User:Jameszammit

History of Philosophy Important Remarks: No dates needed in essays. Notes: Philo means love Sophia means wisdom So therefore, Philosophy is the love of wisdom.

In ancient Greek, philosophy was everything (it was science, religion, etc.).

They asked a lot of fundamental/common questions. Philosophy was born from these questions. It was born out of a mythological context. Mythology came before philosophy. Mythology is fictional thinking, it was important due to their lessons from myths, and they are timeless. Examples are the Greek gods, Myth of Troy (Struggle of weakness and the city because of love), Myth of the Labyrinth, etc. While Philosophy uses rational thinking/arguments/explanations.

But the lessons from myths were not enough. People who started giving rational explanations instead of myths are regarded to be the very first philosophers. Although what they said was not always true, since their theories were too far-fetched and hard to believe. Even though at their time, their theories were very advanced. The first philosophers were called Pre-Socratics since they came before the famous philosopher Socrates.

TIMELINE Name	Time	Known As Thales	c. 624 – 545 B.C.	The Milesians From the town Miletus Anaximander	c. 611 – 547 B.C. Anaximenes	c. 588 – 524 B.C. Pythagoras	c. 570 – 498 B.C.	Pythagoreans Xenophanes	c. 570 B.C. Heraclitus	c. 500 B.C. Parmenides	c. 515 – 439 B.C.	The Eleatics From the town Elea Zeno	c. 489 B.C. Melissus	c. 470 B.C. Leucippus	c. 490 – 430 B.C.	The Atomists Democritus	c. 460 - 370 B.C. Empedocles	c. 495 – 435 B.C.	The Pluralists Anaxagoras	c. 500 – 428 B.C.

The Milesians Thales of Miletus All we know of Thales is from the philosopher Aristotle. He was the first to start thinking in a rational way. Aristotle calls Thales the Father of Philosophy. He was the first to put stories and myths away. He was the first person to study acceleration and use geometry to study distance of ships from the seashore and the height of the pyramids. They wanted to find a simple explanation to explain who we are and they wanted to find the underlying cause of the world. This simple explanation is called the ARCHE and all 13 pre-Socratics have a different arche or theory. Thales’ arche was WATER. Thales believed water was the underlying cause for the existing world around us. He believed that we need water to live. Every living thing needs water. Water also explains change since water has three different states (solid-ice, liquid-water, gas-water vapour). The common questions asked were about the world and reality and what really exists, etc. are called ‘Speculative metaphysics’. These questions ask about things which cannot be seen by the human eye. Milesians relied on nature for their answers so they are also known as the ‘Naturalist Philosophers’. Anaximander Anaximander was Thales’ student and his successor. Only a few of his recording existed, so we also know about him through Aristotle. He was the first person to draw a fully scaled world map. From the one fragment they found, we know that Anaximander did not agree with Thales’ theory/arche. He did not believe that one element can explain every aspect of reality. He asked the question: ‘How can wind/fire come from water? ‘ . His theory: ‘The APERION’ was an unlimited and unbounded thing, full of ciaos, etc. It explains from where all the elements came to existence and how life itself came to existence. Everything comes from this unlimited and unbounded mass. The Aperion was Anaximander’s arche. He said that: “The Aperion could not be observed. He still said it is something material, though. The Aperion was the beginning and end of everything.”

Anaximenes He was a younger contemporary. He was also a student of Anaximander and he rejected his teacher’s theory. The Aperion was too vague since it couldn’t be observed. He couldn’t be sure if it existed or not. He returned to Thales’s theory that there is one entity that could explain everything. Anaximenes’ arche was AIR (vapour/mist). He believed this because everybody needs air to live and air is everywhere. Air could explain change since it takes on different forms. It was also better than the water arche and the Aperion arche. -- The Pythagoreans Pythagoras He emigrated from the town called Samas (which is not far from Miletus) to Croton in southern Italy. He founded a secret brotherhood and that kept on existing until the time of Plato. He is remembered especially by his contribution to mathematics. He is also known for and important for finding the mathematical bases for music, and for his mathematical theories. He is also important because he spoke of maths, nature of reality, and immortality of the soul. He believed that all things were composed by numbers and that all things were governed by numbers and that everything could be explained mathematically and that whatever existed could be measured.

1 + 10 was a sacred, perfect number. Pythagoras explained moral and abstract things as well as physical things. The number 4 represented justice. Friendship represented 8 due its perfect shape and combination.2 + 3 +		4 +

10

He believed that the world had a natural harmony due to numbers. Humans had to imitate the harmony of numbers to achieve happiness. The Theory of immortality of the soul says that the body was just a house for the soul. When a body dies, the spirit lives on. He called this ‘The Transmigration of the soul’ (incarnation). He believed that there was an endless cycle of these (Body  Death  another Body). This is Eternal Recurrence. Each soul needed a number and numbers purified the soul. The numbers were not materials and so the soul and numbers combine to form perfection and keeps moving bodies until perfection is found. Then the soul remains in body forever. He was different than Milesians because of numbers. Plato was influenced by Pythagoras. Plato’s philosophy school had a flap on the door saying: “Let no one ignorant of geometry enter here”. Xenophanes He was one of the most famous teachers of the Pythagorean schools. His arche was that the origin of reality was EARTH (or soil). Every living thing comes from earth and when it dies it would remain on earth and he proved this by finding fossils. He returned back to the Milesian’s arche to become a Naturalist Philosopher. Ancient Greeks were polytheists, since they believed in more than one god. Xenophanes rejected this belief and the portrayal of these gods. The gods were portrayed and engaged in deception and adultery (sins). He rejected these portrayals. He believed that gods were divine and because of their perfection they did not do such things. Xenophanes was a monotheist. The gods influenced the youth (and lead to moral combustion). Gods had no human characteristics, they were divine. He was also sceptical (not sure/doubting) of human knowledge. He thought that it was impossible that humans had knowledge of everything. So he had a distinction between belief and knowledge. I.e. knowing something is belief and not knowledge (knowing that a book is a book is belief not knowledge, knowledge is something abstract-ish). Knowledge is impossible. --

Heraclitus ‘Change and Permanency’ He was an obscure philosopher because he expressed his theories and ideas in mysterious ways. Because of this, Heraclitus was not always understood by people. He was concerned with two fundamental questions: What is reality? What is change? He came up with the conclusion and said that: “Reality is change”. He explained this by telling us to look around us. He gave us examples such as how the seasons change, how people change and when night turns into day. He said: “You’ll never step in the same river twice” Change is always there. He was concerned with the character of reality not with the origin of it. He chose the symbol of FIRE to represent change because of its instability. A flame is never still just as life and reality are never still. His motto was: ‘Panta Rei’ which means “Everything Changes” He also said that changes were organized and followed a specific pattern. Just as seasons follow a specific pattern (Winter  Spring  Summer  Autumn). How do we cope with change? Our mind imposes a sort of stability in a changing world. We expect change around us so we are used to it. Change brought about the law of opposites and this law keeps existence going and it also keeps it together. If there is no change, the world stops moving and life will seize. No change  No life. Change  Opposites  Existence  Life  Change and it repeats the cycle. --

