c4). Although the distinction between knowledge and opinion is not explicitly used in Phaedo, referring to the parallel link between knowledge plus account and anamnesis in Phaedo and Meno, one can say that those who cannot recollect are not able to give account and, thus, are in a state of opinion. What is said at Phaedo 84a, though not yet a definite distinction between knowledge and opinion, makes a distinction between their objects so as we can agree that it is presupposed. The soul of the philosopher, Socrates says, follows reason, stays with it forever and contemplates the divine, which is not the object of opinoin (ἀδόξαστον) (84a8, cf. Meno 98b2-5). The distinction of knowledge and belief in Republic has a significant difference with what we discussed in Meno and Phaedo since the distinction of Meno was based on anamnesis and thus more an epistemological distinction. Even in Phaedo that we do not have any elaborate discussion about the distinction, the only hint to the matter at 76 is bound to the theory of anamnesis. In addition to the relation of the distinction with this theory, there is another evidence that does not permit us to consider the distinction as an ontological distinction. Let’s see Meno 85c6-7: -/- So, he who does not know about what he does not know has within himself true opinions about the same things he did not know (τῷ οὐκ εἰδότι ἄρα περὶ ὧν ἂν μὴ εἰδῇ ἔνεισιν ἀληθεῖς δόξαι περὶ τούτων ὧν οὐκ οἶδε). (85c6-7) -/- This last sentence persists that the objects of knowledge and true opinion are the same. What Socrates is to say here is that whereas he does not know X he has true opinion about the same X. I think Socrates’ sentence that the slave boy οὐκ εἰδότι ἄρα περὶ ὧν ἂν μὴ εἰδῇ and his restatement of it by saying περὶ τούτων ὧν οὐκ οἶδε is because he wants to emphasize that the slave boy who does not know, has true opinion about the same thing. Socrates could say this just with using τούτων and there would be no necessity to bring περὶ ὧν ἂν μὴ εἰδῇ for οὐκ εἰδότι if he did not want to emphasize. -/- 3. Tripartite Ontology The distinction between knowledge and true opinion in Republic, on other side, has nothing to do with recollection, but is based on an ontological principle, 'Tripartite Ontology' (TO): -/- TO There are things that both are and are not. -/- This principle I confine, among our three dialogues of the second group, to Republic not extended to Meno and Phaedo, is obviously the opposite of BO. Speaking about the lovers of sights and sounds in the fifth book, Socrates distinguishes them from philosophers because their thought is unable to understand the nature of beautiful itself besides beautiful things (476a6-8) and hence they can only have opinions. The philosopher who, on the contrary, believes in beautiful itself and can distinguish it from beautiful things (476c9-d3), has knowledge because he knows, contrasting others who have opinion because they only opine (d5-6). Since those whose knowledge were degraded as opinion will complain about Socrates’ such calling their thought, he provides them the following argument (476e7-477b1): -/- - Does the person who knows, knows (γιγνώσκει) something (τὶ) or nothing (οὐδέν)? - He knows something (τί). - Something that is (ὂν) or is not (οὐκ ὄν)? - Something that is (ὂν) for how could something that is not be known (πῶς γὰρ ἂν μὴ ὄν γέ τι γνωσθείη)? - Then we have an adequate grasp of this: No matter how many ways we examine it, what completely is (παντελῶς ὂν) is completely knowable (παντελῶς γνωστόν) and what is in no way (μὴ ὂν δὲ μηδαμῇ) is in every way unknowable (πάντῃ ἄγνωστον). - A most adequate one. - Good. Now, if anything is such as to be and also not to be (ὡς εἶναί τε καὶ μὴ εἶναι), won’t it be intermediate (μεταξὺ) between what purely is (εἰλικρινῶς ὄντος) and what in no way is (μηδαμῇ ὄντος)? - Yes, it’s intermediate. - Then as knowledge (γνῶσις) is set over what is (τῷ ὄντι), while ignorance (ἀγνωσία) is of necessity set over what is not (μὴ ὄντι) mustn’t we find an intermediate between ignorance (ἀγνοίας) and knowledge (ἐπιστήμης) to be set over the intermediate, if there is such a thing? -/- From the third status of being we must reach to the third status of knowledge. The simple reading of this text can be an existential reading, taking the "is" of the mentioned sentences as existence. The problem is that when it is said that there is something that both is and is not reading "is" existentially, it sounds too bizarre to be acceptable. It cannot easily be understandable to have something as both existent and non-existent at the same time. This problem arose so many debates and led many scholars to reject the existential reading of "is" and suggest some other readings like predicative or veridical readings. I think though Plato’s complicated ontology of Republic cannot be correctly understood by a simple existential reading, this "is" cannot be free from existential sense of being and, thus, cannot be reduced to just a predicative or veridical sense of being. -/- 4. Bound Knowledges In addition to KG, the Good is also the basis of another principle in the second Socrates, namely the principle of 'Bound Knowledge' (BK): -/- BK Knowledge of everything is bound to the knowledge of the Good. -/- We distinguished BK from KG because we want to insist, in BK, on what had not been insisted upon in KG, that is, the binding role that the Good plays in the second Socrates, contrasting the absence of such a role in the first Socrates. Socrates remembers, in Phaedo, his wonderful keen on natural philosophers' wisdom when he was young. The origin of this enthusiasm was Socrates’ hope to know the cause of everything as they used to claim. When he was searching the matters of his interest on their basis, Socrates says, he became convinced he can get no acceptable answer from them and found himself blind even to the things he thought he knew before. One day he hears Anaxagoras’ theory that 'it is Mind that arranges and is the cause of everything (ὡς ἄρα νοῦς ἐστιν ὁ διακοσμῶν τε καὶ πάντων αἴτιος)' (Phd. 97c1-2 cf. DK, Fr.15.8-9, 11-12, 12-14) and thinks that he can finally find what he has always expected, i.e. something which can explain all things. What I intend to show here is that what makes Socrates hopeful is that Anaxagoras’ theory tries 1) to explain all things by one thing and 2) this explanation is understood by Socrates as if it is based on the concept of the Good. That Socrates was searching for one explanation for all things can be proved even from what he has been expecting from natural philosophers. The case is, nonetheless, more clearly asserted when he speaks about Anaxagoras’ theory. In addition to διακοσμῶν τε καὶ πάντων αἴτιος of 97c2 mentioned above, we have τὸ τὸν νοῦν εἶναι πάντων αἴτιον (c3-4) and τόν γε νοῦν κοσμοῦντα πάντα κοσμεῖν (c4-5) all emphasizing on the cause of all things (πάντα) which can clearly prove that one of the reasons which caused Socrates to embrace it delightfully was its claim to provide the cause of all things by one thing. Another reason was that Anaxagoras’ Mind, at least in Socrates’ view, was attempting to explain everything by the concept of the Good. This connection between Mind and Good belongs more to the essential relation they have in Socrates’ thinking than Anaxagoras’ theory because there are almost nothing about such a relation in Anaxagoras. The reason for Socrates’ reading can be that Mind is substantially compatible with Socrates’ idea of the relation between good and knowledge. Both the thesis 'no one does wrong willingly' and the theory of virtue as knowledge we pointed to above are evidences of this essential relation. Nobody who knows that something is bad can choose or do it as bad. The reason, when it is reason, that means when it is as it should be, when it is wise or when it knows, works only based on good-choosing. In this context, when Socrates hears that Mind is considered as the cause of everything, it sounds to him like this: good should be regarded as the basis of the explanation of all things. We see him, thus, passing from the former to the latter without any proof. This is done in the second sentence after introducing Mind: -/- I thought that if this were so, the arranging Mind would arrange all things and put each thing in the way that was Best (ὅπῃ ἂν βέλτιστα ἔχῃ). If one then wished to find the cause of each thing by which it either perishes or exists, one needs to find what is the best way (βέλτιστον αὐτῷ ἐστιν) for it to be, or to be acted upon, or to act. On these premises then it befitted a man to investigate only, about this and other things, what is the most excellent (ἄριστον) and best (βέλτιστον). The same man must inevitably also know what is worse (χεῖρον), for that is part of the same knowledge. (97c4-d5) This passage is a good evidence of Socrates’ leap from Anaxagoras’ Mind to his own concept of the Good that can explain why Socrates found Anaxagoras theory after his own heart (97d7). Mind is welcomed because of its capability for explanation on the basis of good to 'explain why it is so of necessity, saying which is better (ἄμεινον), and that it was better (ἄμεινον) to be so' (97e1-3). What Socrates thought he had found in Anaxagoras can indicate what he had been expecting from natural scientists before. Socrates could not be satisfied with their explanations because they were unable to explain how it is the best for everything to be as it is. It can probably be said, then, that it was the lack of the unifying Good in their explanation that had disappointed him. We must insist