Page 1
1 1
PRE -SOCRATICS AND SOPHISTS
Unit Structure :
1.0 Objective
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Natural Philosophers (Thales, Anaximander And Anaxtmenes)
1.3 The problem of change (Parmenides and Heraclitus)
1.4 Pluralists (Democritus)
1.5 Sophists (Protagoras)
1.6 The Sophist Epistemology
1.7 The Sophist Theory Of Morality
1.8 Summary
1.9 Unit and questions
1.0 OBJECTIVE
After going through the unit, you will be able to know :
The beginning of philosophy in the ancient times (Gree k Philosophy)
Natural Philosophers
Problem of Change
To understand the pre Socratic Philosophy with its emphasis on Man
as the central theme.
To know about Sophists Epistemology and Ethics.
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Western Philosophical beginswith the speculations of the Greeks. The
ancient Greek phi losophical traditional broke away from a mythological
approach to explaining the world, and it intialated an approach based on
reason and evidence. Freed from religious bias, the Greek thinkers
supported science and are called as the foundersn of Philosoph y and
science in the west. In the early Greek thought science means an
independent and free enquiry into natural events, systematically and
methodically without being burdened with religious requirement. The
early Greek thinkers tried to give rational expl aination of natural
phenomena. It is also interesting to note that these early thinkers tried to munotes.in
Page 2
Western Philosophy
2 grapple with the whole reality with their limited resources. Initially
concerned with explaining the entire cosmos, the Presocratic philosophers
strived to ide ntify its single underlying principle.
The sophists were concerned about man himself. Their questions were not
related about the object or content of knowledge but about knowledge
itself. The Sophists asked questional about the origin, nature and the kind
ofcertainty which human knowledge can yield. If looked closely, we find
that this kind of question is not about knowing any object but about
knowing itself.
The following chapter will give us a brief idea idea about sophist’s
Epistemology and Ethics.
1.2 NATURAL PHILOSOPHERS (THALES,
ANAXIMANDER AND ANAXTMENES)
The Western philosophical traditiona began in ancient Greece in the 6th
century BCE. The first philosophers are called “Presocratics” with
designates that they came before Socrates.’ The Pre-Socratic’s from either
the eastern or western regions of the Greek world. The Pre -Socratic’s most
distinguishing feature is emphasis on questions of physics; indeed,
Artistotle refers to them as “Investigators of Nature”. Their scientific
interests inc luded mathematics, as tronomy, and biology.
As the first philosophers, thought, they emphasized the rational unity of
things, and rejected mythological explanations of the world. Only
fragments of the original writing s of the Presocratics survive, in some
cases merely a single sentence. The knowledge we have of them derives
from accounts of early philosophers, such as Aristotle’s Physrbs and
Metaphysics, The Opinions of the Physicists by Aristotle’s pupil
Theophratus, and Simplicius, a Neoplatonist who comp iled existing
quotes.
The first group of Presocratic philosophers were from Lonia. The lonian
philosophers sought the single principle of things, and tile mode of their
origin and disappearance.
1.2.1 Thales of Miletus (c.624 BC – c.BGE):
Thales was a pre -socratic Greek philosopher from Miletus in Asia Minor.
And one of the Seven Sages of Greece. Many most notably Aristotle,
regard him as the first philosopher in the tradition. According to Berteand
Russell, “Western philosophy begins with Thales.” Thales attempted to
explain natural phenomena without reference to mythology and was
tremendously influential in this respect.
Almost all of the Pre -Socreatic philosophers follow him in attempting to
provide an explanation of ultimate substance, change and the ex istence of
the world -without reference to mythology. Those philosopjers were also
an essential idea for the scientific revolution. He was also the first to
define general principles and set forth hypotheses,and as a result has been munotes.in
Page 3
Pre-Socratics and
Sophists
3 dubbed the “first man of science,” as he gave a naturalistic explanation of
the cosmos and supported it with reasons.
Water as the First Principle:
Thales most famous philosophical position was his cosmological thesis,
which comes down to use through a passage from Aristole’s Me taphysics.
The chief aim of Thales was to account for the fundamental stuff of which
the universe is made. Hence according to him the universe is
fundamentally water, because water admits of being vaporous, liquid and
solid.
When water heated it assumes t he form of vapour; when chiled it becomes
solid and when it is allowed in its natural course then it is a flowing
stream. Hence water succeeds in explaining all the possible states of being
solid, liquid and vaporous. For this reason water can be said to b e
fundamental stuff of the universe. Even the earth, according to Thales, is a
disc floating on water.
Aristotle the biologist conjectured that Thales chose water to be the
ultimate stuff, for food is always wet and this liquid food nourishes the
body, e ven the generating seeds are wet.
The most important thing about Thales is that he gave birth to scientific
way of thinking. It is said that he predicted the eclipse which took place in
585 B.C. According to Russell Thales discovered how to calculate the
distance of a ship at sea with the help of observations taken at two points
to calculate the height of a tree or pyramid from the length of its shadow.
However, he regarded magnet as something living for it attracts things
towards itself. Again Thales is s aid to have said that all things are full of
gods. Hence Windelband holds that the philosophy of Thales and of other
Milesians to be hylozoistic (those who think matter is alive).
The phitosophy and science of Thales may appear to us to be very crude,
but he laid down the foundation of scientific worldview in the sense that
his speculation was wholly naturalistic. It was neither anthropomorphic
nor theocentric.
The most important thing about Thales is that he gave birth to scientific
way of thinking. The ph ilosophy and science of Thales may appear to us
to be very crude, but he laid down the foundation of science worldview in
the sense that his speculation was wholly naturalistic. It was neither
anthropomorphic nor theocentric.
Check your progress :
1) Who are the Presocratic philosophers ?
2) What did the First Philosophers emphasise upon and rejected at ?
3) The first group of Presoscratic philosophers were from
4) How did Thales attempt to explain natural phenomena ? munotes.in
Page 4
Western Philosophy
4 5) According to Thales, the universe is fundamentally water, because
water admits of being………….., liquid and ………….
1.2.2 Anaximander (611 -547 BCE) :
Anaximander also belonged to Miletus. He was a man of daring venture of
thought. Anaximander was the first writer on philosophy. He was a
cosmologist like Thale s. However for him the primary substance was
‘boundless something’ – a formless, infinite and eternal mass not yet
parted into particular kinds of matter. In positing ‘boundless mass’ as the
fundamental stuff of which the world is constituted, he indirectl y lays
down an important principle, namely, a formless general principle can
account for the particulars, but not vice -versa.