The Eleatics (from the town Elea) Parmenides Parmenides was Heraclitus’ rival. He disagreed with everything Heraclitus had said and done. He rejected the theory of change. He did not think that a something could exist in one thing and then change to another. It was a contradicting thought. He said that reality was internal and unchangeable. Reality is Permanent was his conclusion. He reasoned things out since he was a rationalist. He rationalized four reasons on the permanency of reality: Anything that exists has no coming into being and no destruction. Anything that exists is whole and of a single kind. Anything that exists is unmovable and therefore without motion. Anything that exists is complete. He said that reality is: “That That it is and cannot not be.” This means that if something exists, something must have always existed. His theory was: ONE and ETERNAL (this means: no change and no beginning and no end) N.B.: Multiple means change if it was MULTIPLE and ETERNAL. We perceive change. When we see change, it is only an illusion of our senses. This is called sensory perception and because of it we gain false knowledge. Only our soul remains filled with true knowledge. -- Zeno Zeno was a student of Parmenides and was known for writing a number of paradoxes. A paradox is a contradiction. He agreed and rationalized Parmenides’ theory that reality is one and eternal. The 8 paradoxes that survived are in Aristotle’s book called ‘Physics’. Parmenides theory was that Change is an illusion caused by our senses. Change and motion are also illusions. Zeno wanted to prove this theory. The three most famous paradoxes are the following: N.B. Achilles was a Greek hero and was killed by an archer. He was dipped in the river by his mother from his heel. Therefore he was invincible and his heel was the only part of his body that was vulnerable. The river had given him power. (REFER TO NOTES) 1.) Achilles and the Tortoise This story was a race between Achilles and a tortoise. The tortoise had a head start and so Achilles would never catch up if they both run the same distance and so the tortoise won. He used logical reasoning and rationalizing to come up with this. This is conception-ally impossible therefore speed and other important factors were not considered. He is negating the possibility of change so therefore change doesn’t exist. ￼ 2.) Arrow to its aim ￼ Suppose that time consists of moments or instances. A flying arrow at any instant of time occupies a space equal to itself. So at any instant of time, like in a photograph, the arrow would be at rest. Therefore if at any instant of time the arrow has no motion, temporal locomotion is impossible since time is composed of freezing instances in succession. ￼ Suppose a runner has to travel form the start point A to the finish point B. But firstly he has to travel to the midpoint C and hence to B. But if D is the midpoint of AC, he must first travel to D and so on ad infinitum. So since in finite time it is impossible to accomplish an infinite number of movements then the runner is not able to finish his distance. Refer to: http://www.logicalparadoxes.info/arrow/ The above explain the paradox very well... Apparently there are different versions of the paradox So basically we think that the arrow moved but it really didn’t so therefore there was no change. Again, Zeno used logical reasoning and rational thinking to come up with this. We think that we move but we really don’t. The senses are unreliable because we are not really moving. 3.) Millet Seed This paradox proves the existence of sound and sound is a sense. Senses are unreliable and so the ears give us false knowledge therefore sound is non-existent and when we hear something it is not real. Therefore everything is an illusion. The paradox says that when 1 millet seed is dropped – no sound is heard but when 1000 millet seeds are dropped – a thump sound is heard. But this is an illusion since 1 millet seed * 1000 millet seeds * 0 sound = 0 sound therefore the sound is really just an illusion. Zeno is showing us that if we think about things that exist, we can arrive at self-contradicting thinking. -- Melissus Melissus is the last Eleatic and is a supporter of Parmenides’ permanency. Reality is ONE and PERMENANT. Something cannot come up from nothing. Nothing can be created, nothing can be destroyed. Therefore there is no change from nothing to something and no change from something to nothing. These are the unconditional claims. Reality is unlimited unity. This means that reality is something that can’t be divided. It is ONE and ETERNAL. There is one difference between Melissus and Parmenides. Parmenides spoke about the starting point (he said that life was always there), but Melissus made unconditional claims (no change from nothing to something and no change from something to nothing) about what exists. --

The Atomists Leucippus Leucippus was the first person to say that reality was made up of basic, invisible, indivisible and indestructible units which he called atoms. His theory is the first known reaction to Parmenides theory which was the denial of change. Therefore there is no change, only permenantivity in Parmenides’ theory. His theory was a reconciliation of Heraclitus and Parmenides. He brought together the change and permanency theory. Leucippus was known for saying the following: “Nothing happens at random, everything happens out of reason and necessity”. He is saying that everything must be in order. He said also that a VOID exists. While Parmenides had said that the void did not exist. Leucippus said that, just because it was empty that doesn’t mean that it does not exist. For him, it was this void that made change possible. In this void the atoms were able to move around and when they move they are able to combine and form objects that we can perceive. Atoms represented permanency but also represent change because of the combining of atoms and forming of objects. Characteristics of atoms Infinite in number (since empty space is infinite). Basic and fundamental (can’t be divided). Compact and full. Invisible (too small). They come in different sizes. No properties other than their size or their shape. Continuously in motion. Leucippus’ theory is based on the fact that the things we perceive, change due to the constant change or motion of atoms, but we also know that permanency exists because the underlining fundamental level are the atoms and atoms are permanent and so both Heraclitus and Parmenides’ theory are brought together. -- Democritus Democritus was a student of Leucippus. He wanted to develop the theory of the atom in a simpler way. He was also interested in how human beings get knowledge and what we believe in and have faith in, etc. He wanted to clarify how atoms moved around. He distinguished atomic motion in to two: Primary Motion. Secondary Motion. Primary motion occurs spontaneously. Secondary motion is the motion of an atom due to a movement in a reaction from something else. So, movement of an atom is caused by the reaction of another atom. Primary – “Everything happens for a reason”. Secondary – “Everything happens by necessity”. (Atoms are meant to move) Account of knowledge He believed that our senses are important. When we perceive something, it is sent to our brain/mind. He explained the transference of images from objects to humans. He explained the relationship between sensation and thought. There was a link between perseverance and thought. I.e. I see someone eating, so I get hungry. His explanation of faith and religion. He said that people believe in God for two reasons: Because of the human inability to understand the world around them. We don’t understand something so therefore we say that it was an act of God. Because of the communication of superior beings with humans. Ex. Communicating via your dream to the dead (since the dead are superior then us), therefore you believe in God. We can only explain these things because we believe in God. His suggestion to happiness If you want to be happy, you have to control your desires. Moderation is the key to happiness. --

The Pluralists Empedocles Everything in this world goes through cycles. (Everything disintegrates and reintegrates). He said that our body disintegrates when we die and the soul moves to other reintegrated bodies. He combined Thales’, Anaximenes’, Xenophanes’ and Heraclitus’s theories and arches together to say that reality was a mixture of four elements – WATER, AIR, FIRE & EARTH. He used these four elements derived from his predecessors to explain change (and reality). He also said that sometimes an element can predominate over the other elements. He is considered as a pluralist because he used a mixture of other theories. Explanation of change Empedocles said that two powerful forces exist. These are Love and Strife (conflict). When love is the stronger force: The elements join together to make new worlds. But when strife is the stronger force: Elements disintegrate and so worlds disintegrate. Therefore this proves that the world reintegrates and disintegrates. -- Anaxagoras Anaxagoras was Empedocles’ rival, even though he did agree with his theories. He wanted to use the Milesian’s work to form his own theory. Although, his starting point was Parmenides’s theory – The Permenedian notion of reality saying that reality is Permanent. Anaxagoras said that it is stupid top say that something is made up four elements, when clearly; nothing is made up of all four elements. He said that Empedocles theory is only correct if and only if, a part of one element existed in one other element at some point in time. N.B. Anaxagoras was limiting his pluralistic name. His answer to reality was that: “Reality was an infinitely, divisible, material mass”. This mass was eternal and permanent. Since it is divisible, every time it is divided, no matter how much and how small the mass is, the divisible mass always has a part of the whole mass. ‘NOUS’ Theory The nous is a powerful force which is not immaterial. It is a force that makes the world organised and orderly (it is very powerful like the mind of God). It had a gift of reason. The gift of reason was: [We can understand it in terms of fluidity (fluid)]. The nous was unstable. Even though it was unstable, it was superior then everything that ever existed. It is superior because it is not mixed with the other elements. For Anaxagoras, the nous was an element of its own. Another reason for the nous being unstable and explained as a fluid was that the nous is able to be flexible and see the other elements. Originally, the world came from a mass which was chaotic and unorganised but when the nous came upon us, it made the world orderly again. He wanted to show us the starting point of the world we know today. Once it became organised and in motion, the nous was not needed and disappeared so basically it was just there to bring about order and since it was not needed anymore, Anaxagoras threw it away. - END OF PRESOCRATICS --