that we are discussing what Socrates thought that Anaxagoras’ theory of Mind should have been, not about Anaxagoras’ actual way of using Mind. Phaedo 97c-98b, is not about what Socrates found in Anaxagoras but what he thought he could find in it. On the contrary, it should also be noted that it was not this that was dashed at 98b, but Anaxagoras’ actual way of using Mind. It was Anaxagoras’ fault not to find out how to use such an excellent thesis (98b8-c2, cf. 98e-99b). Socrates gives an example to show how not believing in 'good' as the basis of explanation makes people be wanderers between different unreal explanations of a thing. His words δέον συνδεῖν (binding that binds together) as a description for the Good we chose as the name of BK principle: They do not believe that the truly good and binding binds and holds them together (ὡς ἀληθῶς τὸ ἀγαθὸν καὶ δέον συνδεῖν καὶ συνέχειν οὐδὲν οἴονται). (99c5-6) -/- Having in mind Plato’s well-known analogy of the sun and the Good at Republic 508-509, we can dare to say that his warning of the danger of seeing the truth directly like one watching an eclipse of the sun in Phaedo (99d-e) is more about the difficulty of so-called good-based explanation than its insufficiency, a difficulty which is precisely confirmed in Republic (504e-505a, 506d-e). Moreover, BK is asserted in a more explicit way in the Republic, where the Good is considered not only as a condition for the knowledge of X, as was noted above discussing KG, but also as what binds all the objects of knowledge and also the soul in its knowing them. At Republic VI, 508e1-3, when Socrates says that the Form of the Good 'gives truth to the things known and the power to know to the knower (τοῦτο τοίνυν τὸ τὴν ἀλήθειαν παρέχον τοῖς γιγνωσκομένοις καὶ τῷ γιγνώσκοντι τὴν δύναμιν ἀποδιδὸν)', he wants to set the Good at the highest point of his epistemological structure by which all the elements of this structure are bound. This binding aspect of the Good is by no means a simple binding of all knowledges or all the objects of knowledge, but the most complicated kind of binding as it is expected from the author of the Republic. The kind of unity the Good gives to the different knowledges of different things is comparable with the unity which each Form gives to its participants in Republic: as all the participants of a Form are united by referring to the ideas, all different kinds of knowledge are united by referring to the Good. If we observe Aristotle's assertion that for Plato and the believers of Forms, the causative relation of the One with the Forms is the same as that of the Forms with particulars (e.g. Metaphysics 988a10-11, 988b4), that is to say the One is the essence (e.g., ibid, 988a10-11: τοῦ τί ἐστὶν, 988b4-6: τὸ τί ἢν εἶναί) of the Forms besides his statement that for them One is the Good (e.g., ibid, 988b11-13) the relation between the Good and unity may become more understandable. Since the quiddity of the Good (τί ποτ᾽ ἐστὶ τἀγαθὸν) is more than discussion (506d8-e2), we cannot await Socrates to tell us how this binding role is played. All we can expect is to hear from him an analogy by which this unifying role is envisaged, the sun. The kind of unity that the Good gives to the knowledge and its objects in the intelligible realm is comparable to the unity that the sun gives to the sight and its objects in the visible realm (508b-c). The allegory of Line (Republic VI, 509d-511), like that of the Sun, tries to bind all various kinds of knowledges. The hierarchical model of the Line which encompasses all kinds of knowledge from imagination to understanding can clearly be considered as Plato’s effort to bind all kinds of knowledges by a certain unhypothetical principle. The method of hypothesis starts, in the first subsection of the intelligible realm, with a hypothesis that is not directed firstly to a principle but a conclusion (510b4-6). It proceeds, in the other subsection, to a 'principle which is not a hypothesis' (b7) and is called the 'unhypothetical principle of all things' (ἀνυποθέτου ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ παντὸς ἀρχὴν) (511b6-7). This παντὸς must refer not only to the objects of the intelligible realm but to the sensible objects as well. Plato does posit, therefore, an epistemological principle for all things, a principle that all things are, epistemologically, bound and, thus, unified by. -/- 5. Bound Beings The ontological aspect of BK we shall call the principle of 'Bound Beings' (BB): -/- BB Being of all things are bound by the Good. -/- We saw in our principle of Split Being (SB) how the first Socrates was criticized because of his approach to split being and separate each thing from other things. The principle of Bound Beings intends to make the things more related, a duty which is done again by the Good. In the allegory of Sun, there are two paragraphs that evidently and deliberately extend the binding role of the Good to the ontological scene: -/- You will say that the sun not only makes the visible things have the ability of being seen but also coming to be, growth and nourishment. (509b2-4) -/- This clearly intends to remind the ontological role the sun plays in bringing to being all the sensible things in order to display how its counterpart has the same role in the intelligible realm (b6-10): -/- Not only the objects of knowledge (γιγνωσκομένοις) owe their being known (γιγνώσκεσθαι) to the Good, but also their existence (τὸ εἶναί) and their being (οὐσίαν) are due to it, though the Good is not being but superior to it in rank and power. That the Good is here represented as responsible for being of things in addition to their being known means, in my opinion, that Plato wants to posit BB in addition to BK. The allegory of Cave at the very beginning of the seventh Book (514aff.) can be taken as another evidence. The role of the Good, one might say, is confined to the intelligible realm because it is asserted that the role the Good plays in this realm is corresponding to that of the sun in the visible realm. The fact that Plato wants to observe the Good also as the ontological cause of the sensible things is obvious from his saying, in the allegory of Cave, that the Form of the Good 'produces light and its source (τὸν τούτου κύριον) [i.e. the sun] in the visible realm' (517c3). We can conclude, then, that the ontological function of the Good is not confined to the intelligible realm in which it is the lord and provides truth and understanding (c3-4) because it is also responsible to produce τὸν κύριον of light. 6. Proportionality of Being and Knowledge Insofaras BE and BO principles of the first Socrates gave way to TE and TO principles of the second Socrates, we cannot expect him to preserve KB in the same way as it was in the first Socrates. The new tripartite ontology and epistemology necessitates some modifications in KB which results in the principle of 'Proportionality of Being and Knowledge' (PBK): -/- PBK To every class of being there is a proportionate category of knowledge. -/- This principle, of course, does not entail the refutation of KB and thus is not kind of rejecting PBK but only a more complicated version of it. Based on PBK, we can still agree that knowledge is of being (KB) but the issue is that since none of the concepts of knowledge and being in the second Socrates are as simple as they were for the first Socrates, we need a more complicated principle for their relation here. Although from Meno 97a where the distinction of knowledge and true opinion is drawn out in the second group of the dialogues, we can expect a new relation, it is articulated in its most complete way in Republic and specifically in the allegory of Line. All the beings are divided there hierarchically to four classes, to each of them belongs a class of knowledge: imagination to images, belief to the sensible things (more correctly: the things of which they[in previous class] were images (ᾧ τοῦτο ἔοικεν)), thought to mathematical objects (?) and understanding to the Forms and the first principle. The degree of clarity that each of the classes of knowledge shares in (σαφηνείας ἡγησάμενος μετέχειν) is proportionate to the degree that its object shares in truth (ἀληθείας μετέχει). (511e2-4) -/- Conclusion From the six onto-epistemilogical principles of the first Socrates, four principles turn to their opposite in the middle period dialogues. While bipolar epistemology and ontology of the early dialogues give place to tripartite epistemology in the middle period dialogues and tripartite ontology in Republic, the split knowledge and being of the first Socrates are inclined to be substituted by bound knowledges and bound beings in the second Socrates and specifically in Republic. Not all our system of principles in this article is necessarily determinative. Either they are rightly formulated or not, our result would not be vulnerable if we accept that 1) making the distinction of knowledge and belief, 2) accepting the being of not being and 3) trying to bind both being and knowledge by the concept of the Good happens only in middle period dialogues, having been absent in the early ones. These are the favourite results all those somehow arbitrary and even oversimplified principles were to illustrate; that there is kind of a development in the epistemological as well as the ontological grounds of Plato’s philosophy. -/- Notes . (shrink)