For example, formless earth mass can be converted into particularised
things like pitchers, bricks, tiles, etc. But the earthen p itchers cannot be
directly shaped into tiles or goblets. In order to give rise to tiles or bricks,
the earthen pitcher has to be reduced again to the formless mass of earth,
this distinction of formless matters and particulars will be like found again
the theory of Aristotle known as the doctrine of matter and form.
Anaximander appears to have stated that the world is governed by the
opposities like hot and gold, wetand dry it is by the working of the
opposites that the world goes on. In this context it can be said that the
earth, air, water and fire cannot be the ultimate stuff of the universe, for
they have opposite characters. For example, fire burns and water
dampenes. If any one of them be allowed to work unfetteredly then the
world would become either dry or watery and the world as such would
cease to be.
According to Anaximander the world has evolved in due course. At one
time there was water everywhere. There were only watery creatures. By
drying up of water, land appeared and, creatures of the sea w ere left on the
dry hand. Those creatures from the sea which could adapt themselves to
the dry hand alone have survived. One can easily seem the germ of the
organic evalution in the speculative adventure of Anaximander.
Anaxirnander held that the earth is cylindrical in shape and moves freely
in the space is once again a foreshadow of the theory of gravitation.
Anaximander calls his infinite boundless matter ‘God’. This is the first
philosophical concept of God. This God, no doubt, is matter. But it is not
mythological or anthropomorphic. Clearly it maintains monism. Beside,
the the doctrine of creation of the universe by god has been completely
ignored. The ‘boundless reality’ is not the Creator -God.
1.2.3 Anaximenes (588 -524 BCE) :
Like Thales and Anaxima nder, Anaximenes belonged to Miletus. Like
Thales, Anaximenes regards ‘air’ as the primary stuff of the universe.
Why air, and not water? It is only a matter of conjecture. Most probably
Anaximenes paid more attention to the living than to any other things .
Here breath, i.e., air is the predominant thing. Therefore for Anaximanes munotes.in
Page 5
Pre-Socratics and
Sophists
5 air is the predominant thing. Therefore for Anaximenes air is the
fundamental stuff of which the world is composed.
Anaximenes chose air as the first substance because of its mobil ity,
change ability and inner vitality. As a matter of fact air was considered to
be the breath of the universe. Hence this breathing universe was
considered to be a living organism for this reason Anaximenes is really a
hylozoist. Hyle is the living matte r.
For Anaximenes, this primary air is regulated by the opposed principles of
condensation and rarefaction. Condensation simply means compression of
the air in a narrow space and rarefaction means expansion of the air in the
greater space. By rarefaction air assumes the form of fire, and, by
successive condensation it gives rise to water, earth and stone.
Anaximenes accounts for all the important elements and states of material
things through his fundamental stuff of air. Further, the world is not annoy
vaporous, liquid and solid, but is also sound, colour rough smooth etc.
how to explain this world of quality ? the principles of condensation and
the rarefaction admit of quantitative differences. Hence, here is involved
the principle that quantity can expla in the quality. Later on Pythagoras laid
down his famous statement ‘what exists, exists is number’. In the modern
times no scientific explanation is considered reliable unless it is put into
quantitive formulae. Hence, the thinking of Anaximenes is a step forward
towards the scientific worldview.
Check your progress :
1) Anaximander was the first writer on ………..
2) A formless general principle can account for the …………..
3) What is the view Anaximander with regard to earth ?
4) Who gave the first philosophical conc ept of God.
5) For Anaximenes what is the fundamental stuff of which the world is
composed ?
6) Why did Anaximenes chose air ?
munotes.in
Page 6
Western Philosophy
6 1.3 THE PROBLEM OF CHANGE (PERMENIDES AND
HERACLTTUS)
1.3.1 Heraclitus :
Heraclitus of Ephesus was a contemporary of Parmenides. But their
philosophies were opposed. According to Parmenides reality is one,
eternal and unchangeable being. For Heraclitus, reality is change, flux, and
Becoming.
The main teaching of Heraclitus is that everything is in constant flux.
Riverse and mountains an d all seemingly permanent things are in constant
flux. All is flow and becoming. No one can step into the same river twice,
for when a man enter into a river, then he meets one stream of water and
the next moment the first stream passes away, yielding to a newer stream
of water. One can easily see that no man can ever remain the same for
even two moments. Man keeps on changing from moment and moment.
The doctrine of flus will remind the teaching of lord Buddha relating to
momentariness.
Heraclitus : From f ire all things originate, and return to
it again by a never -resting process of development. all
things, therefore, are in a perpetual flux.
Constitutes reality. Yet, there is an abiding order in the ever -changing fire.
All things come from fire and return to fire. There is the downward way
and also the upward way.According to the downward way, through
condensation fire changes into water and earth. And according to the
upward way, though rarefaction, water and earth give way to fire. This
order of successi on produces the illusion of permanence. He also extended
the teaching seeming opposites in fact are manifestations of a common
substrate to good and evil itself.
1.3.2 Parmenides :
Parmenides was the founder of the School of EIea. Parmenides had a large
influence on Plato, who not only named a dialogue, Parmenides, after him,
but always spoke of him with veneration.
The single known work of Parmenides is a poem. On Nature, which has
survived only in fragmentary form. His own philosophy has been
presented in ‘the way to truth’.
Xenophanes had declared ‘All is one’. This was the starting point of
Parmenides. How could he establish this truth ? He like the rest of the
people found that the world of sensible things is always becoming.
Thinking come into the wor ld and the next moment they perish. They are
as much are as they are not. What can we say about this flux ? Heraclitus
declared that flux alone is real. munotes.in
Page 7
Pre-Socratics and
Sophists
7 To Permenides it appeared impossible. For him, real is eternal,
unchangeable and indestructible. For h im it appeared self contradictory to
hold that a thing which is passing away to be real. What is the point
involved in saying that the real is permanent and unchangeable ?
For Parmenides, One alone is real, and manyness and changes are unreal.
This distinc tion is a matter of intuition and at most a postulate of his
philosophy. But in real life changes and plurality of things are palpable.
What can we say about them ? for Parmenides plurality and changes are
given by the senses. At most they can be called ‘m ere appearances’. But
what is the reason for regarding them as ‘appearances’. Quite obviously
they are and yet they cease to be.
