Plato
I. PHL301 Philosophy begins with wonder about the world... What is real? a. Often tied with science b. Types of problems & theories i. Metaphysics what is there? What is it? 1. Is there a God? What am I? 2. Fundamental abstractions on concrete subject 3. Focuses on difference between perception & reality ii. Epistemology What can I know? 1. Knowledge versus believe 2. Linked to metaphysics through need for proof iii. Ethics value... What should I do? 1. With respect to human conduct 2. Theory of Value c. Philosophies "of" (i.e. Philosophy of Science, Business Ethics, etc.) d. Logic i. Argument = premises conclusion ii. Deduction vs. Induction 1. Deductive reasoning if premises are true, conclusion is true (conclusion follows premises), necessity 2. Inductive reasoning based on repetitive experience, probability iii. Deductive validity sound argument (if premises are valid, then the argument is sound) iv. Logical fallacy bad/invalid argument 1. Begging the question premises just as controversial as conclusion (assuming what one's trying to prove is correct, conclusions w/in premises) 2. Appeal to ignorance arguing that the opposite of the conclusion hasn't been proven 3. Suppression of evidence omitting important corollary information to premises and/or conclusion 4. Ad hominem "against the man," attacking the arguer 5. Appeal to authority using authority figure to support argument 6. Appeal to the crowd everyone else/most people believe/agree w/ argument v. Logical Laws
1. Noncontradiction statement cannot be true AND false at the same time 2. Excluded middle vi. Reducing to absurdity 1. Problem of evil everything God creates is good, but a devil exists 2. Liar's paradox all Cretans are liars (spoken by a Cretan) 3. Absolute skepticism knowing one knows nothing vii. The limits of reason/deduction 1. Infinite regress of premises proving premises by deduction (proving premises of premises of premises, etc.) 2. Primary premises obtained by induction (possibility of being incorrect) II. Plato a. Socrates (sources of knowledge Plato & biographer of Socrates) i. Has no writing ii. Interested in ordinary affairs iii. Attempted to draw attention to abstractions iv. Took part in military service, where he distinguished himself v. Lived simply (wore same garment, ate/drank sparingly) vi. Thought to be ugly vii. From youth, recipient of mysterious voices, signs (moral voice of guidance) viii. Studied cosmology (eventually abandoned) ix. Oracle at Delphi claimed Socrates was wisest man in Athens x. Socratic ignorance one should not make assumptions xi. Wanted fellow Athenians to question their ways xii. Ironic element to dialogues b. The method of dialectic i. Origins in everyday 1. Someone will raise a Socratic question 2. Someone must try to answer the question, which leads to... 3. Thesis-antithesis form a. Thesis = response to Socratic question b. Anti-thesis = Socrates points out something that can't be ignored c. New thesis offered which preserves original thesis, but is altered to fix objections raised by antithesis d. New antithesis raises faults with second thesis
e. Etc. 4. Aims of dialectic to get the truth (the thesis we can't find anything wrong w/) & to get one to question oneself 5. Limitations of dialectic skill & knowledge of participants, can only be applied to certain issues c. Euthyphro doctrines don't answer central question i. Background 1. Main purpose to illustrate method of dialectic 2. Socrates believes in a God ii. Question: What is piety? 1. Not a fundamental moral notion 2. Merely a part of justice (which has to do w/ the Gods) iii. Summary 1. Socrates under indictment, Euthyphro plaintiff in suit against father 2. Irony (somewhat sarcastic) Socrates doesn't' truly believe he can get anything from Euthyphro 3. MAYBE Socrates can better defend himself if he can learn something from Euthyphro iv. Euthryphro's definitions & Socrates' objections 1. Socratic question: What is pious? 2. Euthyphro's response Pious = what I'm doing now... ostensive definition (example), circular reasoning 3. Socrates wants a real definition 4. Euthyphro's thesis: What is dear to the Gods 5. Socrates' antithesis: Gods can disagree 6. Euthyphro's 2nd thesis: What ALL Gods love & are "in agreement" on (all agree on what Euthyphro is currently doing) 7. Socrates' 2nd antithesis: How do you know all Gods love it? Gods love it because it is pious, it isn't pious because the Gods love it... Piety may be ONE thing loved by the Gods, but it is certainly not the only thing loved by the Gods (yet again, ostensive definition) 8. Euthyphro's thesis: 3rd Piety is a just thing that does good for the Gods 9. Socrates' 3rd antithesis: Piety makes the Gods better? Goes against theology v. 2 (negative) doctrines elicited from Euthyphro 1. Piety is NOT a fundamental moral notion, merely a part of justice