The Sophists In western civilization, the word sophists had a positive meaning towards the people. It referred to people who were clever and wise. Over time, because of the sophists’ arrogance towards people, they no longer had a positive meaning towards the people. A sophist is nowadays compared to a lawyer. Characteristics of Sophists They were from Greece They were itinerant (a person who travels from place to place, especially for duty or business) teachers. Taught for money. Only taught the rich and noble families. Rhetoric (pronounced retric) language – used language in a persuasive way. The students of the sophists went for lessons in order to impress society and other people. Basically they went to the sophists to show off their knowledge. They provided people further education at that time. People were hostile towards them (didn’t like them) because they charged a lot of money for lessons and because they didn’t ground their philosophy with the truth. This is because the truth was not important to them. They believed in persuasion. They were only concerned in using rhetoric language on order to win arguments. Their ultimate goal was victory. This is another reason why their students were only the rich and not poor because most rich people want to progress in society. In the 5th century, states started to become democracies. People were given the freedom of speech. For this reason, the sophists became more popular with the people even though people started looking at them in a negative way. More people wanted to pay to learn. Their education was just a matter of eloquent speaking (being persuasive). They claimed they could teach anyone to win arguments, irrespective if your argument was true or false (the right or wrong argument). They said that we should care only about winning. They argued for Subjectivism. It is explaining things from our own point of view and saying that our point of view was the only correct argument. It is related to Cultural Relativism. This is having a point of view based on where you came from. They taught a number of subjects: Such as ‘The nature of Virtue’, ‘Grammar’, ‘Morality’, and ‘Social History’. Some sophists gave some subjects more importance than others. They gave importance to those subjects which helped a person succeed in life. They thought more on moralities and virtue (arête) (moral excellence; goodness; righteousness; excellence in life). Even though some taught like presocratics. They believed they were professional teachers because they taught about virtue. They believed virtue was a result of education. It was a different definition than the traditional Greek definition (Greek meaning: a person’s social standing) and they challenged the traditional ways in order to prove that virtue was excellence in life. Sophists believed everyone could learn virtue. This is a contradiction because they didn’t teach everyone, only the rich and the ones who can afford paying them. They believed in cultivating a person in being virtuous. But in reality, for them victory surpassed virtue. -- Two of the sophists are Protagoras and Gorgias: Protagoras Protagoras was the most famous and well known sophist. He was famous for saying: “Man is the measure of all things, of those that are, that they are, of those that are not, that they are not.” When this saying is interpreted using subjectivism-relativism we can derive two meanings: The Epistemological (knowledge) Interpretation says that the data I get from my senses will be different from the data you get from your senses because we perceive things differently. With this belief, we can say that objective knowledge is impossible. The Moral Interpretation says that my values are relative to the culture that I come are different from the values that are relative to the culture you come from. Therefore values differ from one person to another. So the universal or objective morality is impossible. He is also known for using a philosophy or method called ANTILOGIC: Antilogic is when you believe that every argument has a counter argument and you believe that both arguments are equally true. He would argue with this using contradiction. He would make his opponent confused thus making his opponent give up and thus winning the argument by antilogic. Plato criticised Protagoras for using antilogic because Protagoras didn’t care about the truth and only cared about being victorious. Therefore using antilogic: the weaker argument is made the stronger argument. Gorgias Gorgias was accused of being sceptic (a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others (should only be content with which is apparent)). He doubts the possibility of knowing anything. He was accused on what he had wrote in his book called ‘On the non-existent’ which said: “Nothing exists, or if it does exist it cannot be known, or if it exists and is knowable it cannot be communicated to another”. This means that knowledge is difficult to understand, so it must be even more difficult to teach other people about it. By saying this, the sophists thought that he ridiculed the presocratic Parmenides theory of permanency (that reality is one and eternal therefore reality is permanent). Parmenides’ theory says that if reality is one, no change exists and thus we never need to know anything new. Some people consider his quote to be a rejection of the possibility of knowing anything and also of knowing that there is no change in reality. Therefore some people thought that he was making a fool of Parmenides. He was convinced that our thoughts were represented by words. He said that we have no idea whether our words actually connect with reality. Because of this, we cannot claim that we require knowledge since we are not sure of it. Instead of searching for absolute knowledge, he searched for the probable knowledge (which he was so certain of). -- Socrates A popular quote is: “I only know what I know nothing”. He came about at the same period when the sophists were going strong. He was a major character in the history of philosophy and a great philosopher. He was against the sophists because sophists believed that philosophy was just persuasion and being victorious while Socrates believed that the backbone of philosophy was the truth and the right of values. The fundamental values in his opinion were the moral values. He was mostly concerned with the values that were needed for one person to have a very happy life. All we know about him is form Plato who was a student of Socrates. He never published anything but he did this for a reason. He didn’t publish anything because he believed that philosophy was better when it was based on the spoken word rather than when it was based on the written word. The written word for Socrates was something repetitive and could be easily misinterpreted because the written word takes up a life of its own. He meant that something written may not be understood exactly how the writer wanted us to understand it. The written word can never be clarified since the interpretation varies. Therefore the spoken word is superior. It involved face to face encounters and face to face encounters were always searching for the truth. It was the shared experience of two speakers in search of the truth. He relied on the truth to win his arguments and he won many arguments because he had very firm beliefs in what he believed in and he was patient and always spoke the truth. Socrates was also a pure-Athenian (from Athens). He only left Athens about twice in his life. He was loved by many but also hated by others such as the sophists. He taught everyone and spoke to everyone. He once visited Delphi; it was a very important turning point in his life, because there he met an oracle that told him that he was the most intelligent man in Greece. At first he did not believe this, so he set out to speak to people who were also as intelligent as he was. He asked them general knowledge questions. Example: He asked a doctor about history, but the doctor was not able to answer him. He asked a carpenter about gardening, but he was not able to answer him. He asked a teacher about cooking, but the teacher was not able to answer him. He then realised that what the oracle said was true. They were ignorant about things which were not in their field of trade. Also, they were not aware of their ignorance. Socrates was aware of his ignorance, and wanted to lean even more. Knowing your limits, helps you search for more knowledge. Something to add is that he was very poor; in fact his friends had offered him to bail him out of prison. A famous quote: “An unexamined life is not worth living”. The Universal Definition It is the agreement by everyone on a particular word. If a definition is correct, the definition should be agreed upon by everyone. A standard is needed for people to agree on a particular definition. The standard must always tell us what is good and must contain the unique and essential characteristics of a definition. This goes against what the sophists believed in since they believed in subjectivism and about anything that could win them an argument. Socrates believed in objectivism and that is why he wanted this universal definition. Socrates said that you need to define every word but he never defined the word ‘definition’. Philosophers liked to speak about beauty. Everyone has a different opinion and definition about the word ‘beauty’, so therefore we cannot give examples as definitions of a word because there might be more than one example that could be given all the different examples differ from each other.

