MSTU4016-08/Discuss 5
From Studyplace
October 1
Interrogating the Past II: From Formula to Concept
- Discussion Question
- How have techniques for defining abstract concepts developed in human experience and what made them possible? Were they historical creations or part of the inborn cognitive endowment of human beings? Did they come naturally, given some minimum of intelligence? Or did they depend on some necessary cultural inventions and if so what ones?
- Discussion leader: TBA
- Required Readings
- Heraclitus, Fragments, Robin Waterfield, trans., The First Philosophers: The Presocratics and Sophists (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000) pp. 32-48. Read
- Protagoras, Fragments, Robin Waterfield, trans., The First Philosophers: The Presocratics and Sophists (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000) pp. 205-21. Read
- Map of the Pre-Socratic Philosophers
- Map of Ancient Greek Cities
- Supplemental Reading
- In "Presocratic Philosophy" (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), Patricia Curd gives a clear introduction. The SEP also has useful articles on key Pre-Socratics, including Heraclitus.
- Bruno Snell, The Discovery of the Mind, Chapters 1 & 2.
- For Future Reference
Contents |
[edit] RESPONSE TO READINGS
[edit] Heraclitus of Ephesus
Background:
Heraclitus (535–475 BC) was a Pre-Socratics Greek philosopher. None of his texts have survived in complete form. We only have pieces of text that are quotes or references from other sources. It is believed that Heraclitus wrote series of longer and shorter aphorisms, suitable for an oral culture. He did not have formal students. He was known by later scholars for being depressed and difficult to understand (obscure). He had a negative view of humanity and removed himself from an active political career to devote himself to philosophical inquiry.
His work:
Heraclitus was searching for pattern in the world. He relied on his senses, but also cast doubt on them. Understanding the underlying harmony of the world requires reflection not just reliance on the senses.
Heraclitus searched for the hidden nature of things: Fire/Water/Earth→ interacting in a way that preserves their original equilibrium by changing into one another. Fire was dominant over the others.
Worked with the idea of Logos (the principle, governs things).
Explored the identity of opposites/relativity/ and the flux of things, rather than stability
Search for an individual understanding (knowing himself).
Heraclitus Fragments:
We want to look at the ‘changes in thought’ these fragments show us, however it’s important to note that we are looking at quotes from later texts—sound bites. We are using these fragments with very little evidence about what actually took place at the time they were presented.
Study group notes: perhaps Heraclitus is so obscure because he is having difficulty communicating his ideas. If this is a new way of thinking and there is no language for his concepts, he is grappling with language and knowledge to explain the details.
F1 = “But of this principle which holds forever people prove ignorant, not only before they hear it, but also once they have heard it. For although everything happens in accordance with this principle, they resemble those with no familiarity with it, even after they have become familiar with the kinds of accounts and events I discuss as I distinguish each thing according to its nature and explain its constitution. But, as a general rule, people are as unaware of their actions while awake as they are of what they do while they sleep.”
Promoting an idea that people need to pay more attention to their surroundings/ seems frustrated that people don’t change their views faster/ what is 'this principle?'
F4 = “The one and only wise thing is and is not willing to be called by the name Zeus.” Is this a change of gods? What is the 'wise thing?'
F7 = “What intelligence or insight do they have? They trust the people’s bards and take for their teacher the mob, not realizing that ‘Most men are bad, few good.’” Attacking the epic poems (like Iliad) and the ‘mob as teacher’… but who are 'they?' Does he mean common people? Is he concerned with intelligence and insight of the common man? (when most men are bad?)
F10 = “It is wise for those who listen not to me but to the principle to agree in principle that everything is one.” Urging people to listen(reason) to come to the same conclusion as he does, not because he tells them, but because they figure it out for themselves/ a focus on individual learning.
F16 = “It is not better for men to get everything they want. Disease makes health pleasant and good, as hunger does being full, and weariness rest.” Giving perspective to negative occurrences/ recognize these things as opposites to give them meaning.
F19 = “A man is thought as foolish by a supernatural being as a child is by man.” Is Heraclitus talking about the gods we read about last week? Are they wise? Is he talking about a different kind of supernatural being?
F23 = “War is the father of all and king of all. Some he reveals as gods, others as men; some he makes slaves, others free.” A hierarchy— War is father or king, and can make men gods (winners) or men (losers). What are slaves and what does it mean to be free? What does this mean about the hierarchy?'
F27 = “Eyes and ears are bad witnesses for men if they have souls which cannot understand their language.” Is Heraclitus attacking the soul of the sense organs?
F28 = “The things I rate highly are those which are accessible to sight, hearing, apprehension.”
F30 = “I searched for myself.” On his own? Or searching for his real nature?
F31 = “Everyone has potential for self-knowledge and sound thinking.”
F38 = “Everything is compensations for fire and fire is a compensation for everything, as goods are for gold and gold for goods.”
[edit] Protagoras of Abdera
Background:
Protagoras (490– 420 BC) was a Sophist, a traveling teacher who was an expert in rhetoric (the science of oratory) and related subjects. Protagoras earned money to teach and was notorious for the extremely high fees he charged. He taught public speaking, criticism of poetry, citizenship, and grammar. His teaching methods seemed to consist primarily of lectures, including analysis of poems, discussions of the meanings and correct uses of words, and general rules of oratory. He was known for making his students argue both sides on an issue and work to make the weaker argument stronger.
Of Protagoras' works, only a few brief quotations embedded in the works of later authors have survived.
His Work:
Protagoras claimed to teach virtue and good citizenship, i.e. he could teach anyone the skills to be a political leader. Good citizenship was tied into being involved in politics and didn’t mean being a good person—just a champion of debate.
Protagoras believed no one is absolutely self-sufficient and human survival depends on mutual cooperation in society—community and laws.