2. You CANNOT derive ethics from religion d. Meno i. Plato possibly trying to advance from Socrates ii. Meno's question: Can virtue be taught? 1. How does one learn to be a good person? 2. Was one taught to be a good person? iii. Socratic ignorance must first answer fundamental question: What is virtue? (the real, not ostensive definition) iv. Meno's definitions/Socrates' responses 1. Meno is shocked we all know what virtue is 2. Socrates insists 3. Meno's definition of manly virtue (Plato is one of the 1st philosophers who said women could rule): managing the city's affairs capably in order to help his friends & injure his enemies (different types of virtue abound, Meno's definition is ostensive) 4. Socrates doesn't want an ostensive definition 5. Meno's 2nd attempt to define virtue: Capacity to govern men 6. Socrates: would have to add justly and definition is STILL not perfect... still only 1 type of virtue (shape isn't roundness) 7. Meno goes with Socrates' metaphor & defines shape (following color) & asks Socrates to define color 8. Socrates brings Meno back to the point now that he understands the definition he is searching for 9. Meno's 3rd attempt to define virtue: to rejoice in fine things & have the power to get them 10. Socrates provides counter-examples... everyone wants good things, so virtue is merely power? 11. Breakdown in dialogue as Meno objects to the whole process of inquiry v. Turning point: paradox of inquiry 1. Meno: How can you search for something you don't know/how would you recognize the truth if you saw it? Either you know it or don't & won't know it when you see it. 2. Socrates' response: doctrine of knowledge through recollection vi. Socrates' attempt at resolution: the slave 1. Slave learns through answering questions 2. Socrates brings out knowledge others didn't realize they had
3. Philosophical truths already within, Socrates believes in form of innate knowledge (idea of soul) 4. "I already knew that" feeling 5. Virtue = innate knowledge from Gods vii. Possible doctrines 1. Divine dispensation virtue received from Gods 2. Knowledge by recollection 3. Pre-existence of the soul people innately good/innately knowledgeable 4. Unsure about all because the fundamental question ("What is virtue?") never answered 5. Many other factors might have something to do with existence of virtue within one e. The Apology i. Result ii. Portrait of Socrates f. Crito i. Crito's argument ii. Socrates' response & the discussion of justice 1. Socrates owes Athens something 2. He is contracted to follow the law g. Phaedo i. Death ii. Immortality: 3 arguments 1. Cycle of Opposites a. Death changes into life? b. Does everything change into its opposite? c. Counter-examples exist 2. Knowledge from Recollection 3. Exclusion of Opposites a. Opposites don't become their opposites (cool doesn't become warm, someTHING becomes warm), difference between forms & ideas themselves (justice doesn't become injustice, a just STATE becomes unjust) b. Concepts = reality (recognized through recollection = knowledge), exist outside mind c. Soul recognizes existence of truths
d. Appearance vs. reality (concrete examples of concepts vs. concepts themselves) e. Eternal, immutable idea of justice which soul seeks to discover
Plato's Theory of Forms (Ideas) Everything there is either a form, or an appearance of a form, or an appearance of a collection of forms. A form is 1) an object of thought, 2) knowable, 3) eternal & unchanging, 4) independent, 5) universal. An appearance is 1) a sense object, 2) an object of believe (not knowledge), 3) transitory, 4) dependent, 5) particular. Forms are "really" real (i.e. the basic reality) while appearances are secondary & dependent on the forms. Appearances participate in forms. So, an object is an appearance of a collection of forms. That appearance has come to be & will pass away (it becomes while the forms in which it participates are eternal, do not come to be & pass away). There are, then, 2 sorts of entities, or 2 levels being & becoming. The soul & God
Plato's 3rd Man Problem Problem of "participation" between worlds of form & appearance Once you can name the connection, it can & must be treated as either an appearance or a form Leads to infinite regress Mystery as to how form & appearance hook up