The Dialectic Method The Dialectic method is conversational form of philosophy. Philosophy should be shared with other people, preferably with one other person only. Speaker   Interlocutor (Socrates)  (Other person) The important thing in a conversation is a feigning ignorance. The Socratic method of pretending to be ignorant is called ‘Socratic-Irony’. You do this because you don’t know everything, and so you let the interlocutor talk in an attempt to learn more about something. When he pretended to be ignorant, he paved the way to let the interlocutor express his views and feelings towards something in particular. Example: If someone asked you the definition of something... The person who asked you knows the definition but wants you to try to answer his question in an attempt for him to learn more and know your views upon something. The method of asking questions is the ‘examination’ or the ‘Elenchus’. The dialectic method is a conversation with questions and answers including the Elenchus. Socrates would answer a question by asking back another question. Socrates had the ability to take an indirect approach in order to find out the truth about something. He used the dialectic method, to also find out the universal definition about something. The Usual Plot of his Discussions. Asks a question on a particular virtue. Feign ignorance. His interlocutor would respond with a persuasive answer. This tells us that the interlocutors were mostly sophists. Socrates would not be pleased with their response. He finds a counter example in order to prove his point. The interlocutor would be shocked because Socrates’ point would actually make sense. He would conclude his point with a universal definition. Plato wrote a book called ‘Symposium’ (symposium means a meeting) and in the book he recorded one of Socrates famous discussions, a discussion about love since the book discusses love. Socrates asked questions about love in his discussion and Socrates concluded by telling us that in order to act lovingly, you must know what the word love or to love is; he tells us that this is another reason why the universal definition of a word is so important. We also find out through, this that the universal definition was very important to Socrates himself since he based a lot of theories on it. The Inductive Method Socrates is credited for being the first person to use this method. The inductive method is gathering facts and then organising the most important facts in points according to what he wanted to find and then coming up with a theory. Opposite to this is the Deductive method were you come up with a theory and then gather the important facts in order to prove the theory. He also used this method in order to find universal definitions. He would do this by questioning individuals and gather information and facts from their experiences and thoughts and from the experiences he heard about he would compile all the important points according to what he wanted to find and he would then arrive at a certain universal definition or theory. Arriving at a universal definition was not only important just to satisfy intellectual curiosity but for Socrates it had a bearing on the whole existence of human beings. For him, the existence of humans needed a universal definition. He said that Philosophy was not just a pleasureful discussion but it was also something that was needed to understand humans and their feelings and other important and vital things. Every experience can be related to philosophy. Socrates also said that in order for someone to live a good and happy life, you need knowledge and so he derived the following equation: Knowledge = Virtue The Doctrine of Moral Optimism He argued that knowing what is virtuous and what is not, would lead that person to act in a virtuous way. He said that it is impossible for a person to know what is good and not do well. He said that people who only did bad things performed these actions because they didn’t know that they were performing negative actions and were ignorant of what they were doing. Socrates is overrating the power of reasoning. Human beings have simple and plain desires and so they clearly do not really agree with his theory since it is too overrated. He is missing the vital point of human nature desire. We act badly because of ignorance because we do not reason things out. We must remember that Socrates was always speaking about truth, virtue and values. Quick Note: Socrates never spoke subjectively or personally. So we cannot say that he was a monotheist or a polytheist. Socrates’ Defence Socrates was prosecuted and taken to court. His trail and death were recorded in Plato’s book called “The Apology”. The sophists were behind the reason why Socrates ended up in court. He is known to be the first martyr of reason and truth. Some philosophers also resemble Socrates to Jesus, since he lived a simple life, helped people and was prosecuted just like Jesus was. They took him to court because of the way he practised and thought his philosophy which was not like the way the sophists practised and thought their philosophy. Because of the way he taught and lived, suspicion arose and so the sophists charged him with four charges and took him to court. The rise of Socrates leads to less income for the sophists and thus they wanted to get rid of him. We must also know that Socrates was fat, poor and ugly, but young men followed him because of the way he spoke to them. Socrates never had a lawyer and so he represented himself in court and also he lacked witnesses (this was a good thing). This is the first time we see this happen in court. Socrates rejected all the charges put forward against him and defended himself from these charges. The following are what they charged Socrates with: Religious charges: Socrates rejected the Athenian gods because he speculated about the afterlife, the heavens and divinity of gods. Even though he was not passing judgement and only speculating. (Socrates never spoke subjectively or personally. So we cannot say that he was a monotheist or a polytheist). Socrates was introducing new divinities – they said he was saying that other gods existed. Moral charges: Socrates made the inferior argument superior using his own rhetorical skills. They thought that he was influencing people not to keep their own opinion about certain things Socrates spoke to them about. Socrates corrupted young man by taking them in as his disciples. (In Ancient Greek times, homosexuality was very common. Man had wives just to have children, but usually they also had a male partner. Older man would partner with much younger man to be their mentor and also be involved with them erotically). His answers to these charges were: Religious charges: Socrates said that no one in that court had ever heard him talk about cosmological speculations/explanations. Although he didn’t deny that he never said anything. They just didn’t have proof against him. Socrates said that he was not a naturalist. The pre-Socratics were naturalists because they invented new divinities. He said that once the Athenians (the people who were in court) believed that he was not a naturalist; this charge had to be dropped because it was a mis-understanding and that they didn’t understand his philosophy. Moral charges: Socrates said that his cross-examinations (question and answer, elenchus) were carried out to uncover his own ignorance not to expose the other people’s ignorance. He said that he never did this to be victorious, but he only did it to urge the people to make themselves better people. Socrates said that he never did it consciously. He never wanted them (his disciples) to follow him in his journey of philosophy. He promised that he would never compromise the commitment he had with justice (the justice of the state). SO he would even face death before he committed injustice. This shows the serious morals he had. He said that having such strong moral convictions, made it impossible for him to corrupt young men. The court said that if he gave up his philosophical activities, the charges would be dropped and forgotten. He said that his philosophical activity was a divine command he received, and so he rejected the offer put forward to him. He would defy the Athenians if they let him go on that condition (to drop his philosophical activities). Even though citizens go and follow the law when they were in court, Socrates said that if they forced him to stop practising his philosophy he would go against their rule of him not practising his philosophy – so he would go against the law and for him this was controversial since he just told them that he would die before he commits injustice. He chose not to escape from prison even though his friends were ready to bail him out and help him escape by moving him somewhere else. But by staying in jail, he also accepted his death sentence. He was ready to die for philosophy. He died by drinking Hemlock (which is a poison used in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet). The judges didn’t like him at first but then he talked to them and they started to like him as he explained his philosophy to them but in the end the people wanted him dead and so they had no other choice then to give him a death sentence. This is also why they compare Socrates to Jesus. Socrates died for a noble cause. This noble cause was that someone should not change his beliefs when he is condemned to death. He is known as the first martyr of truth and reason. He is the first know martyr of the world. Socrates proved that his primary concern in life was ‘arête’ (excellence). Opposite to the excellence for the sophists which was the excellence of victory in the public. Socrates had moral and virtuous excellence. Socrates set the foundation for both philosophy and ethics. He didn’t die in vain but he died for something that he valued – the pursuit of truth and values. -- Plato Plato was Socrates’ most distinguished and most intelligent student. Plato was one of the most fundamental philosophers in the history of philosophy. A British philosopher called Alfred North Whitehead said that “the history of philosophy is nothing but a serious of footnotes to what Plato had said”. Plato came from an aristocratic background. This meant that Socrates accepted everyone even the wealthiest of people. We know of Socrates from the many books that Plato had written in his life. Usually in his books the main character was or was referred to Socrates. Dion, who was Plato’s closest friend, told him to go to Syracuse to instruct and teach the tyrant Dionysius I, who was also the ruler of Syracuse. Dion was Dionysius I’s brother-in-law. Plato accepted his friend’s offer. He accepted because Plato’s aim in life was to make a king a philosopher and a philosopher a king. He believed that rulers should know philosophy and that philosophers had the ability to rule and govern. Dionysius I got annoyed and angry at Plato for some reason which we do not know about and sent Plato into slavery. Probably Dionysius I got a big head and Plato told him to do something which Dionysius I did not like and so Dionysius I got angry. He was bailed out of slavery and went back to Athens. There, he opened a school called the ‘Academy’. The aim was to train future political leaders. He tought philosophy, ethics, meta-physics, politics, general education, aesthetics and maths. On the door there was: “Let no one ignorant of geometry enter here”. He was influenced greatly by Pythagoras. They were the beginning of the system of the philosophy we know of today. This thinking school was a systematic account of human experience which means that it follows the everyday day-to-day pattern of how humans think and act. He went to Syracuse for a second time. Dionysius I had died by then but Dionysius II became tyrant and leader instead of him. Dion had told Dionysius II to invite Plato in order to learn philosophy and other valuable skills. Again something went wrong; he exiled Dion and put Plato under house arrest. After some time went by, Plato gained permission to go back to Athens. But Dion wanted Plato’s aim to happen and so Dion was forgiven and told Plato for a third time to go back to Syracuse. But again things did not go well and so Dionysius II imprisoned Plato and only escaped with the help from his friends and never went back to Syracuse. These experiences left Plato with a great distaste of politics. Sophists convinced communists that Socrates was a bad influence on the citizens of Athens. It was governed by common people therefore by a democracy. Plato said that democracy is “the inexpert in the act of ruling”. Plato did not agree with democracy. SO now Plato had distaste to democracy. This is why his aim was so important because he believed that the best government was to be ruled by philosophers. Plato’s philosophy is a synthesis (something that joins something together) of the pre-Socratic philosophy (origin of reality, nature, existence) and the sophists and Socrates (ethics, man, anthropology (study of men)). Plato’s theory of Ideas was a development of Socrates’ universals. Plato’s Meta-physical theory This theory is based on Plato’s Theory of Forms. Plato believed that negatives statements can give us valuable information. i.e. like if you say that a piece of paper is a not car, we know that a piece of paper really isnt a car so the our mind transfers the negative statement into a valuable one whihc gives us information such that a piece of paper is not a car. Socrates said that the universal definition is the agreement by everyone on the meaning of a particular word. Plato used this theory as a fondation for this metaphysical theory. Plato said that everything is contingent. When something happens, even though we know it doesn’t have to have happen, but if it does happen, then Plato says that there must be a reason for that something to happen. It’s like saying that everything happens for a reason. Plato is saying that therefore theree is a difference between the truth that exists in today’s world and the truth which is captured by the definitions. To come up with this, Plato used sensory perception. The way we define things may not necessary be according to the way they are. For example, the word human is defined by the definition which is default to us (i.e. an organism with two legs and two arms, seperated into five external parts, etc.) but when you look around you in the world, we can say that there are many humans since humans can’t be identical. When you realise that there are many of these things, you start to get used to them and come to expect the way they look. For example, the truth by definition of fruit is ONE FRUITS but the truth when we look around us in the world of fruit is MANY FRUITS. This leads to Plato’s MANY AND ONE Theory. To one particular (entity), there are many particulars (entities).Plato’s reality is split into the ONE and the MANY. He syas that the ONE is the ideal type while the many is the form type. Plato’s Theory of Forms. He described the ideal form as the Super Sensible Domain (perfect world) and the form type as the Sensible Domain which holds the MANY, the imperfect world. The Super Sensible Domain The Super Senisible Domain is something which can only be intellectually understood. This domain is the place which makes something something. I.e. the idea of a circle is something you understood with your mind. A circle can never be perfect in our world. The Super Senisible Domain is soemthing abstract, non-material, eternal, perfect and unchangable ( << characteristics). The most supreme idea in the Super Senisible Domain is the idea of goodness that exists in the Super Senisible Domain because this domain is one with intellect and knowledge, only philosophers can be acquainted with the Super Senisible Domain and only philosophers have intellect and knowledge. Many people don’t believe it exists, but even though they don’t believe in it, it still exists even though those people dont fathom (understand). The Super Senisible Domain, for those who believe in it, it is above and beyond our imperfect world. The Senisible Domain The Senisible Domain is the world that we make part of. The things in this world are only temporary. Commoners (the people who live here therefore us) know about this domain but not about the Super Sensible Domain because they can’t understand it intelletually. There are two different levels in the Sensible Domain and these are: The lower level – which is that of immagination – ex. Hallucination (imagining an oasis in the desert). The higher level – which is that of perpetual (on going) belief. The things that we believe in, encounter and experience everyday. Differences between Super Sensible Domain and Sensible Domain. Super Sensible Domain	Sensible Domain Perfect World. A copy of the Super Sensible Domain. Therefore an imperfect world because it is a copy of perfection. Domain of knowledge. Domain of opinion and ignorance. Related by Participation. It is based on the fact that the Sensible Domain is a copy of the Super Sensible Domain. Participate by trying to copy the perfect world. One Realm. The Actual and Ideal Realm	Many Realm. The Sense and Form Realm. Example: An idea of a circle	Example: Many different circles Example: An idea of doginess. Example: Many different Dogs Distinction between them is known as the Divided Line.