Protagoras believed that perception and truth are related to the experience and judgment of the individual. One person can be cold while another is hot and both situations are true. (radical relativism) However, while two situations may be true, there can be a better idea that will win out (better for the group or better argued).
Protagoras was a proponent of agnosticism—since the existence of gods could not be proven.
Protagoras was involved in the study and correct use of words (grammar)
Protagoras Fragments:
Again, we are looking at quotes from later works— sound bites. These sound bites are longer and Protagoras shows up as a character in some.
T1 = “Man is the measure of all things—of the things that are, that they are, and of the things that are not, that they are not” … “Where the gods are concerned, I am not in a position to ascertain that they exist, or that they do not exist” … “ he was the first to distinguish the tenses of verbs…instituted debating competitions, and introduced disputants to the tricks of their trade…. He was the first to distinguish the following four kinds of speech: wishing, asking, answering, commanding.”
Protagoras’ ‘man is the measure’ concept comes up in a lot of fragments. Why is it so quotable?/ Protagoras is questioning the existence of the gods because they cannot be perceived (wasn’t that the role of the gods?)/ Protagoras is responsible for rules and categorizing types of speech… what about these categories is interesting?
T2 = “What I teach is the art of making good decisions, both in ones domestic affairs, so that one can manage his estate and household in the best possible way, and in the affairs of the community, so that he can maximize his potential to conduct political business and address political issues” There is an art to making good decisions that can be taught and practiced.
T4 = “man is the measure of all things.”
T6 = “man is the measure of all things.”
T7 = “If you are here with me, it is obvious that I am sitting, but this is not obvious to someone who is not here. Whether or not I am sitting is not clear… whether it is sweet or bitter is therefore not clear.”
T8 = “man is the measure of all things.”
T10 = “Goodness is so diverse and varied that even in our case one and the same things may be good for the outside of a human body, but awful for the inside.”
T11 = “I actually define wisdom as the ability to make good things appear and be for someone instead of bad things.” … “a wise person changes each unsound notion they have, and makes sound notions be and appear for them. By the same token, a Sophist, since he is capable of guiding his pupils in the same way, is wise and deserves to be paid a lot by his pupils.” the value of wisdom/ wisdom is the ability to make good things or improving a situation.
T 14 = “the fourth aspect of speaking proper Greek is to follow Protagoras’ distinction of the genders of words as masculine, feminine, and neuter.” Meaning of words/rules/ Still an importance on speaking
T17 = “this piece of legislation to improve the condition of the illiterate people, on the grounds that they lack on of life’s great goods, and thought literacy should be a matter for public concern and expense.” A difference between literacy and illiteracy/a divide in society/the benefits of literacy/literacy and class
T19 = “As Protagoras says of mathematics, the subject-matter is unknowable, and the terminology distasteful.”
[edit] The Discovery of the Mind by Bruno Snell
Snell argues that what we know of as European thinking began with the Greeks. By reading Homer with an understanding of the language used at the time we can measure the true impact of this work in a historical context. Snell says that the rise of thinking among the Greeks was nothing less than a revolution. We can map the “the drama of man’s gradual understanding of himself” in the stages of Greek history.
Homer conceived of the thing we called intellect in a different manner—it existed, but not like we know it and was expressed with different language. Pulling apart the language of the time becomes important in tracing the seeds of thought that lead to our understanding of intellect and soul.
In these two chapters (and the Heraclitus and Protagoras fragments), we are looking for signs of what these Greeks knew about themselves, and what they did not know (yet).
Homer’s view of man: It is not a lack of language, but rather a huge array of verbs that Snell uses to understand abstract thinking in Homer’s time. The nuances of these terms help us distinguish the difference in abstract thought. For example, the “Attitude of the eyes” (2) express the function of the eyes as an organ that transmits emotion. Snell also points to language that explores the idea of body. Body was never used as a reference to the whole except in death. The living body is described through the actions of the limbs (5). Language aims progressively to express the essence of an act, but are always attached to something that is tangible. Even psyche, the force that keeps humans alive (8) is represented in a semi-concrete organ associated with breathe (9). Combined with thymos and noos (generator of motion vs. cause of ideas and images), psyche forms an idea of soul.
Heraclitus’ description of soul removes the semi-concrete organ association. Heraclitus endows his idea of psyche with qualities that are radically different from the body and physical organs: it has depth, it has its own dimension, and it does not extend into space (17). Also, this soul is a common to all humans and capable of extending and adding to itself: growth (19). These qualities can’t happen within the physical descriptions of Homer.
The Olympian Gods: Snell’s next chapter explores how men learn to distinguish reality and facts from specters and sprites (23). This difficult transition lies in the fact that gods were natural… they were a way to describe natural occurrences. It was, therefore difficult for Homer’s men to believe in different gods or no gods. In the Aphrodite example, everyone feels lust… it’s a universal emotion that even by another name, is obvious to observe. Aphrodite is lust, therefore denying Aphrodite exists would be denying the existence of lust. The Greek gods are more natural and less “mystical” then gods in other religions. Greek gods are subjected to laws and conform to natural rules.
In the Iliad examples (which we discussed last week) Athena appears to Achilles and guides him to his decision. Achilles is not the source of his own decisions (31) but yet Athena still asks him to listens to her. He decides to agree. In this way, the gods are needed to make the (abstract) happenings on earth intelligible (37). They are real and natural, but raised to the lofty position of gods because they are abstract (36). They function to furnish a picture of the natural. Snell points to the four goddess as being instrumental in making a complete picture of femininity intelligible (40).
Protagoras advances the idea that the gods don’t exist… at least that it is possible that they don’t (26). The progress of thinking towards philosophy took meaning away from the gods (39). The gods lost their role as a way to understand the natural world.