The fifth century BC is one of the most brilliant of Greek history. Pericles, as the leader of a splendid Athens, promoted the entry into his polis of the new scientific movement that until then had developed primarily in Ionia and in the Italian peninsula. However, their research raised suspicions among the Athenians, who regarded it as a risk for traditional religion. In spite of the somewhat flexible and plural character of the Greek religion, in this period three famous trials (...) took place in which different philosophers were tried for impiety: Anaxagoras, Protagoras and Socrates. The controversy between religion and philosophy can lead us to an oversimplification of the facts. Thus, several modern scholars have understood philosophy as an exorcism of myth and therefore as something necessarily guiding to a progressive elimination of the divine from the worldview. We intend to interpret this conflict only as a change in understanding of the divinity, rather than a suppression of it. This has, of course, effects on religion, but it does not drag inevitably to irreligion. (shrink)

SOCIOLOGIA DO TRABALHO: O CONCEITO DO TRABALHO DA ANTIGUIDADE AO SÉCULO XVI -/- SOCIOLOGY OF WORK: THE CONCEPT OF WORK OF ANTIQUITY FROM TO THE XVI CENTURY -/- RESUMO -/- Ao longo da história da humanidade, o trabalho figurou-se em distintas posições na sociedade. Na Grécia antiga era um assunto pouco, ou quase nada, discutido entre os cidadãos. Pensadores renomados de tal época, como Platão e Aristóteles, deixaram a discussão do trabalho para um último plano. Após várias transformações sociais entre (...) diferentes eras e povos, o trabalho foi ganhando espaço nos debates entre os povos, como os caldeus, hebreus e romanos. O trabalho conferiu-se no escopo da discussão social. Na Idade Média, com Agostinho, Santo Aquino e outros o labor foi concebido como algo benéfico e divino. O que se via como algo “escravo” ao povo, transformou-se em necessidade e benevolência divina. -/- Palavras-chave: Conceito; Trabalho; História; Definição. -/- ABSTRACT -/- Throughout the history of mankind, work has figured itself in different positions in society. In ancient Greece it was a little matter, or almost nothing, discussed among the citizens. Renowned thinkers of such a time, like Plato and Aristotle, left the discussion of the work for a last plan. After several social transformations between different eras and peoples, work was gaining space in the debates among peoples, such as the Chaldeans, Hebrews and Romans. The work has taken place within the scope of social discussion. In the Middle Ages, with Augustine, Saint Aquinas and others the work was conceived as something beneficial and divine. What was seen as something “slave” to the people, became need and divine benevolence. -/- Keywords: Concept; Work; History; Definition. -/- BASES TEMÁTICAS DESSE TRABALHO -/- ➢ O trabalho é um conceito construído socialmente; -/- ➢ A modernidade trouxe consigo mudanças significativas quanto à valorização do trabalho; -/- ➢ A origem dos mercados de trabalho, juntamente com o surgimento do capitalismo, minimizou o trabalho como um mero emprego assalariado; -/- ➢ O trabalho, no entanto, apresenta múltiplas manifestações nas nossas sociedades. -/- 1. A VISÃO GREGA DE TRABALHO -/- Comecemos pelos gregos, uma civilização excitante que, durante muitos séculos antes de Cristo, já começava a elaborar riquíssimas reflexões sobre vários aspectos da vida humana. No entanto, surpreende aqueles de nós que já ler os primeiros filósofos gregos, como entre tantas análises rigorosas e “diálogos”, um elemento tão central na vida social dos povos, como o trabalho havia tido escassa repercussão. A explicação só faz sentido, justamente, ao analisar a valorização que esses grandes pensadores tinham acerca do nosso objeto de estudo que é o trabalho. Embora, como supracitado, os gregos não tivessem uma visão unânime sobre o trabalho, não é menos certo assinalar que para esta civilização o trabalho foi considerado um fato altamente desvalorizado. O trabalho, para eles, dado a sua vinculação com a dimensão de constrangimento e necessidades, limitava a liberdade dos indivíduos, condição indispensável para integrar o mundo da “pólis” na qualidade de cidadão. O homem livre realizava atividades absolutamente desinteressadas: a atividade intelectual (que não era considerada trabalho) fazia parte do ócio e da contemplação. O trabalho, reservado apenas aos escravos, como bem sinala Hopenhayn (1955), significava uma mera função produtiva. Portanto, o escravo passou a ser unicamente uma força de trabalho. Como tal, ele não tem personalidade e pertence ao seu mestre, como uma coisa entre muitas. Como objeto de propriedade, escapa ao pensamento antropológico que domina a filosofia sofista e socrática, porque para o cidadão grego falar de escravo não implica um sujeito pensante, senão uma coisa ou, no máximo, a força. Também escapa ao pensamento platônico, porque, como uma coisa, parece totalmente desvalorizado na construção idealista-dualista da realidade (HOPENHAYN, 1988. p. 23 – Tradução própria). -/- Três termos fundamentais que devemos recordar da tradição grega: -/- 1 – Ponos: penalidade, fadiga; -/- 2 – Banausia: trabalho mecânico, e -/- 3 – Ergon: realização. -/- Vejamos como essa noção de trabalho é construída como algo servil (ponos), ao qual uma visão positiva de lazer e contemplação foram contrastadas como uma atividade puramente humana e libertadora. As raízes do supracitado são encontradas no valor eticamente supremo da autarquia socrática. Segundo essa noção alcunhada por Sócrates (469-399 a.C.), todo aquele que trabalha está submetido tanto à matéria como aos homens para quem trabalha. Nessa medida, sua vida carece de autonomia e, portanto, de valor moral. Naturalmente, não só os escravos, mas também qualquer trabalhador dedicado a todos os tipos de tarefas manuais, foram desprezados por um pensamento helênico indubitavelmente aristocrático. Para Platão (427-347 a.C.), de origem aristocrática, descendente do último rei de Atenas e discípulo de Sócrates, a autarquia continua a ser perpetrada como um valor ético supremo e, em consonância com os interesses da aristocracia fundiária, afirmava que somente a agricultura evocava autêntica autonomia. Dessa forma, o pensamento platônico restringiu a participação política a escravos, comerciantes e artesãos. Todos eles têm em comum a dependência das condições materiais em que produzem e trocam mercadorias. O plano político estará intimamente relacionado ao econômico-trabalhista: somente quem é capaz de governar a si mesmo (e como sabemos, acontece com aqueles que não trabalham ou possuem terras), pode governar os outros. Somente a liberação total da prática mundana do trabalho abre as possibilidades de dedicar-se, como fez Platão, à contemplação (σχολή), à filosofia e às ciências, e por meio disso saber distinguir o bem do mal, o justo do injusto, o verdadeiro do falso. Quem poderia dedicar-se a tais “tarefas nobres”? Evidentemente, aqueles que não precisam fazer parte da população trabalhadora, isto é, a aristocracia. Esse sistema de governo aristocrático foi defendido, obviamente, por Platão. Em sua “A República” sinala que o governo perfeito é o aristocrático, e que a este se sucedem a timocracia (governo dos guerreiros), a oligarquia (dos ricos) e a democracia (“governo daqueles que amam o prazer, a mudança e a liberdade), que perece por seus excessos nas mãos de alguns homem audaz que se coloca à frente do povo para defender a democracia e “do tronco desses protetores do povo nasce o tirano”, dando origem à tirania.(2) Em seu diálogo “Político” podemos ler: Aqueles que possuem a si mesmos através da compra, e aqueles que podem ser chamados sem nenhuma discussão de escravos, não participam da arte real [...] E todos aqueles que são livres, se dedicam espontaneamente a atividades servis como as supracitadas, transportando e trocando produtos da agricultura e de outras artes; que nos mercados, indo de cidade em cidade por mar e terra, trocando dinheiro por outras coisas ou por dinheiro, o que chamamos de banqueiros, comerciantes, marinheiros e revendedores, poderão, por acaso, reivindicar para eles algo da ciência política? [...], mas também aqueles que estão dispostos a prestar serviços a todos por salários ou por subsídios, nunca os encontramos participantes na arte de governar [...] Como os chamaremos? Como você acabou de dizer agora: servidores, mas não governantes dos estados (PLATÃO, 1983. pp. 237-8 – adaptado). Esse estado ideal que Platão projetou em seus ensinamentos estava longe, a propósito, da democracia ateniense defendida por Péricles. De certa forma, Platão só confiava em uma elite no poder constituída por uns poucos (oligarquia) que não deveriam se render às tarefas servis da produção e circulação das riquezas. Para ele, as crianças aristocráticas deveriam ser selecionadas desde a infância, recebendo uma educação suficiente tanto em filosofia quanto nas “artes da guerra”. Aos trinta anos, eles já seriam capazes de passar por um exame donde seriam selecionados os “filósofos-reis” encarregados do governo. De fato, no entanto, suas concepções de governo nunca poderiam ser executadas com pureza; ou pela chamada “contrarrevolução aristocrática”, ou pela invasão estrangeira subsequente. Essa visão do trabalho que estamos a analisar, como bem sinala Henri Arvon (1914- 1992), conduz a uma sociedade basicamente conservadora e estancada no produtivo. (3) A ideia de liberdade, ócio e contemplação como valores superiores, propõe um desprezo pelo trabalho que, como vimos, é uma atividade puramente transformadora. Há aqueles que, mediante tal contestação, arriscam fundamentar que grande parte do subdesenvolvimento tecnológico na Grécia derive justamente a essa