The Thoery of Forms was brought about from the: Influence of Socrates’ Universals. Influences of the debate between Parmenides’ permenancy and Heraclitus’ change. Plato wanted to help people understand his theories so he came up with a story of the myth of the cave. The Myth of the Cave. Refer to the book ‘History of Philosophy’ page.31 and to the notes. Sensible Domain  Super Sensible Domain. Ignorance  Knowledge. The myth is compared to the life of Socrates. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTWwY8Ok5I0 Plato lets Socrates describe a group of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall by things passing in front of a fire behind them, and begin to ascribe forms to these shadows. According to Plato's Socrates, the shadows are as close as the prisoners get to viewing reality. He then explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall do not make up reality at all, as he can perceive the true form of reality rather than the mere shadows seen by the prisoners. The Allegory may be related to Plato's Theory of Forms, according to which the "Forms" (or "Ideas"), and not the material world of change known to us through sensation, possess the highest and most fundamental kind of reality. Only knowledge of the Forms constitutes real knowledge. In addition, the Allegory of the Cave is an attempt to explain the philosopher's place in society: to attempt to enlighten the "prisoners." --- Inside the cave In Plato's fictional dialogue, Socrates begins by describing a scenario in which what people take to be real would in fact be an illusion. He asks Glaucon to imagine a cave inhabited by prisoners who have been chained and held immobile since childhood: not only are their legs (but not arms) held in place, but their necks are also fixed, so they are compelled to gaze at a wall in front of them. Behind the prisoners is an enormous fire, and between the fire and the prisoners is a raised walkway, along which people walk carrying things on their heads "including figures of men and animals made of wood, stone and other materials". The prisoners cannot see the raised walkway or the people walking, but they watch the shadows cast by the men, not knowing they are shadows. There are also echoes off the wall from the noise produced from the walkway. Socrates suggests the prisoners would take the shadows to be real things and the echoes to be real sounds created by the shadows, not just reflections of reality, since they are all they had ever seen or heard. They would praise as clever, whoever could best guess which shadow would come next, as someone who understood the nature of the world, and the whole of their society would depend on the shadows on the wall. Release from the cave Socrates then supposes that a prisoner is freed and permitted to stand up. If someone were to show him the things that had cast the shadows, he would not recognize them for what they were and could not name them; he would believe the shadows on the wall to be more real than what he sees. "Suppose further," Socrates says, "that the man was compelled to look at the fire: wouldn't he be struck blind and try to turn his gaze back toward the shadows, as toward what he can see clearly and hold to be real? What if someone forcibly dragged such a man upward, out of the cave: wouldn't the man be angry at the one doing this to him? And if dragged all the way out into the sunlight, wouldn't he be distressed and unable to see "even one of the things now said to be true" because he was blinded by the light? After some time on the surface, however, the freed prisoner would acclimate. He would see more and more things around him, until he could look upon the Sun. He would understand that the Sun is the "source of the seasons and the years, and is the steward of all things in the visible place, and is in a certain way the cause of all those things he and his companions had been seeing" (516b–c). Return to the cave Socrates next asks Glaucon to consider the condition of this man. "Wouldn't he remember his first home, what passed for wisdom there, and his fellow prisoners, and consider himself happy and them pitiable? And wouldn't he disdain whatever honors, praises, and prizes were awarded there to the ones who guessed best which shadows followed which? Moreover, were he to return there, wouldn't he be rather bad at their game, no longer being accustomed to the darkness? Wouldn't it be said of him that he went up and came back with his eyes corrupted, and that it's not even worth trying to go up? And if they were somehow able to get their hands on and kill the man who attempts to release and lead them up, wouldn't they kill him?" (517a) The prisoners, ignorant of the world behind them, would see the freed man with his corrupted eyes and be afraid of anything but what they already know. Philosophers analyzing the allegory argue that the prisoners would ironically find the freed man stupid due to the current state of his eyes and temporarily not being able to see the shadows which are the world to the prisoners. - Plato wrote Allegory of the Cave to demonstrate that our senses skew reality, filter out some data, and reduce our capability to grasp the actual reality. This was to support his Theory of Forms (aka Theory of Ideas), where he argued that ideas have the highest level and most fundamental kind of reality; not the world as we know it through our senses. Plato also postulated that philosophers' role in society is to be the investigators of reality by constructing ideas "from outside of the cave". -