If the world of senses is illusory, then how do we know the One ? Of
course, through throught. Hence, Parmenides makes a disti nction between
the appearance and reality, sense and thought. He gives predominance to
thought.
The above interpretation of Parmenides as the identity of thought and
being is essentially the tenet of Idealism. These ideas strongly influenced
the whole of Western philosophy, perhaps most notably through their
effect on plato.
Parmenides holds that reality is one, enternal and indestructible.
Parmenides explains how reality (coined as “what – is) is one,
Change is impossible, and existence is timeless, unifo rm,
Necessary and unchanging. He explains the world of appearances, in
which one’s sensory faculties lead to conception which are false and
deceitful.
Check your progress :
1) What is reality according to Heraclitus ?
2) No one can step into the same river………… …
3) what is the nature of reality according to Parmenides ?
1.4 PLURALISTS DEMOCRITUS
Leucippus and Democritus are widely regarded as the first atomists in the
Greek tradition. Little is known about Leucippus, while the ideas of his
student Democritus – who is said to have taken over and systematized his
teacher’s theory – are known from a large number of reports. These
ancient atomists theorized that the two fundamental and oppositely
characterized constituents of the natural world indivisible bodiesatoms -
and void. The latter is described simply as nothing, or the negation of
body. Atoms are by their nature intrinsically unchangeable; they can only munotes.in
Page 8
Western Philosophy
8 move abot in the void and combine into different clusters. Since the atoms
are separated by void, they cannot fu se, but must rather bounce off one
another when they collide. Because all macroscopic objects are in fact
combinations of atoms, everything in the macroscopic world is subject to
change, as their constituent atoms shift or move away. Thus, while the
atoms themselves persist through all time, everything in the world of our
experience is transitory and subject to dissolution.
According to Aristole’s presentation (On generation and Corruption I 8),
the motivation for the first postulation of indivisible bodies is to answer a
metaphysical puzzle about the possibility of change and multiplicity.
Parmenides had argued that any differentiation or change in Being implies
that ‘what is not either is or comes to be. Althought there are problems in
interpreting Parmeni des precise meaning, he was understood to have
raised a problem about how change can be possible without something
coming from nothing. Several Presocratics formulated, in response,
philosophical system in which change is not considered to required
somethi ng coming into being from complete nonexistence, but rather the
arrangement of preexisting elements into new combinations. The atomists
held that, like Being, as conceived by Parmenides, the atoms are
unchangeable and contain no internal differentiation of a sort that would
allow for division. But there are many beings, not just one, which are
separated from another by nothing, i.e. by void.
By positing indivisible bodies, the atmists were also thought to be
answering Zeno’s paradoxes about the impossibili ty of motion. Zeno had
argued that, if magnitudes can be divided to infinity, it would be
impossible for motion to occur. The problem seems to be that a body
moving would have to traverse an infinite number of spaces in a finite
time. By supposing that the atoms form the lowest limit to division, the
atomists escape from this dilemma : a total space traversed has only a
finite number of parts. As it is unclear whether the earliest atomists
understood the atmos to be physically or theoretically indivisible, they
may not have made the distrinction.
The changes in the world of macroscopic objects are caused by
rearrangements of the atomic clusters. Atoms can differ in size, shape,
oprder and order and position (the way they are turned) ; they move about
in the void, and – depending on their shape – some can temporarily bond
with one another by means of tiny hooks and barbs on their surfaces. Thus
the shape of individual atmos affects the macroscopic texture of clusters of
atoms, which may be fluid and yielding o r firm and resistant, depending
on the amount of void space between and the coalescence of the atomic
shapes. The texture of surfaces and the relative density and fragility of
different materials are also accounted for by the same means.
The atomists acco unted for perception by means of films of atmos
sloughed off from their surfaces by external objects, and entering and
impacting the sense organs. They tried to account for all sensible effects
by means of cantact, and regarded all sense perceptions as cau sed by the
properties of the atmos making up the films acting on the atmos of munotes.in
Page 9
Pre-Socratics and
Sophists
9 animals’ sense organs. Perceptions of color are caused by the ‘turning’ or
position of the atmos; tastes are caused by the texture of atmos on the
tongue, e.g., bitter tastes by the tearing caused by sharp atmos; feeling of
heat are ascribed to friction. Democritus was taken by Aristole to have
considered thought to be a materiamaterial process involving the local
rearrangement of bodies, just as much as is perception.
A famous q uotation from Democritus distinguishes between perceived
properties like colors and tastes, which exist only ‘by convention,’ in
contrast to the reality, which is atmos and void. However, he apparently
recognized an epistemological problem for an empiricis t philosophy that
nonetheless regards the obkects of sense as unfreal. In another famous
quotation, the senses accuse the mind of overthrowing them, although
mind is dependent on the sense. The accusation is that, by developing an
atomist theory that under mines the basis for confidence in sense
perception, thought has in effect undercut its own foundation on
knowledge gained through the senses. Democritus sometimes seems to
doubt or deny the possibility of knowledge.
The early atomists try to account for t he formation of the natural world by
means of their simple ontology of atoms and void alone. Leucippus held
that there are an infinite number of atmos moving for all time in an infinite
void and that these can form into cosmic systems or kosmoi by means of a
whirling motion which randomly establishes itself in a large enough
cluster of atoms. It is controversial whether atmos are thought to have
weight as an intrinsic property, causing them all to fall in some given
direction, or whether weight is simply a tendency for atoms (which
otherwise move in any and every direction, except when struck) to move
towards the centre of a system, created by the whirling of the cosmic
vortices. When a vortex is formed, it creates a membrane of atoms at its
outer edge, and the outer band of atoms catches fire, forming a sun and
stars. These kosmoi are impermanent and are not accounted for by purpose
or design. The earth is described as a flat cylindrical drum at the center of
our cosmos.
Species are not regarded as permanen t abstract forms, but as the result of
chance combinations of atoms. Living things are regarded as having a
psyche or principle of life; this is identified with fiery atoms. Organisms
are thought to reproduced by means of seed : Democritus seems to have
held that both parents produce seeds composed of fragments from each
organ of their body. Whichever of the parts drawn from the relevant organ
of the parents predominates in the new mixture determines which
characteristics are inherited by the offspiring. De mocritus is reported to
have given an account of the origin of human beings from the earth. He is
also said to be the founder of a kind of cultural anthropology, since his
account of the origin of the cosmos includes an account of the origin of
human insti tutions, including language and social and political
organization.