cultura tão peculiar em relação ao trabalho. Caso contrário, se houvesse escravos, por que avançar em conhecimentos que facilitaram o trabalho? Não nos surpreende, nesse sentido, que uma civilização capaz de criar conhecimentos espetaculares em áreas particularmente complexas como a geometria (Euclides), por outro lado, não soubesse (ou não gostaria) de avançar em conhecimentos técnicos aplicáveis ao campo econômico-trabalhista. Já vimos como a cidadania era o escopo da de alguns aristocratas da civilização helênica. Hannah Arendt (1906-1975) sinalava que os gregos distinguiam entre os escravos, os inimigos vencidos (dmôes ou douloi) que estavam encarregados do trabalho doméstico, e os demiourgoi, homens livres para se deslocarem do domínio privado para o público. Somente depois do século V, sinala Arendt, a pólis começou a classificar as ocupações de acordo com os esforços que eles exigiam. Nisso, Aristóteles (384-322 a.C.) teve que desempenhar um papel preponderante que colocou aqueles cujo “corpo está mais deformado” na faixa mais baixa. Ele não admitiria, portanto, aos estrangeiros (os escravos), nem tampouco aos banausoi, antes dos demiourgoi, trabalhadores e artesãos que deviam resignar-se ao mundo dos “oikos”. Estes, não só estavam submetidos à necessidade como eram incapazes de ser livres, mas também incapazes de governar a parte “animal” do seu ser (República, 590). Serão eles, não obstante, aqueles que permitem o florescimento da chamada democracia helênica, pois, quem senão os trabalhadores (escravos ou artesãos) poderia manter com seu esforço o ócio e a contemplação dos “homens livres”, cidadãos do mundo? Como foi supracitado, será Aristóteles quem delimitará ainda mais os direitos de cidadania. Sua cidade ideal, como em Platão, diferenciaria os governantes dos governados. O primeiro, constituído pela classe militar, estadistas, magistrados e sacerdócio. O segundo, pelos agricultores, artesãos e os camponeses. Com os comerciantes há uma certa ambivalência: embora ele considerava uma ocupação antinatural, estava disposto a admiti-los até certo ponto em sua cidade ideal, cuja base seguiria sendo a escravidão. Em sua Política, ele explana: A cidade mais perfeita não fará do trabalhador manual (artesão) um cidadão. Caso o admitir como tal, a definição de virtude cívica [...] não alcança todos os cidadãos, nem apenas os homens livres, mas só os que estão isentos de trabalhos indispensáveis à sobrevivência. Destes, os que estão a serviço de um só indivíduo, são escravos; os que servem a comunidade, são trabalhadores manuais (artesãos) ou trabalhadores não qualificados (ARISTÓTELES, 1998. p. 203). Tampouco compreenderá os agricultores como reivindicava Platão: “Tampouco deverão ser agricultores os futuros cidadãos, pois para a formação de sua virtude e para a atividade política, o ócio é necessário”. Essa prolifera discussão ocorreu em uma civilização onde começaram a surgir as primeiras mudanças produtivas derivadas do crescimento econômico feito do descobrimento do ferro, e sua posterior divisão do trabalho, onde florescem os grupos de comerciantes e a aristocracia proprietária de terras começa a dominar. Os pensadores da época, mais aliados a estes últimos, contrariavam os princípios da acumulação comercial. Em sua Política, Aristóteles aconselha os cidadãos a absterem-se de qualquer profissão mecânica e de toda especulação mercantil. O primeiro, porque limita intelectualmente, e o segundo, porque degrada o ético. Somente o ócio (scholé), para esses pensadores, permite a virtuosidade e a capacidade de julgar. A Koinonia politiké (comunidade dos homens livres) era típica daqueles que não precisavam de trabalho, relegando a população trabalhadora ao mero âmbito da reprodução material (chrematistiké), o que só era possível em um contexto de alta divisão do trabalho onde um grupo minoritário (oligarquia) vivia à custa do trabalho da maioria (muitos deles escravos). O termo “ócio” provém de “scholé”, entendido entre os gregos como tempo para si mesmo, para a contemplação (sjolé) e, portanto, para a formação (scholé = escola). Desse ponto de vista, o ócio para os gregos é um fim em si mesmo. Entre os romanos, no entanto, adquire outra conotação. Em latim octium, designa o campo contraposto ao neo-octium (negócio), ou seja, é o tempo de descanso que permite dedicar-se ao negócio. Tal visão sobre o trabalho e o ócio, respectivamente, não foi, no entanto, como supracitado no início, unanimemente desenvolvida em toda a história da civilização helênica. Os textos de Homero(4) (séculos IX e VIII a.C.) são mais reservados a respeito, mas acima de tudo, na Grécia antiga encontramos autores como Hesíodo (século VIII), que postulavam outras teses. Para o autor de “Os trabalhos e os dias”, o trabalho se constituía em um justo e necessário castigo que Zeus impôs aos homens pelo pecado de Prometeu. Note a similitude com a crença bíblica que veremos adiante. Hesíodo explana: Lembre-se sempre do meu conselho e trabalhe [...] os deuses e os homens se indignam com quem ocioso vive, semelhante em caráter aos zangões sem ferrão, que consomem o esforço das abelhas [...] O trabalho não é nenhuma desonra; desonra é não trabalhar (HESÍODO, 2012. p. 93 e 95). Também entre alguns sofistas (aqueles que vendiam sua sabedoria a quem gostaria de comprá-la), como Protágoras (século V a.C.), “o primeiro e o maior deles”(5), coloca o estudo e a arte (técnica) na mesma faixa, e Antifonte (século V a.C.) disse: “[...] e as honras e preços, e toda a espécie de encorajamento que Deus incumbiu aos homens, devem necessariamente resultar de fadiga e suor”. Como conviveu a cultura grega com essas noções tão diferentes? Tenho a ideia, juntamente com Hopenhayn, que o desprezo dos pensadores gregos pelo manual foi causado pela violência dos guerreiros e dos aristocratas de plantão, que impuseram aos seja derrotados o jugo. Do trabalho árduo e difícil. Porque a aristocracia queria trabalhar nessas condições? A própria divisão do trabalho em si possibilitou o crescimento da civilização helênica, estava gerando diferentes classes com visões distintas sobre o trabalho. Por outro lado, surgiram os camponeses pobres, os derrotados e aqueles que tinham que viver do trabalho artesanal. Essas pessoas, na maioria das vezes isoladas do mundo da “polis”, gerariam suas próprias leituras dos acontecimentos, seus próprios espaços para o desenvolvimento cultural, inclusive sua própria religião, distante daquela imposta pela visão aristocrática, olímpica, contemplativa e estética dos “homens livres”. -/- 2. A VISÃO DOS CALDEUS ACERCA DO TRABALHO -/- A leitura de outros povos e civilizações sobre este tema tem sido diferente. Entre os caldeus, por exemplo, a visão pejorativa analisada entre os gregos não é registrada. Nas escrituras sagradas da religião de Zaratustra (o Avesta), lemos: “É um santo aquele que constrói uma casa, na qual mantém o fogo, o gado, sua mulher, seus filhos, os bons párias. Aquele que faz a terra produzir trigo, que cultiva os frutos do campo, cultiva corretamente a pureza” (HOPENHAYN, 1988. p. 35). Para os caldeus, como se pode observar, o trabalho implica, de uma posição diametralmente oposta à helênica, uma contribuição na ordem econômica, mas também na espiritual. Trabalhar não é só “cultivar o trigo” (dimensão das necessidades fisiológicas), mas também “cultivar a pureza”, dimensão esta, relacionada com a satisfação das necessidades espirituais. Por que apreciamos uma diferença tão acentuada entre essas culturas? Provavelmente, os diferentes graus de desenvolvimento dos povos levaram a isso. Enquanto entre os gregos primava uma divisão do trabalho, onde alguns tinham o status de “homens livres” dedicados à contemplação e ao ócio, outros não tinham escolha a não ser trabalhar, em uma situação de domínio em relação às naturezas daqueles que o empregaram. Esse não foi o caso dos caldeus, que possuía um escasso dividido trabalho, em que a todos se correspondia uma atividade laboriosa. -/- 3. A VISÃO DOS HEBREUS SOBRE O TRABALHO -/- No meio do caminho entre os caldeus e os gregos, encontramos a avaliação do trabalho feita pelos hebreus, dessa vez, tingindo de ambivalências. Tal como ponderava Hesíodo entre os gregos, para os hebreus, o trabalho se constituía de um mal necessário; em um meio para expiar os pecados; dessa vez não de Prometeu, mas de Adão e Eva. Vamos ver, no entanto, alguns aspectos mais complexos. A primeira coisa a se notar da perspectiva hebraica (compartilhada com o cristianismo) é o que se resulta da leitura do livro de Gênesis, aquela história poética e cheia de imagens para elucidar facilmente a origem da criação. Lá se estabelece a ideia de um deus criador-trabalhador: “No princípio Deus criou o céu e a terra [...] No sétimo dia Deus já havia concluído a obra que realizara, e nesse dia descansou [...] de toda a obra que realizara na criação”.(7) Esse Deus como primeira causa (São Tomás de Aquino (1225-1274)) denota laboriosidade seu correspondente descanso, um binômio que será fundamental para compreender a evolução do direito do trabalho e do direito ao descanso semanal contemporâneo. Digamos, em segundo lugar, que o Senhor Deus providenciou o trabalho no Éden: “O Senhor Deus colocou o homem no jardim do Éden para cuidar dele e cultivá-lo”.