PHIL 2010-a: Sophists, Socrates & Plato

Skepticism

The epistemological view that no knowledge is possible. There are less strict versions which might assert the softer position that little to no reliable knowledge is possible. A radical/strict skeptic would hold that "nothing is certain", including the claim that "nothing is certain" is not certain.

[Note: There is also a metaphysical skepticism position which affirms that nothing is real and nothing exists. All of our experience and reasoning according to this position would be illusion.]

What do Sophists think are the keys to success?

The skills of rhetoric, debate, public speaking and persuasion. They taught that you should not ask, "Is it true?" Instead, you should ask, "Will advocating this idea help me?" One should not search for truth or knowledge, but rather one should promote one's own opinions and interests regardless of their truth or knowledge which don't exist for sophists.

Physis vs. Nomos

This ancient Greek distinction became important during the time of the Sophists. "Physis" means nature and was associated with the ultimate natural reality of the world which exist independently of all human creations. Our word "physics" is derived from physis.

Nomos refers to all the humanly created conventions and customs that make up human-made society (in contrast with pre-existing nature).

All the sophists agreed and affirmed that morality was based on Nomos, not Physis/Nature as was previsously thought. If morality is based on conventions created by humans, then this leads the sophists to also affirm "Relativism" (see other card). The sophists also thought language was based on Nomos, not physis which also leads to the relativity of language.

Socrates, Plato and Aristotle would, however side with Physis and still argue that morality is based on Nature or Human nature and not human-created conventions. They would also affirm language is connected to nature and reality and is not only or simply a relativistic creation of humans.

Protagoras

A famous sophist who asserted "Man is the measure of all things...." This implies that there are no objective standards of knowledge and instead "all things" are either relative to the individual or society.

Relativism

The position that there is no standard other than those that individuals or societies invent. These inventions or customs were called "nomos" in ancient greek.

It is important to note that there are many different kinds of relativism which we have not defined yet.

The difference between Moral relativism and cultural relativism is very important for ethics. Epistemological relativism, Subjectivism, perceptual relativism and Einstein's theory of relativity also affirms a space-time relativity.

The Three Main Points or Views Plato is arguing AGAINST

1. Plato argues against the relativism affirmed by the Sophists by arguing in favor of universal knowledge on which societies should be based. "Universal" means (true at all times, even if some people are not aware of it).

2. Plato argues against the confidence and "felt certainty" of sense experience (i.e. this means he is arguing against empiricism). Why? Because the senses can only give to the mind changing temporary physical experiences which having nothing in common with and are distracting from permanent, unchanging, eternal, non-physical knowledge.

3. Plato argues against the view that knowledge is true belief (or correct opinion), but the definition of knowledge must be connected to rational insight coming from within the human not from external sensory experience.

What is one main problem with the relativists view that all opinions are equally true?

The relativists position refutes itself precisely because the relativist believes they are correct in their view and their opponents are wrong in their opinions about knowledge. This means a relativist does not believe all opinions are equally true (which the position of relativism requires) since they believe their own view is a better opinion to have than some other incorrect or worse view.

Empiricism

The epistemological position that all knowledge comes from sense experience.

Reasons Plato rejects sense experience

1. Sense experience only gives the world of constant change. Any claims based on sense perception will change over time and thus cannot be called knowledge (which means something permanent).

2. Understanding is achieved only through universal concepts, not language which is also constantly changing like the world of the senses. The word "circle" cannot be knowledge since the word is subject to change in the future and the word is a changing attempt to represent what does not change (which Plato will call "The Form of the Circle" which are more words, but they point to a metaphysical reality that is beyond words and language.

3. That which is real must be either physical or nonphysical, but justice (or circle) cannot be physical since all physical visible examples or representations of justice or circles will be imperfect and thus not the perfect meaning of justice or circle. Therefore, the conclusion is justice or circle must be nonphysical to be real and objective.

Sophistry (and Sophists)

Sophistry is the art of rhetoric or the skill of speaking well in public. Sophists are the first paid teachers of Ancient Greece who taught others for a fee the art of speaking well in order to be successful ("success" is what the Sophists identified as "virtue"). Plato's dialogues describe philosophers as in a battle with sophists since they frequently disagree in these dialogues. Philosophers are "lovers of wisdom" while sophists appear to be "lovers of opinions", but both philosophers and sophist know how to use words very well which makes them difficult to distinguish and why Socrates was accused of being a sophist though he denied this.