A large group of reports about Democritu’s views concern ethical
maxims : some schlors have tried to regard these as systematic or depedent munotes.in
Page 10
Western Philosophy
10 on atomist physics, while others do ubt the closeness of the connection.
Because several maxims stress the value of ‘cheerfulness,’ Democritus is
sometimers portrayed as ‘the laughing philosopher.’
1.5 SOPHIST
The practice of charging money for education and Providing wisdom only
to those w ho could pay led to the condemnations made by Socrates,
through Plato in his dialogues, as well as Xenophone’s Memorabilia.
The Greek word sophist (sophistis) derives from the world sophin, and
sophos, meaning “wisdom” or “wise” since the time of Homer an d was
originally used to describe expertise in a particular knowledge or craft.
Gradually, however the word also came to denote general wisdom arid
especially wisdom about human affairs (for example, in politics, ethics, or
household management).
In ancien t Greece, sophists were a category of philosopher -teachers who
travelled around Greek cities and specialized in using the techniques of
philosophy and ehetoric for the purpose of teaching arête -excellence, or
virtuepredominantly to young statemens and nobi lity. These were useful
skills in Athens, where being persuasive could lead to political power and
economics wealth. Although there were numerous differences among
Sophist teachings, a prominent element in their philosophy was
skepticism. Sophists taught t heir beliefs for a considerable price. Overall,
Sophists identified as either agnostic or atheistic.
Sophists become popular following the development of thought and
society in Athens, Greece in the fifth centuary B.C. They offered practical
education with teaching that included speculation of the nature of the
universe as well as the art of life and politics. They believed that law was
an agreement between people and that justice is nonexistent. Among the
Sophists, Protagoras, Gorgias, Prodicus, Hippias, T hrasymachus,
Lycophron, Callicles, Antiphone, and Crytylus are the most well -known.
Most Sophists claimed to teach arête excellence in the management of
one’s own affairs and especially in the administration of the affairs of the
city. Up to the fifth cent ury B.C. it was the common belief that arête was
inborn and that aristocratic birth alone qualified a person for politics, but
Protagoras taught that arête is the result of training and not innate. The
Sophists claimed to be able to help their students bet ter themselves
through the acquisition of certain practical skills, especially rhetoric (the
art of persuasion). Advancement in politics was almost entirely depedent
upon rhetorical skills. The Anthenian democracy with its assembly
(ekklesia), in which any citizen could speak on demostic and foreign
affairs, and the council of five hundred (boule), on which every Athenian
citizen got a chance to serve, required an ability to speak persuasively. The
Sophists filled this need for rhetorical training and by th eir teaching
proved that education could make an individual a more effective citizen
and improve his status in Anthnian society.
munotes.in
Page 11
Pre-Socratics and
Sophists
11 Check your Progress.
1) Who were the Sophists ?
1.6 THE SOPHIST EPISTEMOLOGY
1.6.1 Protagoras :
Protogoras of Abdera (c. 4gO -420 B.C.E.) was the most prominent
member of the sophistic movement and Plato reports he was the first to
change fees using that title.
From a philosophical perspective, Protagoras is most famous for his
relativistic account of truth -in particular the claim t hat ‘man is the measure
of all things’ –and his agnosticism concerning the Gods.
Protagoras was one of the most well -known and successful teachers. He
taught his students the necessary skills and knowledge for a successful
life, particularly in politics, r ather than philosophy. He trained his pupils to
argue from both points of view because he believed that truth could not be
limited to just one side of the argument. Therefore, he taught his students
to praise andblame the same things and to strengthen the weaker argument
so that it might appear the stronger.
These techniques are based on the belief that truth is relative to the
individual. Arguments on both sides of a question are equally true because
those debating a question can only truly know those thin gs which exist in
their own mind and therefore cannot make a definitely true statement
about objective realities the mind (phenomenalism). Truth is what it
appears to be to the individual. Protagoras wrote about a variety of
subjects and some fragments of his work survived. He is the author of the
famous saying, “man is the measure of all things, of the things that are,
that they are and things that are not, that they not”, ‘Which is the opening
sentence of a work called Truth.
However, the question which arises is what is meant by knowledge ?
Knowledge means that which is true for all and for all the moments of
human life. Is Perception knowledge in that sense ? No. But it is
nonetheless knowledge of the object as it appears to a percipient at a
particular moment and true for him at that moment alone. Is is true for
another ? no, for perception of one true to him alone at one particular
moment of time, and a thing is what appears to another moment of time. It
appears then no two perceptions of the same man are the same, and not
two perceptions of two men are quite the same. And yet for all practical
purpose perception alone is knowledge. This knowledge is relative to
different times.
Hence the famous saying of Protagoras Homo Mensura, i.e. man is the
measur e of all things. In other words; what appears to me is true for me
and what appears to you is true for you. Is there no knowledge which is
valid and acceptable to all men universally ? NO. Then the conclusion of munotes.in
Page 12
Western Philosophy
12 homo mensura not only shows the relativism o f knowledge but also its
universality as impossibility. This is known as skepticism. In other
respects, it also means all statements are true and none are false. Goorgias
another Sophist holds that based on this perception, no knowledge is
possible, and ev en if knowledge be available. It cannot be communicated
to others.
Few thinkers pointout that Protagoras used the term man not as an
individual men but universal man, the rational man. It is reason which is
one and the same in all andwhat reason tells us is universal and valid for
all. In this sense, man taken as a rational being is certainly the measures of
all things. But on close analysis of Protogoras philosophy. We know that
he does not uphold the claims of thought or reason in constituting
knowledge. For him, knowledge is perception. Against this view. Socrates
maintained that knowledge is thought. Hence the Protogoras dphorism of
homo mensura necessarily leads to skepticism and nihilism. Here ‘man’
really means men for Protagoras.
1.6.2 Gorgias :
Gorgias is another well -known Sophist. Gorgias writings showcase his
ability of making ridiculous and unpopular positions appear stronger.
Gorgias authored a lost work known as On Nature of the Non -Existent, in
this book he laid down three of his tenets, nam ely,
1) There is nothing
2) Even if there be anything, it cannot be known.
3) Even if there be any knowledge of anything. It cannot be
communicated.