(8) Portanto, não é certa a ideia de que o trabalho é o resultado do pecado: ao contrário, é um trabalho árduo aquele que deriva do pecado segundo a tradição hebraico-cristã. Antes, na ausência do pecado, havia uma espécie de bom trabalho. Foi o pecado original, que levou Deus a condenar Adão e Eva, e por isso a toda a humanidade, a “ganhar o pão com o suor da sua testa”. “Por isso o Senhor Deus o mandou embora do jardim do Éden para cultivar o solo do qual fora tirado”. (9) O Talmude diz: “Se o homem não encontra seu alimento como animais e pássaros, precisa ganhá-los, isso se deve ao pecado”. Essa sentença, de caráter histórico, promove a ideia de trabalho como meio para expiar o pecado original, mas também como meio para produzir; isto é, legitimando a mudança inerente a todo trabalho e, portanto, legitimando também aquela vontade transformadora que caracterizou desde sempre os povos hebreus.(10) Agora, ao contrário dos caldeus, para os hebreus da antiguidade, o trabalho nunca teve um fim ético em si mesmo, mas foi constituído apenas como um meio. Essa visão esteve sempre presente, e caracteriza muito claramente a concepção que muitos integrantes de nossas sociedades contemporâneas possuem sobre o trabalho, além da religião de cada um. -/- 4. OS ROMANOS E O TRABALHO -/- Os romanos, por sua vez, deram uma importante contribuição para o desenvolvimento do conceito de trabalho. Se bem que, a grosso modo, não houvesse grandes diferenças com o pensamento dos gregos, com quem eles tinham em comum, além disso, uma maior divisão do trabalho fruto do desenvolvimento econômico e o uso massivo de mão de obra escrava(11); a maior contribuição do ponto de vista de sua originalidade histórica estava presente na tradição jurídica que inauguraria o Império Romano. O maior impacto por meios jurídicos e não filosóficos é explicado pelo fato de que os romanos, ao contrário dos gregos, não conseguiram “inspirar” a produção de grandes pensadores sociais. Com efeito, para os romanos, como o escravo não era considerado uma pessoa, o viam-no desprovido de personalidade jurídica. Isso conduziu a negação da relação de trabalho entre a pessoa encarregada de um trabalho manual (escravo) e seu dono. Tal relação correspondia, acima de tudo, ao direito de propriedade que os juristas romanos haviam garantido quase sem limites para seus cidadãos. O problema, como aponta Hopenhayn, surgiu quando o proprietário não ocupa seu escravo, mas aluga-o para terceiros. Surge assim a figura do arrendamento de serviços, que deriva do arrendamento das coisas. Porém, como na realidade o que se alugava era a força de trabalho, a qualidade jurídica desloca-se para a atividade realizada pelo escravo. Dessa forma, a atividade do trabalhador, primeiro do escravo, posteriormente do homem livre, começa a ser tratada como uma coisa, e se converte em antecedente do arrendamento de serviços do Direito Civil moderno. Ademais, na tradição romana, o trabalho manual estava desprestigiado. Cícero (106-43 a.C.) em De Officiis, estabeleceu com fria claridade “ipsa merces est auctoramentum servitius”(12) (todo trabalho assalariado é trabalho escravo). A vida era difícil para esses trabalhadores: nos territórios sob domínio romano, Augusto (63-14 a.C.) tinha imposto um tributo à todos os homens que exerciam algum tipo de trabalho manual, além do imposto à residência, às valas e outros mais particulares como o imposto para a detenção de porcos. Certamente, aqueles que levaram a pior parte no tempo da Roma Imperial foram os escravos (servi) sob domínio e propriedade de seus donos (domini). Me seus tempos de auge, a demanda de escravos em Roma era de 500.000 ao ano. Se compararmos com os 60.000 escravos negros trazidos a América nos anos de maior tráfico, teremos uma ideia mais ou menos exata da magnitude desse triste fenômeno. -/- 5. O CRISTIANISMO E O TRABALHO -/- As mensagens do cristianismo primitivo, são inseridas logo, nesse tempo histórico, onde Roma se tornava o centro das maiores mobilizações de rebeldia da antiguidade. Isaías, nesse sentido, proclamaria que o Messias viria: “[...] a pregar boas novas aos abatidos, a vendar aos quebrantados de coração, a publicar liberdade aos cativos, e aos presos a abertura do cárcere”.(13) Jesus, efetivamente, incluiu em sua missão, mensagens de libertação aos pobres e oprimidos. Porém, ao contrário do supracitado, como bem sinala Eric Roll (1907-2005), dos antigos profetas hebreus, não o faria saudando as comunidades tribais com seu espírito de grupo; mas animado por uma mensagem mais universal e permanente, proclamando uma mudança mais completa e integral na conduta do homem em sociedade, onde os valores de justiça e amor se colocariam em um primeiro plano. Evidentemente, a mensagem do cristianismo primitivo, e mais concretamente de Cristo, distava muito dos filósofos gregos. Deixemos que Roll explique: Temos visto que as doutrinas econômicas de Platão e, em certa medida, de Aristóteles, nasciam da aversão aristocrática ao desenvolvimento do comercialismo e da democracia. Seus ataques contra os males que acarreta o afã de acumular as riquezas são reacionárias: olham para trás, e o de Cristo olha para frente, pois exige uma mudança total, mas relações humanas. Aqueles sonhavam com um estado ideal destinado a proporcionar a “boa vida” para os cidadãos livres unicamente e cujas fronteiras eram as da cidade-estado daquele tempo; Cristo pretendeu falar por todos e para todos os homens. Platão e Aristóteles haviam justificado a escravidão; os ensinamentos de Cristo sobre a fraternidade entre todos os homens e o amor universal eram incompatíveis com a ideia da escravidão, apesar das opiniões expostas depois por São Tomás de Aquino. Os filósofos gregos, interessados somente pelos cidadãos, sustentaram opiniões muito rígidas sobre a diferente dignidade das classes de trabalho, e consideravam as ocupações servis, com exceção da agricultura, como próprias apenas para os escravos. Cristo, ao dirigir-se aos trabalhadores de seu tempo, proclamou pela primeira vez a dignidade de todas as classes de trabalho, assim materiais como espirituais (1942. p. 42 – Tradução própria). Não pode escapar desse estudo, o fato de que o próprio Jesus Cristo herdou o ofício de carpinteiro de seu “Pai” José; e que escolheu seus discípulos entre os pescadores e artesãos da região. Essa visão primitiva do cristianismo, no entanto, deve ser analisada no quadro das escrituras sagradas do Antigo Testamento que compartilha com a cultura (e obviamente a religião) hebraica. Nesse sentido, o trabalho não deixa de ser um meio, descartando-se como um fim em si mesmo. Mas, agora atribuindo-lhe um novo valor, sempre em tento um meio para um fim virtuoso: o trabalho será fundamental para permitir a satisfação das necessidades de cada um, mas também seus frutos, deverão ser inseridos em uma dimensão comunitária, onde o “próximo” necessitado esperará a contribuição fraterna e solidária do cristão. O trabalho, nessa perspectiva, não só possibilita o “tomar”, mas também o “dar”. Em relação a dupla perspectiva, é onde podemos entender a crítica do cristianismo a acumulação da riqueza. Como aponta o evangelista Mateus, “acumular o tesouro no céu, onde nem a traça nem a ferrugem os consomem, e onde os ladrões não perfuram nem roubam. Onde está o seu tesouro está seu coração”. (14) Com São Paulo se incorpora um novo componente valioso: a obrigatoriedade moral do trabalho. Em sua carta aos Tessalonicenses dita claramente “ao que não trabalha que não coma”. Diz São Paulo: Vocês sabem em que forma têm que nos imitar: nós trabalhamos enquanto estivemos entre vocês, não pedimos a ninguém um pão que não teríamos ganhado, senão que, de noite e dia, trabalhamos duramente até nos cansarmos, para não ser carga para nenhum de vocês [...] Além disso, quando estávamos com vocês lhes demos está regra: se alguém não quiser trabalhar, não coma. Mas agora ouvimos que há entre vocês alguns que vivem sem nenhuma disciplina e não fazem nada, muito ocupados em meter-se em tudo. A estes lhes mandamos e lhes rogamos, por Cristo Jesus, nosso Senhor, que trabalhem tranquilos para ganhar a vida (II Tes. 3:10). Essa frase, entendida somente no contexto de uma sociedade donde não existia um conceito de desemprego tal como entendemos atualmente, é curiosamente reproduzida pelo modelo soviético em pleno século XX. Com efeito, a Constituição da União Soviética estabeleceu em seu Artigo 12: “O trabalho é, na Rússia, uma questão de dever e de honra para todo cidadão fisicamente capaz. Essa obrigação é baseada no princípio: “quem não trabalha não come”. (15)(16) Para São Paulo, o trabalho deve ser o meio para ganhar a vida. Ele quis ser exemplo e enquanto pregava continuava trabalhando, presumivelmente como tecelão de tendas. A obrigatoriedade moral se aplica na medida em que a pessoa está em condições de o fazer. Para os incapacitados a fazê-lo (idosos, crianças, deficientes, doentes, acidentados etc.) existia a obrigatoriedade do socorro segundo a máxima do amor (ágape) ao próximo. Essas sentenças morais têm hoje em dia uma importante quota de explicação para com as contemporâneas políticas sociais. -/- 6. O TRABALHO NA IDADE MÉDIA -/- A Idade Média, período que ocupa desde o crepúsculo do Império Romano do Ocidente no século V pelos bárbaros, até o século XV, com a queda de Constantinopla, evidentemente mostra um conjunto importante de escolas e pensadores que marcaram pautas importantes para discernir o valor do trabalho nas diferentes culturas. A organização econômica mais visível nestes mil anos, onde operou o trabalho, consistia em extensões grandes de latifúndios errados do Império Romano (o sistema econômico denominado feudalismo), onde (mediante a falta de escravos) recorreu-se à mão de obra camponesa para o trabalho. O sistema, implicava o arrendamento de parte dessas terras a ex-escravos ou homens livres, em troca de uma renda em dinheiro e espécies, além do cultivo das próprias terras