The Divided Line The divided line is the term used to show the distiction between the Super Sensible Domain and the Sensible Domain. It seperates them from each other. Domain Type	Consists of	Plato’s Name. Meaning	Cave Position Higher SSD SSD is also called the Intelligible world. It is known via understanding. Also called the Invisible Realm. Classifying Reason Dialectic Argument Philosophy	Noesis	Investigating beyong assumed beliefs. Adjusted to sunlight. Slave can now percieve visible objects and apprehands the sun. (understands the good of the light). Lower SSD	Science Mathematics	Dianoia	Assumptions made explict and systematic. Escaped from cave. Slave is dazzled by sunlight. Higher SD SD is also called the World of appearances. It is known via opinion, belief and appearance. Also called the Visible Realm. Common Sense Faith	Pistis	Normal and Customary. Turned towards fire at cave opening. Unbound, slave sees figures projecting shadows. Lower SD	Illusion Imagination Myth	Eikasia	Deceptive (copy) or Metaphorical. Rear of the cave, slave is bound so that only shadows projected on the rear wall can be seen.

The lower Super Sensible Domain leads to and is the path towards th higher Super Sensible Domain. What he sees in the lower domain, is understood in the higher domain. This is why mathematics and science were so important to philosophy.

Plato on Justice Plato explains to us what the ideal state on justice should be. His theory on justice can be found on his famous book called “Republic”. The book begins as an enquiry into the nature of justice but it broadens out the consideration of human nature as a whole. He also speaks about the social life of man; he believes that justice plays an important part in one’s social life. This theory of justice is a practical orientation of the theory of forms. It speaks about the nature of society and the way it should be governed. As usual, the main protagonist in the book is Socrates but we don’t know if he was actually there; so that the story really happened; or that Plato is imagining the things Socrates would do from previous experience. In the conversation about the ideal state, Socrates says that the rulers of the ideal society should be philosophers. This is because philosophers have the knowledge of the good. They can contemplate and rule society in a good and just way. Justice is important to Plato because it helps a person flourish and fulfil his potential. So clearly, justice is an essential feature of well-being. The dialog or plot of his book takes place at a festival at the house of someone called ‘Stefanus’ who is the one who organised the festival. During this party, a discussion on justice arose. Socrates asked ‘What is justice?’ because of his universal definition. When asked ‘Cephalus’ said that justice is a matter of honesty and Socrates as usual refused this answer and said that if a friend lends you a knife and after he gives it to you he goes crazy with a mental or physical breakdown, would you give him back the knife knowing that it is the honest thing to do but knowing that if you do give it to him back you might put him in danger of attempting suicide. So Socrates said that justice isn’t based on just honesty and it is much more than that. Stefanus’ son was the next person to answer, his name was ‘Pollimarcus’ and his answer was that justice is helping your friends and hurting your enemies. Socrates again refuses this idea of justice and he brings up an example of a battlefield. He says that a doctor in a battlefield has an obligation not only to save his fellow friends but also to save his enemy. The doctor is obliged to save both parties as that is his obligation. The next person is ‘Thrasymachus’ and he suggested that justice is in the interest of the strongest. Socrates refuses this again and he brings up the example of a knife, he says that the purpose of knife is too cut but if it can’t cut, do you throw it away? The next two people to answer are Plato’s brother, them being ‘Adeimantus’ and ‘Glaucon’ and they said that justice is a matter of convention (agreement) and again Socrates refused this. Adeimantus and Glaucon said that it was a matter of convention. In order to solve the dilemma to know what justice is, you have to look at a larger scale. To know what justice in the man is, we have to look at what justice in the state is. He said that they function the same but the only difference is the size. In the Republic, Plato writes that justice will follow wherever the ruler is knowledgeable. Plato comes up with the theory of the ideal state and the ideal state is one which is ruled by a knowledgeable person. So this ideal state is made up of three social classes. First part consisted of and are the Philosopher who was a ruler. The second social class was made up of the Auxiliaries which were the soldiers who protect the state. The third Social class were made up of the craftsman. They were the working social class, those who provided for the rest of the state; Ie. farmers, carpenters, fisherman. Each of them had a specific role. Philosophers would rule the state; Auxiliaries would protect and the craftsman would provide for the state. Plato was most concerned with the first two social classes because he believed these were the guardians of the state because they had complete political power within the state. In order for this power not to be abused, Socrates made instructions which philosophers and auxiliaries must follow. There were three instructions in total. The first instruction: was that the members of the first two classes are to live in a community of their same social class and they are not allowed to have any private property (like priests). The second instruction: was that these two social classes were not allowed the have a family or a private life. Not having a family or private life enabled the, to dedicate all their time to the state. (priests dedicate all their time to church). The third instruction: both social classes had to undergo extensive physical training. Socrates made this instruction for all, he wanted them to be fit, he also wanted them to undergo a strict intellectual program. According to Plato there is a parallel between man and the state and by man he always used to look at the soul of the man cause he believed justice was found in the soul of the man. Just as the soul had the different roles and functions so had the three social classes. He is comparing the state and the soul. The soul also has her specific parts. These parts only followed their own roles.

When the social classes carry out their specific function, they contribute to the state. Plato is saying that a function cant overlap under function. Otherwise there will be chaos.