In explaining the first tenet Gorgias is said to have borrowed Zeno’s
arguments leading to falsity of motion and plurality. If there be anything
then it can be known only through perception. But perception tells us that
things are many and the they are motion. Further, perception is the only
knowledge. And perception tells us that everything has come into being
from its earlier state. But this arising of things can be either from being or
non-being. But quite obviously a world of becoming cannot come from an
unchanging being. Again nothing can arise from non -being. Hence, there
is nothing in the world.
The second te net of Gorgias is. ‘Even if there is anything, we cannot know
it’. It means we do not know what the real object is. What we find here is
that the sophists were interested in the refutation of the statements of their
opponents. Naturally they concentrated o n the logic of proof and
contradiction. Naturally any judgement can really be tautology.
The third tenet, ‘Even if we could know anything, we cannot communicate
our knowledge to anyone else.’ Gorgia’s attempts to persuade his readers
that thought and exist ence was different. Hence, whatever our knowledge
be, it cannot be about things. Hence, what kind of knowledge can be munotes.in
Page 13
Pre-Socratics and
Sophists
13 obtained to be communicated at all ? It further means. ‘My perception is
mine, and yours is yours’. There is nothing which two persons can
perceive alike. Hence each man is shut up in his cocoon like existence
from which nothing can go out and into which nothing can enter. Hence,
no knowledge can ever be communicated. Here the theory of Gorgia’s
refuted his practice, for he was teaching and communicating his
knowledge to his pupils.
Check your progress :
1) What was the prominent element in the philosophy of the Sophists ?
2) Protagoras taught that arefe is the result of ………and not innate.
3) Protagoras is most famous for his relativistic account of truth
particular the claim that ………..
4) Explain the reasoning of Protagoras to train his students to argue from
both points of view ?
5) Explain skepticism that follows from the conclusion of homo mensura.
6) Mention any two tenets of gorgias.
1.7 THE SOPHIST THE ORY OF MORALITY
The Sophists held that morality consists in pleasure. What is pleasant,
agreeable and desirable feeling for one is morally right for him, and what
is agreeable and desirable for another is morally right for him. Here in
morality the individ ual state becomes the measure of morality. As these
states are relative to individuals, so morality differs from persons to
persons. Therefore, the sophists were pragmatist and utilitarian in moral
philosophy.
What is true individuala is true also for just ice, law and goodness of the
State. For the sophists, the State law is based on customs and conventions.
The law of one State is not the same as the law of other States. Even in the
same State the law framed by one ruling party is changed by the next
rulin g party. Under the circumstances goodness and justice are relative. It
is really based on the principle of ‘might is right’. The brute majority of
the ruling party in the State frames the laws for the weaker ones. Hence
justice is the right of the strong. Plato opposed the doctrine of ‘might is
right’ and taught right is might’.
In religion too the sophists were non -committal. Protagoras is supposed to
have written a book called ‘On the Gods’ in which he states : With regard
to gods, I cannot feel sure eit her that they are not or that they are not, now
they are like in figure ; for there are many things that hinder sure
knowledge, the obscurity of the subject and the shortness of human life.
Thus Protagoras was really skeptical about the existence of God. But he
advised the traditional worship of gods, perhaps as a measure of prudence. munotes.in
Page 14
Western Philosophy
14 Protagoras is said to have been charged for his irreverence because of his
skepticism about the existence of gods.
Check Your Progress :
1) The Sophists held that morality cons ists in …………..
2) What is Protagoras view with regard to God ?
1.8 SUMMARY
Early Greek thinkers were free thinkers. They tried to explain things
according to natural causes like earth, water, fire and air’ Thinkers like
Thales, Anaximander, Anzximenes, Hera clitues and Parmenides did not
take help of supernatural Gods. Hence Greek philosophy is called
scientific in spirit.
1.9 UNIT END QUESTIONS
1) Give a brief analysis of Pre Socratic Philosophy.
2) Thales is regarded as the first Philosopher in the Greek traditio n,
Comment.
3) Explain Anaximander’s cosmology in detail.
4) Why does Anaximenes regard air as the primary stuff of the universe ?
5) Explain Parmenides and Heraclitus’ view of change in detail.
6) Man is the measure of all things’, explain it with reference to
Prota goras view point.
7) Briefly explain the epistemology of Sophists’
8) Elicidate Sophists theory of Morality.
munotes.in
Page 15
15 2
SOCRATES AND PLATO
Unit ST ructure :
2.0 Objectives
2.1 Introduction
2.2 The Method o f Socrates
2.3 Characteristics o f Socratic Method
2.4 The Ethical Theory o f Socrates
2.5 Refutation o f The Sophists Views
2.6 Plato’s Theory o f Knowledge
2.7 Plato's Theory Forms
2.8 Critical Remarks
2.9 Summary
2.10 References
2.11 Unit End Questions
2.0 OBJECTIVES
To know about Socrates Philosophy
To be acquainted with Socrates Method (or Socratic Methody)
To understand Socrates Ethics
To know the importan ce of Plato’s philosophy.
To explore Plato’s theory Knowledge
To understand theory of Forms/ ideas
To understand Plato’s Metaphors
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Socrates (about 469 -399 BC) was a, great Greek Philosopher. He
completely gave himself to philosophical enq uiry and as result of this
embraced martyrdom geroically. He did not write a single book on
philosophy. Nevertheless he is rightly considered as great thinker of
Athen. He accepts their responsibility , this he did by asking questions.
Socrates also tried t o arouse in youngsters the love of truth and virtue so
that they could lead a good life. He is well known as a thinker who
inspired Plato to do and do dedicate himself to philosophy. munotes.in
Page 16
Western Philosophy
16 Plato was born in 42917 in Athens in an aristocratic family. He was given
the best education that an Athenian citizen of that time could get. He was
named Aristocles after his grandfather.
His teacher gave him the name “Plato” meaning “broad,” on account of
his broad shoulder and robust figure.
Plato was tremendously influence d by the personality, life and teaching of
Socrates. He draw unabated inspiration from Socrates and remained a
most faithful and devoted disciple of Socrates. Plato wrote abundantly in
the form of dialogues. The central figure in these dialogues in Socrate s.
Plato put his philosophy into the mouth of Socrates.
2.2 THE METHOD OF SOCRATES
One of the greatest contributions of Socrates to philosophy is his
philosophical method. Socrates always insisted on making our ideas clear
and difining correctly our concep ts. Socrates professed ignorance in his
discussion and debates.