senhoriais. Por certo, a figura do servo não distava muito da do escravo se tivermos em conta as condições de funcionamento do contrato de trabalho. O comércio também teve seu lugar no sistema feudal, o mesmo adquiriu grande importância em certas regiões ou lugares, à exemplo de Constantinopla. A atividade econômica seguia seu rumo na história, e depois dos séculos IX e X, o crescimento das forças produtivas deu lugar a uma maior acumulação por parte de componentes e artesãos e, por certo, a uma maior apropriação de excedentes por parte do Senhor feudal. Essa situação foi ativante para a construção dos primeiros Burgos ou cidades, onde o comércio e a indústria artesanal teriam um marco mais adequado para o seu desenvolvimento. Essa é a etapa do nascimento dos primeiros grêmios corporativos (17). Então para o século XII, a estrutura feudal começa a desmoronar porque a produção de determinados bens começa a ser mais eficiente em cidades e não no feudo. O dinheiro, então, passou a ganhar maior peso que a terra, o que obriga os senhores feudais a aumentar seus rendimentos. Isso leva a um empobrecimento lógico dos camponeses, o que não dura muito, porque na primeira metade do século XIV, a maior parte dos servos alcança sua liberdade. Por sua vez, nessa apertada síntese da história econômica da Idade Média, devemos assinalar que pelo século XIV, e depois das Cruzadas e o posterior desenvolvimento do comércio internacional entre os impérios arábico e bizantino, inaugura-se uma etapa pré-capitalista que durará três séculos. É lá que se levanta mais energética a voz de alguns homens da Igreja contra a tendência à exaltação da riqueza já começava a avivar-se na Europa. São Tomás de Aquino, nesse sentido, não considerará ao comércio pré-capitalista bom ou natural. No entanto, ele o julgava inevitável uma vez que era o meio ao qual o comerciante tinha que manter a sua família. Dessa forma, os lucros do comércio não era outra coisa senão o fruto do trabalho. Se tratava, então, de colocar o acento na justiça da mudança efetuada, para o qual Aquino recorre a Aristóteles, cuja análise sobre o valor de mudança é figurado no seu estudo da Justiça. Muitos padres da Igreja, desde então, pretenderam formular um conceito de “preço justo”. Nesse sentido, o Cristianismo apresenta uma evolução do seu pensamento sobre o comércio que partia de uma visão absolutamente contrária ao começo da Idade Média (Santo Agostinho (354-430), São Jerônimo (347-420) etc.), a outra mais transacionável, que acompanhou, sobretudo, o pensamento de Aquino. Algo similar ocorreu com outro dos “preceitos” da Igreja em matéria econômica: a usura. Esta era considerada pela igreja como a melhor forma de obter lucro. O mesmo evangelista Lucas (século I d.C.) foi categórico ao rejeitar essa linha de operações. A lei hebraica também fez isso, e podemos encontrar no livro do Êxodo (22,25) tal proibição a respeito. Mais atrás no tempo, há antecedentes de condenação à usura entre os hindus (Rigveda, cerca de 1500 a.C.) e budistas (século VI d.C.), além do Islã mais próximo do nosso tempo (século VI d.C.). Ao princípio da Idade Média, como testemunha Roll, a proibição somente alcançava a Igreja, já que o escasso desenvolvimento mercantil não merecia outra coisa. No final da Idade Média, no entanto, que a situação é outra; e a prática secular foi orientada no sentido de promover o empréstimo de dinheiro cobrando por isso um juro. Alarmada ante esses fatos, a Igreja condena mais uma vez a usura no Terceiro Concílio de Latrão de 1179. No mesmo escreveu e ensinou São Tomé (século I d.C.) e outros discípulos da Igreja. No entanto, as práticas econômicas foram minando a autoridade eclesial e está terminou, através de sucessivas etapas, por aceitar, em certas condições e sob certas circunstâncias, a cobrança de juros sobre a concessão de um empréstimo. Em tal sentido, um dos autores mais representativos só início da Idade Média foi Santo Agostinho. Foi este um dos pilares, em seu tempo, das noções “anticapitalistas” que foram seguidas e complementadas por homens do tamanho de São João (347-407), São Ambrósio (340-397), São Clemente (150-215), São Cipriano (200-258) entre outros. (18) Santo Agostinho valoriza o trabalho recordando em tal sentido a São Paulo, a que cita com muita frequência em seus textos. Segundo o Bispo de Hipona, todo trabalho manual é bom pelas razões dadas pelo cristianismo primitivo. Concilia, além disso, seu dualismo platônico, ao sustentar que enquanto o homem trabalha tem a alma livre, de modo que é perfeitamente compatível pensar em Deus ao mesmo tempo em que se trabalha. Essa particular sintonia entre o trabalho e a oração foi perfeitamente posta a prova pelos monges beneditinos, cujo lema “Ora Et Labora” (orar e trabalhar) é paradigmático. “Trabalha e não desesperes” dizia seu fundador, São Bento de Núrsia (480-547), de seus monastérios distribuídos em um primeiro momento a Subiaco, no início do século VI. Também corresponde a São Bento uma sentença que perdura até o dia de hoje no imaginário moral sobre o trabalho: “Otiositas inimica est animae” (a ociosidade é inimiga da alma), tal qual diz uma expressão popular castelhana: “el ocio es la madre de todos los vicios” (o ócio é a mãe de todos os vícios). Tomás de Aquino, alguns séculos depois, continua a reflexão sobre o trabalho e estabelece uma hierarquia de profissões, onde localiza o trabalho agrícola e artesanal acima do comercial. Uma quota de originalidade na história do pensamento sobre o trabalho consistiu em considerá-lo como uma obrigação somente se necessário para subsistir; ou dito de outra maneira: quem não tem necessidade de trabalhar não tem que fazê-lo. Isso sim, à falta de trabalho, devia dedicar-se à oração e contemplação divina, atividades por certo mais elevadas para o autor da Suma Teológica. Logo, considerará que Deus é a causa primária, a que tudo deve a sua existência; por derivação, o homem é causa segunda, procurando atreves do trabalho “criar” em suas dimensões humanas. “Entre todas as formas com que a criatura humana tenta realizar a semelhança divina, não há outra de relevo mais destacado que a de trabalhar, isto é, ser em o mundo causa novos efeitos”, disse o Santo. (19) Aquino, além disso, utilizando categorias platônicas, hierarquiza o trabalho, considerando o intelectual acima do manual. Chama “artes servis” a estes últimos, enquanto que o trabalho intelectual corresponde ao conjunto das “artes liberais”, dignas de maior remuneração ao fazer uso da inteligência. Esta distinção própria da Escolástica, dá lugar à divisão clássica entre as 7 artes liberais: o Trívium (gramática, retórica e dialética) e quadrivium (astronomia, geometria, aritmética e música). Outras contribuições de São Aquino têm a ver com sua posição diante do trabalho agrícola ao qual o considera como o melhor meio para assegurar a subsistência de um povo; a maior importância dada à vida contemplativa sobre a ativa, embora considerando a primeira como “laboriosa”; sua posição sobre a escravidão, que não considerava como natural, no entanto, entendê-la “útil”(20); e sua interpretação sobre o contrato de trabalho: neste, o operário não vende a si mesmo, nem seu corpo, nem sua inteligência, nem sequer sua faculdade de trabalho. Isso significa que o Direito Natural proíbe considerar o trabalho como um objeto de mudança. Propõe, em vez disso, considerar o contrato como um arrendamento de serviço. Em termos gerais, a valorização que sobre o trabalho se realiza na Idade Média, rebaixando ao trabalho manual em relação a outras tarefas, fica explícita na divisão tripartida que recorre, entre outros, Adalberão Bispo de Laon (947-1030): “Triplex Dei ergo domus est quae Creditor uma nunca oran, alii pugnat, Aliique laborant” (ternária é a casa do Senhor e não uma: aqui sobre a terra uns oram, outros lutam e outros trabalham). Não gostaria de deixar passar por alto, finalmente, entre os movimentos originados na Idade Média, a contribuição que sobre o tema do trabalho teve a ordem franciscana. Essa, contra o que muitos podem crer, é uma ordem não mendicante no sentido estrito, mas sim trabalhadora e de pobreza. São Francisco de Assis (1181/82-1226), no final do século XII, marcaria como ninguém dentro do cristianismo, uma vida ascética baseada no trabalho e na pobreza. Inclui, além disso, um elemento pela primeira vez descoberto na cultura europeia: o sentido da alegria que acompanha o trabalho. “Essa condição de 'suor de sua testa' com 'a alegria de seu coração' outorga ao trabalho uma condição diferenciada”. Avançando então na história da humanidade, entramos na época moderna, caracterizada por cinco grandes eventos: -/- 1. A decadência do poder moral da Igreja e o enfraquecimento de seu poder econômico frente ao da crescente burguesia; -/- 2. O renascimento intelectual e artístico; -/- 3. As viagens paras as índias e a descoberta da América; -/- 4. A formação e a constituição dos Estados-nação; -/- 5. As reformas religiosas de Lutero (1483-1546) e Calvino (1509-1564). -/- Nesse contexto, os séculos XV e XVI mostraram como o mercantilismo ia avançando apesar dos esforços de alguns pensadores da Igreja que eventualmente perderam o pulso diante do desenrolar dos acontecimentos. Sucessivas encíclicas papais terminaram por legitimar o interesse nos empréstimos e, por meio desta, levou-se a maior acumulação de riquezas por parte dos banqueiros. Esse foi o meio ideal para o desenvolvimento da atividade do mercador, para quem, o trabalho passou a ser considerado um meio para obter sucesso. Ao dinamizar-se a atividade econômica e mercantil, a visão humanista do trabalho começa a perder valor, realçando-se ao mesmo como um simples meio para fins de enriquecimento. Talvez a exceção a essa noção estendida entre os novos atores tenha sido a proporcionada pelo humanismo renascentista. Para Campanella (1568-1639), por exemplo, sua “Cidade solar”, não existe o divórcio entre trabalho manual e intelectual, isso quando o segundo começa a ser supervalorizado por sua ação no plano das invenções e das novas técnicas.