The Socratic Method

Is illustrated in each of the Platonic dialogues. To define the method, one must describe each of the seven stages (which are in the Stages of the Socratic Method pdf file in our course area) humans move through on their way to enlightenment, education, knowledge and wisdom. Lawhead leaves a couple of stages out on page 37, please memorize the stages in the pdf file.

This method relates to epistemology in so far as it is the process whereby recollection and learning is supposed to occur. The process clearly involves questioning, answering, analyzing and revising in conversation between two or more people who want to learn and know more about themselves.

Socratic Ignorance

This is a part of two stages in the Socratic method: Stage 2 where Socrates claims he doesn't know the answer to the question being asked and Stage 5 where the person Socrates is talking to finally admits not knowing because their definitions and explanation are contradictory.

In explaining Socratic Ignorance, it helps to contrast it with "regular" ignorance. The interesting thing about regular ignorance is it is not aware of itself as ignorance. People who are ignorant but think they know are clearly not aware of their own ignorance.

But Socrates is very aware of and emphasizes his own ignorance in such a way that it implies he is wiser than others at least in so far as he knows he is ignorant. Socratic ignorance is an achievement and one level above regular everyday ignorance because Socratic ignorance is aware of itself as ignorance (meaning "I know that I don't know" or "I am aware that I don't know").

In other words, ignorance of one's own ignorance (not knowing what one does not know) is the greatest obstacle to education and the Socratic method. Socratic admission of ignorance is the first step to recollection of knowledge.

What are Platonic FORMS?

Definition: Forms are the objects of knowledge, what you know when you know something and they must have all of the above properties. If you don't know the Form, then you don't have knowledge and you only have opinion or belief.

Properties: All of these following words are pointing to requirements for Knowledge or the properties of FORMS

1. Unchanging

2. Nonphysical (unavailable to the senses which also means invisible, untouchable, unsmellable, unhearable, untastable).

3. Eternal (permanent--follows from unchanging)

4. Universal (as opposed to particulars, particular representations your senses get stuck on)

5. Objective (what is one and the same about all instances of something)

6. Perfect (not imperfect representations)

7. Original (since all representations are copies)

8. Grounded in rational understanding (from reason since unavailable to the senses)

Plato's Theory Forms

The theory that all knowledge is based on FORMS which have all the properties of Forms (listed on the What are Forms? card).

How does one understand FORM?

The answer requires another theory called THE THEORY OF RECOLLECTION. Since Forms are unchanging and eternal, no human can get or understand the Forms from changing sensory experience. No Forms are learned through the use of the human body. What's left then? The human soul. How did the Forms get into the human soul? Plato's Theory affirms that the FORMS has always been in the human soul in the form of INNATE IDEAS OR INNATE KNOWLEDGE.

The theory of recollection is affirming your soul re-collects what it already has when it understands an eternal truth, like the definition of a triangle. The Form of a triangle is eternal and when you understand it (or "recollect it"), you are eternal. It turns out you have always been eternal but you have FORGOTTEN that by believing (not knowing) that you are your body and not your eternal soul.

What is Plato's Divided Line?

Plato's Divided Line is a mathematical image that diagrams in fairly simple way his whole system with both his metaphysical and epistemological views combined.

The most important division in the line to keep in mind first is between the top portion (slightly larger) and the bottom portion. Epistemologically, the upper part represents KNOWLEDGE and the bottom part represents OPINION. Metaphysically, the upper part represents REALITY OF FORMS=INTELLIGIBLE WORLD and the bottom part represents APPEARANCES OF YOUR SENSES=VISIBLE WORLD. As one goes up the line in one's understanding and awareness, one becomes more REAL. If one goes down the line, one becomes less REAL. Fully REALITY or BEING is at the top of the line and complete NONEXISTENCE or NONBEING or NOTHINGNESS is at the bottom of the line.

The Upper Portion of the Divided Line

Is divided between the Lower Forms and the Higher Forms. Examples of lower forms would the understanding of mathematical truths and geometry (like the lower Form of triangle). Higher Forms represents more valuable Forms like those of Justice, Courage and Goodness. The higher forms have to do with QUALITIES that cannot be QUANTIFIED. The lower forms have to do with QUANTITIES, not qualities.