Nevertheless he defeated those who claimed to know. That is known as
Socratic irony.
Socrates also argued that through sincere dialogues the participants can
discover truth, make their ideas and their meaning clear. Socrates was not
a speculative thinker. His approach was practical. He would go to the
marketplace and ask questions regarding moral and political notions used
by the speakers in their discussions.
For instance people useally talk about politics but their ideas about politics
are not clear. They are vague. They are not well -founded. He will so cross
examine that they feel the need to modify their ideas. Socrates would give
relevant instances from day affairs and point out the incorr ectness of the
meaning of the notions or the ideas of the participants. Of course this does
not mean that Socrates explicitly formulated his method of philosophical
enquiry.
However historians of philosophy state that he put a philosophical method
into pra ctice. That is to say that his method of philosophizing can be
understood from his intellectual practice or rational discussion and
debates. His thinking exemplifies a pattern of his philosophical procedure
or method.
2.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF SOCRATIC METHOD
The Socratic philosophical method has the following characteristics. They
are :
1) Socratic Method is skeptical
It begins with Socratic profession of ignorance of the truth of the subject
matter under discussion. It is an expression of intellectual mode sty or
humility and honesty on the part of Socrates. This skeptical approach is munotes.in
Page 17
Socrates and Plato
17 not final but provisional and tentative. Acceptance of ignorance of truth is
the initial step in one’s pursuit of clear and correct knowledge of concepts.
2) it is conversation al or dialogical :
Socrates believed that honest participation in a dialogue helped to clarify
ideas and discover truths ‘Truth can be discussed or unfolded by questions
and answer technique.
Participants in the discussion and dialogue can begin with popu lar
conceptions or hurriedly formed ideas.
In order words they can start with common sense beliefs and ideas. They
may be borrowed from tradition or from the writings of poets and
mythologist or preceding thinkers. When they critically analyze these
ideas more correct or adequate conceptions emerge. This method
therefore, is known as maieutic method. It is the technique of intellectual
midwifery. Just as a midwife (or nurse) helps a pregnant woman in the
process of delivery. Likewise Socrates assisted the p articipants to bring
their ideas to birth. He never claimed to to impart knowledge to others.
His mother was a traditional midwife. Socrates accepted this model and
called himself an intellectual midwife who through questioning and cross
examination helped others to clarify their ideas anddevelop adequate
conceptions regarding different topics such as justice.
3) Socratic Method is definitional and conceptual :
Accourding to this method, the goal of knowledge is the attainment of
correct definitions of soc ial and ethical ideas such as justice, wisdom,
courage, etc.Socrates insisted on defining terms and ideas.
4) Socratic Method is inductive or empirical :
Socrates always criticized provisional definition by reference to particular
examples or instances. In other words, tentative definitions and concepts
were tested by reference to common experience.
5) Socratic Method is deductive too :
It begins with given definition or -concepts, deduces its implications and
then tests them. This definitional and deductiv e aspect of Socratic Method,
historians of Philosophy suggests inspired Plato’s dialectical method and
exerted considerable influence on the development of Aristolelian logic.
Check Your Progress :
1) What did Socrates always insisted upon ?
2) ……… of truth i s the initialstep in one’s pursuit of clear and correct
knowledge of concepts.
3) Identify the goal of knowledge according to Socrates.
munotes.in
Page 18
Western Philosophy
18 2.4 THE ETHICAL THEORY OF SOCRATES
In relation to Ethics, Socratic laid down three propositions :
1) Virtue is knowledge thro ugh concepts. So nobady does wrong
knowingly. Therefore, vice is ignorance.
2) As virtue is knowledge, so virtue can be thought.
3) Virtue is one.
We will now look is detail the ethical theory of Socrates. For Socrates the
key to a virtuous life was knowledge of the GCOD. If one knew the Good
one would choose it. The question was, what is the Good ? What is Best ?
Virtue would depend on knowledge.
Socrates believed that no one does wrong voluntarily. Evil is the result of
ignorance. If people knew what was the r ight thing to do they would do it.
We always choose what we think is the best or good for us. So, if someone
chooses to do what we think is wrong, then that person made a mistake
and must be educated tom see the error. They mistake evil for the GOOD.
Given options humans will choose the options that appears to be good for
them. When they choose what other people call evil it is because they do
not agree. They will continue to do the evil acts unless and until they no
longer think of them as good. Socrates t heory does NOT claim that people
who do wrong do not know that the act is wrong.
Further, Socrates held that all virtue is one Virtue is GCCD. Truth is
GOOD. Beauty rs GOOD. Knowledge is GOOD. The true, good and
beautiful are all GOOD and united in the GOO D as ONE.
The ethical theory of Socrates not only influenced Greco Roman moral
theory, but even in the modern time has influenced modern theories of
utlilitarianism and hedonism.
Check Your Progress :
1) For Socrates the key to a virtuous life was knowledge of the
2) State the three propositions of the ethical theory of Socrates.
3) Why did Socrates held that all virtue is one ?
2.5 REFUTATION OF THE SOPHISTS VIEWS
It is difficult to separate Plato’s epistemology from his ontology. Plato
assumed that we can h ave knowledge that is objective and universally
valid. He was primarily interested in the question ‘what is the true object
of knowledge’
To explain what knowledge is Plato discusses what knowledge or truth is
not. Protagoras the Sophist advocated that “Kn owledge is perception”. munotes.in
Page 19
Socrates and Plato
19 Plato refutes the Sophists views that “Knowledge is perception” and
Knowledge is opinion”.
2.5.1 Knowledge is perception :
According to Protagoras, man is the measures of things. Truth is relative.
What I perceive or feel is true fo r me, what you feel or perceive is true for
you. And there is no other criterion of knowledge. Knowledge and
sensation are identical. Real Knowledge is impossible. Plato criticizes this
theory on the following grounds.
1) If perception is knowledge, animals too perceive. Therefore animals
also must be regarded as the measures of all things.
2) For Protagoras, what appears to each individual true for that
individual. If So, supposing Protagoras theory appears false to me,
does it really because false ? Will prot agoras admit that his theory is
false ?
3) This theory becomes false in its application to our judgements of
fature events. The frequent mistakes which man makes about future
show this.