(22) Na mesma linha se situa Thomas More (1478-1535), o autor de “Utopia”, outra reação do cristianismo às projeções que estava adquirindo o cada vez mais influente mercantilismo. Embora o trabalho não seja considerado como um mau, pelo contrário, apresenta características humanizadoras, é sugestivo comprovar como em Utopia a jornada do trabalho não supera as seis horas diárias e na Cidade solar não se devia trabalhar mais que quatro horas. Indubitavelmente, essas versões de sociedades ideais terminariam por impactar sobre maneira a constituição das Missões Jesuítas na América do Sul; e as Franciscanas na Baixa Califórnia. É o Renascimento, o lugar propício, além disso, para renovar o conceito da virtuosidade, agora traduzida na figura do empresário ou financista audacioso e empreendedor. Essa linha foi reforçada logo por Calvino, para quem os negócios são um bom serviço a Deus, e a riqueza não é mais que um fruto de uma vida dedicada ao trabalho desde uma perspectiva ética que analisarei com Weber mais tarde, mas que confere ao trabalho a particularidade de ser um caminho para o sucesso. Esse puritanismo impulsionou sobremaneira a versão do “homo economicus” que mais tarde, em pleno auge do capitalismo pós-industrial, ao qual, segundo Daniel Bell (1919-2011), fora substituído pelos valores hedonistas. -/- REFERENCIAL TEÓRICO AGOSTINHO. Cidade de Deus: contra os pagãos. Trad. O. P. Leme. 2ª ed. Bragança Paulista: Editora Universitária, 2008. (Col. Pensamento humano). _____________. O livre-arbítrio. Trad. N. A. Oliveira. 1ª ed. São Paulo: Paulus, 1995. AQUINO, T. de. Suma Teológica. 2ª ed. São Paulo: Loyola, 2001. ARENDT, H. A condição humana. Trad. Roberto Raposo. Posfácio de Celso Lafer. 10ª ed. Rio de Janeiro: Forense Universitária, 2007. ARISTÓTELES. Política. Trad. A. C. Amaral e Carlos Gomes. 1ª ed. Lisboa: Vega, 1998. ARVON, H. A filosofia do trabalho. Trad. João Carlos Cunha. 1ª ed. Lisboa: Socicultur, 1961. AUGUSTI, J. C. W. Corpus Librorum symbolicorum. 1ª ed. Elberfeldi, 1827. BAVA, A. C. Introdução a sociologia do trabalho. 1ª ed. São Paulo: Ática, 1990. BÍBLIA SAGRADA. Trad. J. F. Almeida. Rio de Janeiro: King Cross, 2008. BOMENY, H. et al. Tempos modernos, tempos de sociologia. 2ª ed. São Paulo: Editora do Brasil, 2013. CAMUS, A. O mito de Sísifo. In: FALABRETTI, E.; OLIVEIRA, J. Filosofia: o livro das perguntas. 1ª ed. Curitiba: IESDE, 2011. ELDERS, L. J. O Pensamento de Santo Tomás de Aquino sobre o Trabalho. Trad. D. N. Pêcego. Aquinat, n° 9, (2009), 2-12. ISBN 1808-5733. FOSSIER, R. O trabalho na Idade Média. Trad. Marcelo Barreiro. 1ª ed. Petrópolis: Vozes, 2019. FRIEDMANN, G.; NAVILLE, P. Tratado de Sociologia do Trabalho. 1ª ed. São Paulo: Cultrix, 1973. HERZOG, J. S. Historia del pensamiento económico-social: de la antigüedad al siglo XVI. 4ª ed. México: FCE, 1939. HOPENHAYN, M. El Trabajo, itinerario de um concepto. 1ª ed. Santiago: PET, 1988. _________________. Repensar el trabajo – Historia, profusión y perspectivas de un concepto. 1ª ed. Buenos Aires: Norma, 2001. LUDWIG, E. Stalin. 1ª ed. Rio de Janeiro: Calvino, 1943. MACHADO, I. J. de R.; AMORIM, H. J. D.; BARROS, C. R. de. Sociologia hoje. 1ª ed. São Paulo: Ática, 2013. MERCURE, D.; SPURK, J. (Orgs.). O Trabalho na história do pensamento Ocidental. Petrópolis: Vozes, 2005. NOGUERA, J. A. El concepto de trabajo y la teoría social crítica. Barcelona: Papers, 2002. O'CONNOR, D. J. Historia crítica de la filosofía occidental. Tomo I – La filosofía en la antigüidad. 1ª ed. Buenos Aires: Paidós, 1967. OLIVEIRA, P. S. de. Introdução a sociologia. 24ª ed. São Paulo: Ática, 2001. PLATÃO. A República. 2ª ed. São Paulo: Martin Claret, 2000. (Col. A obra-prima de cada autor). _______. Político. Trad. J. C. de Souza, J. Paleikat e J. C. Costa. 2ª ed. São Paulo: Abril Cultural, 1983. (Col. Os Pensadores). ROLL, E. Historia de las doctrinas económicas. 1ª ed. México: FCE, 1942. SIMÓN, Y. R. Work, society and culture. 1ª ed. Nova Iorque: Fordham University Press, 1971. SILVA, A. et al. Sociologia em movimento. 2ª ed. São Paulo: Moderna, 2016. THE ZONDERVAN CORPORATION (Ed.). A História – a bíblia contada como uma só história do começo ao fim. Trad. Fabiano Morais. 1ª ed. Rio de Janeiro: Sextante, 2012. (shrink)

Antes de entrar cuidadosamente no estudo de cada filósofo, em suas respectivas ordens cronológicas, é necessário dar um panorama geral sobre eles, permitindo, de relance, a localização deles em tempos históricos e a associação de seus nomes com sua teoria ou tema central. l. OS FILÓSOFOS PRÉ-SOCRÁTICOS - No sétimo século antes de Jesus Cristo, nasce o primeiro filósofo grego: Tales de Mileto2 . Ele e os seguintes filósofos jônicos (Anaximandro: Ἀναξίμανδρος: 3 610-546 a.C.) e Anaxímenes: (Άναξιμένης: 586-524 a.C.) tentaram (...) expressar/elucidar o que é a arché, ou constitutivo fundamental do Universo. 4 Também sobressaem as teorias de Pitágoras (Ὁ Πυθαγόρας: 570 a.C.- 495 a.C.), completas de misticismo e Matemática; a de Heráclito (Ἡράκλειτος ὁ Ἐφέσιος: 540-470 a.C.), o filósofo do devir e o de seu oponente, Parmênides (Παρμενίδης: 530-460 a.C.), que elucida a primeira teoria do ser, e para qual é alcunhado como o iniciador da Metafísica. Anaxágoras (Ἀναξαγόρας: 500 a.C.- 428 a.C.) esboça uma teoria sobre o Nous, o espírito divino. Por outro lado, Demócrito (Δημόκριτος: Grécia: 460-370 a.C.) e Empédocles (Ἐμπεδοκλῆς: 490 a.C.-430 a.C.) insistem no materialismo. Em contrapartida, os sofistas (Parmênides, Cálicles (Καλλικλῆς: personagem platônico cuja existência é duvidosa) e Górgias (Γοργίας: 485 a.C.-380 a.C.)) gozam das suas aptidões à dialética, e colocam o relativismo como uma posição filosófica. Sócrates será o inimigo mais temível dessa posição. Este é o começo do movimento filosófico de Atenas, que culmina nos séculos quinto e quarto, tal qual, posteriormente, veremos. 2. O APOGEU GREGO – Sócrates (Σωκράτης: 469 a.C.-399 a.C.), Platão (Πλάτων: 428/427- 348/347 a.C.) e Aristóteles (Ἀριστοτέλης: 384 a.C.-322 a.C.) formam o triunvirato dos grandes filósofos gregos. O primeiro (Sócrates), com seu método "maiêutico" e sua teoria do conceito; o segundo (Platão), com sua teoria das ideias e seu estilo literário (dialogista); e o terceiro (Aristóteles), com a estruturação dos principais ramos filosóficos, como a Lógica, a Metafísica, a Ética, a Psicologia racional e a Política; todos eles elevaram a Filosofia para um posto de primeira ordem. Doravante, todos os filósofos tornam-se credores das contribuições desses gênios. Em certos autores, é clara a influência de Platão ou de Aristóteles. Sendo que, ambos os filósofos, tiveram influência absoluta de Sócrates, uma vez que Platão fora seu discípulo, e Aristóteles discípulo de Platão. A Idade Média, por exemplo, foi toda ela, em sua gênese e desenvolvimento, alicerçada no pensamento e nas ideias platônicas; tal era histórica é caracterizada pela luta em favor de um ou de outro autor; o platonismo tomou precedência nos primeiros séculos do cristianismo; somente após o décimo século Aristóteles foi redescoberto. 3. A FILOSOFIA CRISTÃ MEDIEVAL - Santo Agostinho (354 a.C.-430 a.C.) se destaca, no quinto século, com sua teoria da iluminação e a aplicação da teoria platônica ao Cristianismo. No século XIII, São Tomás de Aquino (1225-1274), sintetiza Aristóteles com o Cristianismo. Os dois autores formam o núcleo da filosofia cristã em seus respectivos séculos. A escolástica teve seu tempo de decadência. Se mencionam, principalmente, dois autores: João Duns Escoto (1266-1308) e Guilherme de Ockham (1285-1347). O primeiro é o "Doutor Sutil ", e o segundo cai em um fideísmo e um nominalismo, para todos os conceitos criticáveis. Em uma segunda parte, tentaremos explicar os respectivos pensamentos dos autores mencionados, e outros que pertencem ao mesmo tempo, antigos e medievais. Naquela época, a Filosofia era puramente realista, aplicada ao mundo e ao homem. Somente na Idade Moderna, a Filosofia assumirá o problema do conhecimento como a base e o começo de todo filosofar. 4. A FILOSOFIA RACIONALISTA (MODERNA) - Na Idade Moderna, sobressai o racionalismo de Descartes (1596-1650) prolongado, então, com Malebranche (1638-1715) (ocasionalismo), Espinosa (1632 -1677) (panteísmo) e Leibniz (1646-1716) (teoria das mônadas). Estamos nos séculos XVII e XVIII. A atenção será focada nas disputas filosóficas da corrente empirista contra a racionalista. 5. A FILOSOFIA EMPIRISTA – O empirismo é florescido, principalmente, na Inglaterra. Francis Bacon (1561-1626), primeiro, e depois Locke (1632-1704) com sua rejeição de ideias inatas, Berkeley (1685-1753) com postura e ideias paradoxais, também idealistas e Hume (1711-1776), com suas famosas críticas contra o princípio da causalidade e o conceito de substância, são os principais autores. 6. KANT E OS IDEALISTAS ALEMÃES - Como a tentativa de sintetizar o racionalismo e empirismo, está a teoria de Kant (1724-1804), no século XVIII. Para o seu gênio seguido pelos três idealistas alemães mais importantes: Fichte (1762-1814) (idealismo subjetivo), Schelling (1775-1854) (idealismo objetivo) e Hegel (1770-1831) (idealismo absoluto). Esses Autores representam o ápice da especulação filosófica. A análise, a profundidade, a complexidade da expressão e o espírito sistemático são as características do gênio alemão idealista. 