By following their own specific roles, they were contributing to the exercise of justice. With their roles they are contributing to state or soul. A person should have the virtue of wisdom, courage, and temperance. In terms of morality, each social class in the state. Rulers had wisdom, auxiliaries had courage and craftsman had temperance which is restraint (holding back his desirers). For plato a just person was one who kept all his facilities in balanced and orderly way were each faculty was devoted in their original and proper function. By faculty, Plato meant reason, courage and passion of a person. An unjust person is one who let his faculties get carried away. A balanced state or balanced soul was a just person. So justice for plato was equilibrium. Equilibrium for plato only came about through intelligent ruling. Intelligent ruling was necessary. This idea came from this rule that an ideal state is that aristocracy. Aristocracy was when nobel families had a specific right in society. Aristocracy for plato it was were the most intelligent and best people ruled. This is why Plato did not agree with democracy. Plato recommended a just, balanced, aristocratic state. A ruler must be a philosopher, just and balanced. It is revolutionary because he said that both man and woman could be rulers. It was ironic because the woman had no power at that time. The most important part of the theory was that the state had to be balanced and the person had to be just.

Plato on love One of Plato's popular book is called 'Symposium' (a meeting). In this book he talks about love. Since the time of the ancient Greeks, love has been discussed and debated by many people, however Plato's book is one of the most inflectional books on the topic about love. Socrates was the main character and the one who instigated the topic about love in the book. Is love a concrete or an abstract term ? Because of the abstract nature of love it is very difficult to define. This is why it got so much discussion. The Greeks believed that there were two parts of love, common love and noble love. Noble love was the love driven by virtue while the common love is the normal love. At the meeting in the book Symposium, every person gives his reason about love, Plato does not really agree with all the reasons given.

Phaedrus said that it is the lover that acquires virtue and not the person being loved. Pausanias distinguished between two types of love which were heavenly love and earthly love. Aphrodite is god of love and beauty. He said that there were two Aphrodite's (one took care of the heavenly love and the other took care of the earthly love); according to him, heavenly love had an honorable purpose, for him this love is always faithful and shows no sign of lust and no signs to other people. It is true love. Earthly love was rough love and it was love of the physical body while heavenly love was the one of the soul. Eryximadnos said love of the soul is so honorable that it is the force of the universe. Aristophenes argued that love is a desire for a lost wholeness. They complete each other. They complete that something that was missing in them. Adephon describes love as a source of all good things. Socrates speaks when he speaks, he refers to the god of sexual love and beauty eros. The point of the symposium for plato was to show that when a person is truly in love, that person perceives true beauty. Love of the soul is love of the beautiful soul and so love of the beautiful character. A priestess Diotema, when spoken to about love by Socrates that love can be described as perceiving true beauty. So if we had to analyze the scale of beauty, the scale would have to start from the beauty of the body to the beauty of the mind until it reaches the highest type of beauty which is Ideal beauty. Therefore love is Ideal beauty. So, because Eros manifests a lack, then the love that Eros represents is a desire. She describes the love that she represents as demonic. It is because of this bridge that the energy of this physical love is ultimately raised to the Ideal type of love, the Ideal type of beauty. If there wasn’t this bridge then one wouldn’t be able to perceive this idea of true beauty and true love. So Socrates goes on to explain this earthly love, and he says that this earthly love is what is most experienced by people. He said this because these people are unable to see past the physical beauty. So Socrates is saying that we no longer for in love for who the person is in like and we fall in love with what job they have or how they look.

Socrates says that heavenly type of love is love of special qualities. THe most beautiful and special qualities of humanity which are : virtue, honor and goodness. SO heavenly love is love of these qualities. Contrary to this, this is what allows a person to act irrationally. ITs contrary to heavenly love. This common love is what causes people to become angry and become jealous. So its completely opposite to heavenly love. Even though common love is different and completely opposite to heavenly love, Socrates says that there is nothing wrong with physical attraction. However the soul cannot be ruled by this common love alone. It needs heavenly love ! So love should be gratifying and self-gratifying. So with this dialogue Plato wants to explain that those people who appreciate true beauty, so beatuy within and external beauty will appreciate truth. and those who appreciate truth will end up contemplating it. So Plato is explaining that it is beauty that helps us clime from the sensible domain to the super sensible domain. SO basically for socrates, love and beauty overlap. Plato on education. Plato's educational theory was designed to prepare the future leaders of his ideal state. For the auxiliaries and the rulers. His political vision was to make a philosopher a king and a ruler a philosopher. His educational program acted as a filter to establish which social class a person should belong to. For one to become a philosopher, he had to complete the system. If you are successful, u can find yourself as a auxiliaries, ruler or craftsman. To become a philosopher ruler, a person had to follow all rungs of the educational ladder. This meant that one had to have knowledge of both sciences as well as philosopher. You had to be involved in the polis, the city state, this meant that you had to know arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music. Music was important because it had a mathematical bases. These subjects were thought in his school. A person had to have 15 years of practical administrative experience. All in all, this lengthy period of preparation, meant that a person could be ready to be a ruler at the age of about 50. If the ideal city was not formed or if it didn't take place, plato believed that a decline over the whole state would occur. His ideal state, Aristocracy - a balanced state is a just state - were everyone has his place in the state and were everyone sticks to his own role. Failure to form this lead to the mergence of a Timocracy. Timocracy is were honor is the criteria for ruling. So the ruler had to have a very big honor in order to rule. It is were ambition and honor rules. When timocracy fails to form, it leads to an oligarchy. It is were wealth rules the country. Only a few people rule the country. When the oligarchy fails to form, it leads to a democracy because it is were common people rule. It is were the most popular people get elected and the people who are elected think they understand but they really don't. Tyranny is formed if democracy fails. In tyranny, freedom and truth end. Plato on Arts Plato had a very negative attitude and perspective towards art. To understand why we should look at the theory of forms. The form of beauty for Plato was something universal and eternal. For Plato, art and artistic representation are imitations of beauty. Picasso is famous for having un-understood paintings. Plato would say that his paintings weren't beautiful because they're an imitation and a copy. For Plato, the sensible domain is a copy of the super sensible domain. Art is therefore a copy of a copy. Beauty lies in the Super Sensible Domain. Art is found in the Sensible Domain. A painting of a tree is a copy of a tree found in the Sensible Domain which is also a copy of the Super Sensible Domain. Art presents an illusion to us and so it takes two steps away from reality, thus it betrays us. He gives two reasons why he is so negative: 1.) Homer was a famous Greek writer who wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey. Plato was against telling Homer's stories and his myth, because he believed that Homer presented the gods in way were their behavior was a bad influence to people. Anyway who read and was exposed Homer's text were and could be were influenced of what he said, because in his texts we read about the suffering of people and of the gods. The way the people were portrayed was wrong. 2.) Plato believed that inspiration as irrational, so when an artist was inspired to draw something or write something, Plato said the artist would be so overwhelmed that he would be intoxicated with inspiration. Therefore artists didn't think straight and were not in control of themselves. So artists when they produced works of art, they didn't do it when they were in the right state of mind. For Plato, artists were crazy when they produced art. So for plato, the only person who could appreciate beauty was an intellectual person, a person who embraces the Super Sensible Domain. Not the even the artist because an artist is only under the impression that what he is producing is real. From his negative attitude, he banned studying of art in his Ideal State. He also ordered rulers to ban every artistic works in order for people to stop becoming influenced, not be overwhelmed, there would be no copies art so everything would be real. In Plato's philosophy, beauty bridges a world of ideas (perfection - universal) and the world of matter (particular).