4) Are all perceptions equally true ? Perception yields contradictory
impre ssions. The same object appears large when it is near and it
appears small when it is far. In different lights the same object appears
to be of different colours. The piece of paper looks of different shapes
from different angles. If perception is knowledg e, which one ofsuch
perceptions is true ?
5) For Protagoras all perceptions are equally true. So a child’s
perceptions must be just as much correct as those of his teacher. His
teacher therefore can teach him nothing. So this doctrine renders all
teaching, al l discussions, proof or disproof impossible.
6) If all perceptions are true, why do we commit mistakes at all ? Things
appear to us to be such -and-such. But later on, we realize that we have
been wrong in thinking so. How to explain error ?
7) This theory destro ys the objectivity of truth and renders the distinction
between truth and falsehood wholly meaningless. To say that whatever
I perceive is true for me is simply gives a new name to my perception
but does not add value to it.
8) Meaningful perception is never the work of a single sense. Different
sensations given by different senses must be combined, organized :
compared, contrasted, etc, this is this is the activity of mind and not of
the sense themselves. Therefore does not consist of sense -impressions
only; it also involves the functioning of the mind or reason.
munotes.in
Page 20
Western Philosophy
20 2.5.2 “Knowledge is Opinion” :
The Sophists hold that on every subject more than one opinion possible.
So “Knowledge is Opinion”. For Plato, the relativity of knowledge was
unacceptable. His aim wa s to prove such view as false on the following
grounds –
1) Opinion may be right or wrong. Wrong opinions is clearly not
knowledge. Even right opinion is knowledge. We often feel intuitively
or instinctively that something is true though, we cannot give any
definite grounds for our belief. The belief may be correct but it is not
knowledge. The man who has right opinion knows that a thing is so
2) An opinion is always shaky and uncertain. It can always be easily
shaken and knocked down by sophistry and persuasion . Even right
opinion can be shaken by the art rhetoric. Therefore even opinion is
unstable and uncertain. Opinion is always probable and knowledge is
always film, certain and confident.
3) Knowledge is not a mere instinctive belief. Knowledge must be fill of
complete understanding and rational. It must be grounded on reason
and not on faith.
Check Your Progress :
Which theories did Plato refute ?
2.6 PLATO’S THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
If knowledge is neither perception nor opinion, then what is it ? Plato’s
construct ive answer to this question is given such Dialogues as Phaedo,
Republic and Sophist. For Plato, knowledge is knowledge of concepts. It
is not liable to mutation accordoing to the subjective impressions of any
individual.
Knowledge of concepts or ideas or F orms gives us the objective truth.
Knowledge of Forms or ideas is founded on reasons and not sense
impressions.
Plato's constructive answer to the questions, "What is Knowledge?" is
given in such dialogues as the Phaedo, Republic and the Sophist. Plato's
views can be summarized as follows.
2.6.1 "Knowledge is Awareness of Eternal Ideas." :
According to Plato, Knowledge is neither sense perception nor true
opinion nor true opinion with explanation. Through sense experience we
become aware of the constantly c hanging sensible objects. These changing
objects are simply passing shadows. Truth lies beyond the passaing
shadows and it can be grasped only Reasons'.
Truth is eternal, unchanging and universal. To know one must pass from
the particular to universal. Tru e knowledge is a awareness of the universal munotes.in
Page 21
Socrates and Plato
21 concepts (ideas or Forms). Socrates always sought clear definitions of
concepts. Socrates hold that through concepts alone Truth can be known.
The objects of our experience are constabtly changing and the Univers als
or the idas are stable and unchanging. Concepts constitute true knowledge.
Universal ideas alone are real. knowledge is awareness of the universal
and eternal Ideas.
2.6.2 Knowledge is Recollection or Reminiscence":
According to Plato, we do not derive concepts from particular sensations.
Rather particular sensations help us to become aware of concepts or Ideas.
The soul is already familiar with the Ideas. Learning is simply
remembering what we already know. Knowledge is nothing but
recollection of prev iously known truths and realities.
Plato advocates immortality of the soul. As the Ideas are independent of
sensible objects, the soul is also independent of the physical body.
According to Plato, our soul was dwelling in the eternal world of Ideas. So
the soul knew these Ideas at first hand. When the soul enters into human
body, it loses its original knowledge. In the course of experience and
reflection, the soul regains the same knowledge. Knowing is essentially
philosophical reawakening.
For Plato, all k nowledge is recollection of what was experienced by the
soul in its disembodied state before birth. Knowledge must be present in
the mind at birth. It must be recollected from a previous existence, It takes
great efforts to bring the half lost Ideas back t o mind. The process of being
reminded is education.
2.6.3 "The Simile of the Line": Levels of Knowledge":
knowledge Reasons Philosophy
(Dialectic)
Discursive Thought Sciences
opinion Common Sense Belief
Imagination Conjecture
In Repu blic, Plato explains the development of human mind from
ignorance to knowledge. The entire range of human knowledge is
expressed by a vertical line. This line is divided into two main segments of
"Knowledge" and "Opinion". The segment of "Knowledge" is fur ther
divided into 'Reasons' and 'Opinion'. (1) The segment of 'Reason' acquires
Philosophical Knowledge and Discursive Thought produces various
sciences. (2)The segment of 'Opinion' is sibdivided into Common Sense
and imagination. Common Sense clings to v arious beliefs and imagination
makes use of mere conjectures. munotes.in
Page 22
Western Philosophy
22 The ascent of the soul from the lower segment of the 'Line of Knowledge'
to the higher segment is progress' It is not an automatic progress. It require
mental effort and intellectual discipline. The soul is moved by the impules
of 'Eros' or Love'. This is the famous concept of Platonic Love.
Before birth as human body the soul dwelt disembodied in the pure
contemplation of the world of Ideas. Sinking down in the world of senses,
it forgets the Id eas. Man at first perceives and loves beautiful objects. It
leads to appreciate beauty and culture in mind. Then man beings to love
wisdom. Wisdom or Reason enables him to look upon the "wide ocean of
intellectual beauty, full of lovely and majestic forms" . This development
ends in the complete rational cognition of the world of Ideas.
2.6.4 "The Allegory of the Cave":
Plato has given the most famous "Allegory of the cave" in Republic. The
Allegory of Cave describes the ascent of the soul from the region of -
Darkness (Conjectures and Imaginations) to the region of Light (Dialectic
and Truth). The man who reaches the region of Light can guide the state
affairs and deserves to be the 'Philosopher King'. In the analogy of Cave,
Plato shows the ascent of the mi nd from illusion to truth and pure
philosophy. Plato also shows the difficulties in the progress of soul
towards Truth.