7. OS FILÓSOFOS DO SÉCULO XIX - Antes de tudo, é necessário mencionar, no século dezenove, aos dois grandes críticos de Hegel, que são Kierkegaard (1813-1855) (precursor do existencialismo) e Marx (1818-1883) (com seu materialismo dialético). O próximo é outro casal: Nietzsche (1844-1900) (teoria do Super-homem) e Schopenhauer (1788-1860) (com seu absoluto pessimismo). Comte (1798-1857) com sua doutrina positivista, completará o quadro desses filósofos. Numa outra oportunidade, vamos desmembrar sobre o pensamento e principais ideias acerca desses autores. 8. OS FILÓSOFOS DO SÉCULO XX - Antes de tudo, há um autor que iluminou a filosofia do século XX: Edmund Husserl (1859-1938), fundador do método fenomenológico. Em seguida, existem dois fluxos que são derivados diretamente de Husserl, a saber, o existencialismo e a axiologia. Dentro da corrente axiológica, estudaremos Scheler (1874-2928). Por outro lado, o existencialismo tem quatro autores principais; dois são alemães: Heidegger (1889-1976) e Jaspers (1883-1969); e os demais são franceses: Sartre (1905-1980) e Marcel (1889-1973). Heidegger insiste em que seu tema tratado em sua filosofia não é a unicidade do homem, mas o ser em geral. Jaspers é famoso por seu conceito de transcendência (Deus). Sartre é um antiteísta sincero, e seu existencialismo é definido como um pensamento que assume todas as consequências da negação de Deus. Em contraste, Gabriel Marcel é um filósofo Católico, que conseguiu uma análise profunda das situações humanas, que aparecem em íntima concordância com as verdades cristãs. Vamos terminar com Russell (1872-1970), autor básico do positivismo lógico. Cronologia de filósofos e suas escolas até nossos dias ➢ Filosofia Antiga - Escola naturalista da Jônia: Tales, Anaximandro e Anaxímenes; - Escola matemática da Itália: Pitágoras e os pitagóricos; - Escola idealista de Eléia: Xenófanes (570-475 a.C.), Parmênides, Zenão (490/85-420 a.C.) e Meliso (h.443); - Escola empirista: Heráclito, Empédocles e Anaxágoras; - Escola atomista de Abdera: Leucipo (h.437) e Demócrito; - Escolas de Atenas: - Sofistas: Protágoras (480-410), Górgias (484-375?); Sócrates, Platão e Aristóteles; - Pirronismo: Pirro (h.365-h.275); - Estoicismo: Zenão de Cítio (359/33-262) e Crisipo (281/77-208); - Epicurismo: Epicuro (341-270); - Nova Academia: Arcesilau (315-241) e Carnéades (214-129); Romanos: Sêneca (4 a.C.-65 d.C.), Marco Aurélio (121-180) e Cícero (106-43). - Escola greco-judia: Fílon de Alexandria (25 a.C.-50 d.C.); - Neoplatonismo: Plotino (204/5-270), Porfirio (h.233-304), Jâmblico (h.250-330) e Proclo (h.411-485). ➢ Filosofia patrística - Apologistas: São Justino (100/10-165), Ireneu de Lyon (h.140-h.l 77) e Atenágoras (fines s. II); - Alexandrinos: São Clemente (h.145/50-215) e Orígenes (h.185-255); - Africanos: Tertuliano (h.160-230), Arnóbio (h.260-h.327) e Lactâncio (nascido h. 250); - Gregos: São Basílio (h.330-379), São Gregório de Nazianzo (330-390), São Gregório de Níssa (330-390) e Pseudo-Dionísio (h.500); - Latinos: São Hilário (h.315-367), Santo Ambrósio (333-397) e Santo Agostinho; - Outros: Claudiano (+h.473), Boécio (480-524), São Isidoro (h.560-633) e Beda (672/3-735). ➢ Filosofia Medieval/Escolástica - Judeus: Isaac Israeli (+h.940), Salomão Ibn Gabirol (h.l020-p.l058) e Maimônides (1135- 1204); - Árabes: Alquindi (h. 796-874), Al-Farabi (870-950), Avicena (980-1037), Algazali (1058- 1111) e Averróis (1126-1198); - Escola palatina: Alcuíno de Iorque (730/5-804), Rábano Mauro (h.784-856), Escoto Erígena (h.810-h.870) e Papa Silvestre II (+1003); - Dialéticos: Santo Anselmo (1033/4-1109) e Pedro Abelardo (1079-1142); - Tradutores: Domingo Gundisalvo (meados s. XII), Gerardo de Cremona (h. 1114-1187); - Enciclopedistas: Teodorico de Chartres (+1155), Hugo de São Vitor (+1141) e Vicente de Beauvais (+1264); - Universidades: Guilherme de Auvergne (1180- 1249) e Sigerio de Brabante (+h.l284); - Dominicanos: São Alberto Magno (1206-1280) e Santo Tomás de Aquino; - Franciscanos: Alexandre de Hales (1170/80-1245), São Boaventura (1217-1274), Roger Bacon (h.1210/14-1292), João Duns Escoto, Raimundo Lulio (1235-1315) e Guilherme de Ockham (h.1285-1349). ➢ Filosofia Moderna - Humanistas Renascentistas: Ficino (1433-1499), Erasmo (1467-1536), Maquiavel (1469- 1527), Thomas More (1480-1535), Juan Luis Vives (1492-1540) e Giordano Bruno (1548- 1600); - Racionalismo: Descartes, Malebranche, Espinosa e Leibniz; - Empiristas: Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), Locke, Berkeley e Hume; - Escola escocesa: Thomas Reid (1710-1796); Iluministas: Voltaire (1694-1778), Condillac (1715-1757), Diderot (1713-1784) e J. J. Rousseau (1712-1778). - Idealismo transcendental: Kant; - Idealismo subjetivo: Fichte; - Idealismo objetivo: Schelling; - Idealismo absoluto: Hegel; - Pessimismo: Schopenhauer; - Ecletismo: Cousin (1792-1867); - Positivismo: A. Comte, J. S. Mill (1806-1873) e H. Spencer (1820-1900); - Socialismo: H. Saint-Simon (1760-1825), Ch. Fourier (1772-1837) e K. Marx; - Vitalismo: Nietzsche e W. Dilthey (1833-1912). ➢ Filosofia Contemporânea - Intucionismo: H. Bergson (1859-1941); - Pragmatismo: Ch. S. Peirce (1839-1914), W. James (1842-1910) e J. Dewey (1859-1952); - Fenomenologia: Husserl, Scheler, N. Hartmann (1882-1950) e M. Merleau-Ponty (1908- 1961); - Existencialismo: Jaspers, Heidegger, Marcel e Sartre; - Atomismo lógico: B. Russell (1872-1970) e L. Wittgenstein (1889-1951); - Positivismo lógico: M. Schlick (1882-1936), R. Carnap (1891-1970 ) e A. J. Ayer (1910- 1990). - Filosofia analítica: J. L. Austin (1911-1960), G. Ryle (1900-1976), W.V.O. Quine (1908- 2000), P. F. Strawson (1919-2003) e H. Putnam (1926-); - Hermenêutica: H. G. Gadamer (1900-2002), P. Ricoeur (1913-2007) e J. Habermas (1929-). - Estruturalismo e pós-estruturalismo: F. de Saussure (1857-1913), C. Lévi-Strauss (1908- 2009) e M. Foucault (1926-1984). - Filosofia pós-moderna: J. F. Lyotard (1924-1999), G. Deleuze (1925-1995), J. Derrida (1930- 2004), R. Rorty (1931-2007) e G. Vattimo (1936-). - Comunitaristas: A. Maclntyre (1929-), Ch. Taylor (1931-). REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS CHAUÍ, M. Iniciação à Filosofia. Vol. Único. 2ª ed. São Paulo: Ática, 2013. 460 p. SANTOS, R. dos. Filosofia: Uma breve introdução. 1ª ed. Pelotas: Dissertativo Incipiens, 2014. 108 p. . Rua do Riachuelo, 303, Centro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ Casa Histórica de Osório CEP: 20230-011 E-mail: [email protected]. (shrink)

In 1889, the German philologist Friedrich Blass isolated a section of Chapter 20 from Iamblichus’ Exhortation to Philosophy (mid- or late 3rd Century CE) as an extract from a lost sophistic or philosophical treatise from the late 5th Century BCE. In this article, I introduce the text, which is now known as 'Anonymus Iamblichi' (or 'the anonymous work preserved in Iamblichus') by appeal to its two main contexts (source preservation and original historical composition), translate and discuss all eight surviving fragments (...) in their entirety, and provide some closing remarks about its importance to this history of democratic thought. The text itself presents a series of very carefully interwoven arguments concerning the three “parts” of excellence (ἀρετή) – wisdom, courage, and eloquence – and their successful application in society. In the course of presenting this case, Anonymus Iamblichi comments on the conditions under which one should learn to be excellent (Fragments 1-2) and the ends to which one should direct one’s excellence (Fragments 3-4); he provides an anthropological discussion of the weaknesses of human psychology and its effects on the good man (Fragments 5-6) and an hypothetical thought experiment concerning the “Superman” (which naturally solicits comparison with Nietzsche’s übermensch) and his inability to overcome the multitude in a lawless state (Fragments 6 and 8); and a positive defense of law and justice, reflecting a pro-democratic philosophical perspective (Fragments 7-8) – a rara avis indeed in ancient philosophy. (shrink)

The behavior/structure methodological dichotomy as locus of scientific inquiry is closely related to the issue of modeling and theory change in scientific explanation. Given that the traditional tension between structure and behavior in scientific modeling is likely here to stay, considering the relevant precedents in the history of ideas could help us better understand this theoretical struggle. This better understanding might open up unforeseen possibilities and new instantiations, particularly in what concerns the proposed technological modification of the human condition. The (...) sequential structure of this paper is twofold. The contribution of three philosophers better known in the humanities than in the study of science proper are laid out. The key theoretical notions interweaving the whole narrative are those of mechanization, constructability and simulation. They shall provide the conceptual bridge between these classical thinkers and the following section. Here, a panoramic view of three significant experimental approaches in contemporary scientific research is displayed, suggesting that their undisclosed ontological premises have deep roots in the Western tradition of the humanities. This ontological lock between core humanist ideals and late research in biology and nanoscience is ultimately suggested as responsible for pervasively altering what is canonically understood as “human”. (shrink)