Epistemologically, the lower portion of the upper divided line represents only THINKING or what people nowadays call "Critical Thinking" which is about linear reasoning via arguments and logic. This is kind of knowing, but a higher kind of knowing involves what Plato calls "DIALECTIC" and involves intuitions that occur to you ONLY WHEN YOU ARE THINKING THROUGH OPPOSING POINTS OF VIEW AT THE SAME TIME, as Plato must be doing in order to write dialogues with Socrates as one voice and Sophists as the other voices all being written by and held in Plato's mind at the same time. [This is very hard to do because it involves you facing thoughtfully your opposites both in disagreement and cooperation which The Socrates Game provides you the option to practice the dialectic a bit--though only real human would play the dialectic, Plato affirms.]

The Lower Portion of the Divided Line

In the world of Opinions (which is also describing Plato's famous Allegory of the Cave), beliefs level of value and reality higher than conjecture and imagination. Conjecture is like imaginative guessing with representations of representations as one's basis (i.e. copies of copies of copies). Beliefs at least attempt to use one's direct sensory experience (which isn't really real for Plato) which is slightly better than using "shadows" images or reflections (i.e. TV/internet pictures and videos would could as these shadowy reflections since you don't know whether the videos or images are even accurate, but as least someone who directly experienced them can refer directly to their senses to anchor their beliefs (but this still is not knowledge). Physical objects are APPEARANCES for Plato which means they are less real than the FORMS (of which those Physical Objects are copies). Pictures of physical objects are even less real than the already less real physical objects.

Metaphysical Dualism

The position that there are two completely different KINDS of reality.

Lawhead is controversially affirming Plato is a metaphysical dualist in so far as Plato does affirm a World of Intelligible Unchanging Nonphysical FORMS and a world of Visible Changing Physical Objects. But, other scholars also point out that Plato didn't want to call the lower visible physical world REAL or a kind of REALITY at all, just less valuable experiences or appearances.

One way to navigate the issue to think of DEGREES of REALITY instead your probably usual assumption that something is EITHER REAL OR IT ISN'T REAL. An all or nothing kind of reality. What if something could 54 percent real and 46 percent nothingness? Or how about 87 percent non-being and only 13 percent being? If there are degrees of being, then some things are more real and some less real but they are all on the same singular scale of reality but at different points along the divided line. This wouldn't quite be metaphysical dualism. The definition of Metaphysical dualism is correct above, but whether Plato is one remains arguable and an open question.

Allegory

An allegory is a REPRESENTATION of truths, spiritual meanings, abstract principles regarding human existence by means of characters, figures, their actions and events. It is a symbolic narrative in which everything in the allegory represents something else which the reader must figure out to see the more universal principles being affirmed.

Allegories are kind of meaningless if you don't discuss what you think each part of the allegory means. The allegorical details in Plato's Cave all point to subtle truths and meanings of EDUCATION or ENLIGHTENMENT.

Dialectic vs. Dialogue

Dialogue is an oral or written conversation (like Plato's Meno) which occurs in language. Dialectic is a process of thinking, represented by dialogue, which uses opposing points of view to promote thinking one's way to another point of view. For Plato, this is an "epistemological" dialectic helping us to acquire increasingly higher forms of wisdom.

Socrates method of questioning, the Socratic Method is also known as the dialectic which of course occurs in dialogue, but can occur in other activities as well, not just speaking and writing.

A "metaphysical" view of dialectic is also possible where reality itself moves or evolves through opposing forces, like being and non-being, which clash and this clashing causes a new reality to emerge. This "metaphysical" reading of dialectic is represented more by 19th century philosophers like Hegel and Marx than by Plato.

Why is Plato Against Democracy?

You know the answer to this from the Youtube video. A democracy based of the vote of all citizens is not a society based primarily on knowledge, but on whatever the desires and interests of most people are which are likely going to be tied to bodily desires, pleasures and senses.

It is important to note that contrary to the youtube video, it is not clear that the historic Socrates was as against democracy as Plato's texts suggest Plato was. The historic Socrates willingly subjected himself to democratic law and upheld the democratic legal system of his trial which ended up finding Socrates guilty and executing him. Socrates is much more of a mystery regarding his relation to democracy than Plato because we lack any texts directly written by Socrates. He, for example based on texts of others, also affirmed that it was because of democracy that philosophers had the freedom to start teaching their new activity called "philosophy". Socrates points out that democracy made it possible for him to take philosophy "to the streets" of Athens so to speak. So, from Socrates to Plato, there is a kind of love-hate relation of these two philosophers with democracy.