Aristotle Aristotle was known as 'The Philosopher' and during his life he opened a school called 'The Lyceum' and it was one of the best research institute in ancient Greece. He was interested in a variety of subjects - philosophy, biology, zoology, natural history, psychology. Aristotle was the philosopher who invented logic. Aristotle was also the private tutor of Alexander the Great. Chronologically, Aristotle opened his school after he stopped tutoring. His philosophical life started after Alexander became king. Aristotle was a student of Plato and Socrates. He wrote many many books. Him and Plato are the two most important philosophers. Aristotle had his own theory of knowledge. (There is this painting called the School of Athens which shows different philosophers. The two main characters in the centre are Plato and Aristotle, one was the teacher and the other the student. Plato is pointing upwards - pointing at the forms. Aristotle is pointing downwards - more concerned towards morality, he was grounded, he was concerned with everything in this world and not just the forms. He went one step further than Plato. This was painted by Rafael.) Aristotle's Epistemology - Theory of Knowledge There were three branches of knowledge - the theoretical, practical and productive branch. The theoretical branch was concerned with the truth - it is that discipline that may sometimes be abstract but it can also be concrete. He gives examples, abstract theoretical are maths and meta-physics (Study God and time - like Stephen Hawking) while concrete theoretical examples are physics or biology.The practical branch is that branch which is more concerned with human conduct and action. Ethics is an example of human conduct. Also the study of politics can be practical. The productive branch is that branch which helps you create something, for example art, drama, poetry. Logic is the art of sound reasoning. Through logic we learn to reason, we learn to apply reason to arguments. Logic is abstract theoretical. Logic was important for Aristotle because it enabled us to learn more about the world without having to check if it was the truth or not. Logic enables a person to reason out something without having to check if its correct or not. For Aristotle definitions were very important because through them we are able to learn, affirm and deny things. They give us knowledge about something. A definition, in order to by true, must have two important things. The first thing is the class to which the object belongs to. The second thing is the specific difference that separates it from other members of the same class. Example, Aristotle defines man as rational animal. Animal is the class we belong to, our rationality is the specific thing that separates us from other animals. So logic was so important because it helped us arrive at conclusions. And from these conclusions, we could arrive at definitions. Aristotle's logic is one which is made up of syllogisms. Syllogisms is something which puts forward information and it id usually made up of two statements or premises and then a conclusion is derived. Example: Socrates is a man - 1st premise. All man are mortal - 2nd premise. Conclusion is that Socrates is mortal. Since the two premises are true, then the conclusion is also true, without having to check it. This above is a syllogism. Aristotle's Meta Physics Aristotle's Meta Physics centres on the Doctrine of Substances. This doctrine is the reaction and rejection of Plato's theory of forms. Plato said substances are an inadequate copies of reality but Aristotle says that substances are also real (this is why Aristotle points to the ground). Aristotle based much of his theories through observations. He noticed his surroundings and asked questions in order to derive a theory for substances. Because of this Aristotle concluded that every single thing that exists. He said that every substance forms part of a separate class. Reality is organized into categories, species and other specific things and so he mentioned three points to a definition of a substance. The first point was that something which we can give a predicate (something that describes something), definition or an affirmation (red is a predicate but something red is a substance). The second point is that a characteristic of a substance must be a separate quality (quality and quantity). The third point is that substance exists in its own right (it can exist on its own - a category cannot exist on its own). In his book called Categories, Aristotle gives a hint of how things can be classified. First is Quantity - How big and how small and how much. The second thing is Quality - what sort of object it is. The third thing is involvement in certain relations - to what it its relate it to. Fourth is location - where it is found. Fifth is time - when it was created. Sixth is position - top, right, left, bottom, and front. Seventh is certain possessions - what extras does it have. The last thing is whether it is actively or passively performing an action - what is the object is doing or what is being done to it. These eight ways can never be an independent reality, these points can be attributes to some substances and so they must be in relation to each other. Aristotle's Analysis of change Aristotle also studied change. He believed in four types of change: The first type is the change of substance. The second is the change of quality. The third is the change of quantity. The fourth type is the change of place. Change of substance - by substance he meant changes in nature. For example when a baby is born/When the stem sprouts from the seed. Change of quality - example is the opening of a flower. Change of quantity - example is the amount of leaves, flowers and petals on the stem of the plant. Or when a metal strip is heated and it expands. Change of place - the change in location. Example is the substance pollen changes place to be able to reproduce.

To explain change, Aristotle distinguished between two concepts: actual and potential. Actual is the state of an object at a certain point in time. Potential is towards which that object will change to. Example - I am a student but I have the potential to change into an engineer. Change as inherent (within you) in an object. If all goes well the potential will one day be actualized. Potential is the actualization of the purpose of the object. If we were to use Plato's vocabulary, we will define to the potential to belong to the material element. Whilst the actual would belong to the form. Actual is now. Potential changes. Aristotle identifies substance with essence. The essence of a thing is its nature and so it constitutes its identity and a question frequently asked is: "But how will I ever know what the essence of a thing is?" In response to this question, Aristotle comes up with a detailed explanation, he introduces us to the doctrine of four causes. Not only do we have four types of change, we also have four types of causes. Through these four causes, he explains how change is possible. The first cause is the efficient cause - is that which brings about the cause of existence of that thing. Example: the parents are the efficient cause of a child. The parents are the cause of the creation of the child. The second is the final cause - is the purpose or the goal of the change. Example: the parents will have a child to form a family, which will be the final cause. The third is the material cause - this is the change in the matter of what the object is made of. Example: the body of a child grows. Still in the child stage. The fourth is the formal cause - is the change in the structure or form. Example: the child becomes a teenager. Aristotle gives an example of a statue. The efficient cause is the sculpture. The final cause is to decorate, commemorate, and give as a present. The material cause is changing from clay to marble or another material, carved from wood or stone. The formal cause is the structure or statue itself. These four types cannot be separated especially the material and formal cause. Therefore Aristotle says that clearly there is no separation of matter and form.

Essence is the nature of a thing. It is what constitutes it identity. Plato said that the essence of a substance is its final cause or what it wants to become. In the case of natural objects, the final and formal cause are the same. Why? Since what the substance is to become is what it already is hence the formal and final cause are the same. A child is a human and will grow to become an adult so human is the essences of a child. So Aristotle did not agree with Plato because Aristotle disagreed with Plato since his belief in essences of forms where actualized in the thing itself unlike Plato’s belief. Through this theory he explains one of the main dilemma of presocratics.

Aristotle said "Although all objects change at each particular moment they are one therefore at any certain point they are in an actual state of existence but potentially they can change into something else so as to realize the Potential that nature has given them." This explains the dilemma of presocratic which is the change and permanency. Explaining how changes and permanency can coexist. He is explaining the theory of actual and something.

Aristotles moral theory Aristotle developed his moral theory in his book called 'Nicomachean Ethics'. The whole moral theory of Aristotle is based on answering a questiom 'what is good for man' To start off his theory, he distinguished between what we want and what is good for us. Clearly they are two different thingns, cause what we want might not necessarily be good for us. He says that whatever is good for a human being is that which fulfils the goals or purposes inherent in humans. Telos is a goal, the goal that every human being has. Eudaimonia is what the goal is the well being of men. He emphasized a very important point that the fulfillment wouldoy be possible if we rxercise our rational faculty. So by using reason this is possible. So what is good for Aristotle was virtuous. Therfore we can act vittuously if we act rationally because of this argument Aristotle came up with a therou which he calls the goldrn meme. The golden mean theory. With this mean, aristotle wanted to show how with reason people are able to make the right choices. He says when a person makes the right choices, over and over again it becomes a habit. Its a good habit because when you make the right choices you make the right ones. He says that virtues result from exercising reason. He says that these virtues are a a mean between two extremes. Within his moral theories he gives many examples. 3 virtues are : courage - it is the virtue that lies between rationalist and cowardice. Truthfulness- is the mean between false modesty and boastfulness Ambition - is the mean between overaggressiveness and lack of ambition (laziness) So aristotle recommends that we follow this golden mean.