Entry to Cave
FIRE
Raised Way
Little Wall or Screen
Row of Prisoners
Wall on which shadows are cast
There is an underground C ave which has an opening towards Light or
Fire. Human beings live in this Cave. They cannot freely move as their
necks and legs are chained like prisoners from their childhood. They can
only face the inside wall of the cave. They have never seen the light of the
Sun. The Sun, the Fire, the Light is behind them. Between the Fire and
prisoners there is a raised path. Along the raised path variuos carriers
containaing statues and figures pass. The chained prisoners cannot see the
carriers but only the shadows of these objects on the wall they face. The
prisoners behold only shadows of Reality and echoes of Truth. If any of
the prisoners is suddenly releases and happens to see the Realities, he
would be blinded by the glare of the Light. If he comes out of the C ave, he
will see the world of Sun illuminated objects. When the enlightened man
returns to Cave, he will fumble and falter in the darkness of the Cave. He
would appear 'ridiculous' in the eyes of inside prisoners. If this man tries
to enlighten the inside prisoners, these prisoners would become irritated
and would even put the 'Enlightened to death. munotes.in
Page 23
Socrates and Plato
23 Check your Progress :
1. What is knowledge accordingly to plato ?
2. what are the levels of knowledge for plato ?
3. State the importance of the Allegory of the Cave.
2.7 PLATO'S THEORY FORMS
The concepts of Socrates become metaphysical substances or realities for
Plato. Plato belived that the concept cannot be mere abstract idea in the
mind, but it must have a reality of its own, Plato's ideas/ Forms indicate
objective reality.
According to Aristotle, Plato's theory of Forms has three sources namely
Heraclitus, Parmenides and Socrates. Heralitus declared that "Everything
Changes". Plato applied this to the world of senses and declared the visible
world as appea rances. Parmenides taught that "Reality is unchanging and
eternal". Plato said that the 'Ideas' must be real, unchanging and eternal
universals. Socrates taught that knowledge comes through concepts. Plato
said that 'Ideas' or 'Concepts' to point to Realit y.
Plato's theory of Forms/ Ideas maintains two distinct levels of Reality.
First level is that of visible world of sense experiences and second higher
level is that of Forms/Ideas which are real, eternal and unchanging.
According to Plato we can identify beauty in various objects of experience
because we have the conception of Beauty in abstract. We can identify the
beautiful objects as beautiful becauses these objects participate in the more
general Form of Beauty. The theory of Ideas represents Plato's a ttempt to
cultivate human capacity for abstract thought. The objects of our
experience do change grow old, decay and lose their beauty. But the Form
of Beauty is invisible, unchanging, eternal and imperishable. The
characteristics of Forms/Ideas are as fol lows --
1. 'Forms/Ideas are realities or substances. They have independent
existence. Ideas are the First Priciples of universe. They are the
essences of all wordly objects
2. Forms/Ideas are not purely mental things. They do not reside in any
Mind. Ideas are su bstances independent of any Mind. They have
'objective reality' of their own.
3. Ideas are 'universal', An idea is not the idea of any particular thing. For
example, the idea of horse is not the idea of this or that particular
horse. It is the general concept of all horses. It is the universal horse
4. Form/idea ia annuity. It is the 'One' among 'Many'. The idea of man is
one although individual men are many.
5. Forms/Ideas are the cause or ground of sense objects. They are
absolute realities by which individual th ing must be explained. munotes.in
Page 24
Western Philosophy
24 6. Forms/Ideas are eternal, unchangeable and imperishable. Beautiful
objects arise and pass away. But the idea of Beauty neither begins nor
ends. It is eternal. The beautiful objects are only fleeting copies of the
eternal idea of Beaut y. Even all men were destroyed; the idea of 'man'
remains untouched by the birth, death, old age, decay or death of
individual men.
7. Forms/Ideas are both transcendental and immanent. The Ideas are
immanent in many senses objects. They are transcendental as they
have a reality of their own apart from the objects of senses.
8. Forms/Ideas are beyond space and time. They reside in the distinct
world of their own. Plato separates the world of Ideas from the world
of sense objects. The sense objects are poor in perf ect 'copies',
shadows' or 'in itations' of Ideas. They derive their existence and
nature from the Forms/ Ideas.
9. Forms/Ideas are apprehended through reason and not through sense
organs. Finding the common element in the manifolod objects is the
work of reas ons. The knowledge of Forms/Ideas is apprehended by
rational cognition and laborious thought.
10. Each Idea embodies perfection of its own kind. Its perfection is the
same as its reality. The Idea of man is that of a perfect man and all
individuals derive thei r Being from the Idea of perfect man.
11. There are many kinds of Ideas. Plato at first concerned moral aesthetic
universals. There are Forms/Ideas of all things, qualities, relations,
values, etc. There are Forms of man, dog, house, tables, chairs,
colours, s ounds sizes, etc. There are Ideas of truth, goodness, beauty,
etc.
12. All Forms/Ideas constitute a single organic system. There is a
hierarchy of Ideas. Just as one Idea presides over several individual
objects, similarly the Idea of Good presides over all ot her Ideas. The
Idea of Good is the sources of all other Forms/Ideas. It is the organic
unity governed by a universal purpose. Reality is rational and
meaningful.
13. The Forms/Ideas are perfect and changeless. The sense objects are
ever changing. Plato believe s that imperfection is due to 'Matter'. Ideas
and 'Matter' are not reducible to one another. According to Plato, the
emiurge (God) like an artist, fashions sense objects after the pattern of
Ideas. Plato's God is not a creator of Ideas or of Matter. Demiur ge is
only a world designer.
Check your progress:
1. State the characteristics of Plato's Forms and the world of sense
objects.
2. Explain the relation between the world of Forms and the world of
sense objects. munotes.in
Page 25
Socrates and Plato
25 2.8 CRITICAL REMARKS
1. Plato was the first person in the history of the world to produce a great
all embracing system of philosophy. He was the original thinker. He
took the thoughts of his preceeders as foundations below ground upon
which he built the palace of philosophy.
2. Plato was the founder of Ideali sm. He has greatly influenced the
western philosophy and reason. Plato completely separates and
opposes the visible world of experience and the world of Ideas.
3. Aristotle was dissatisfied with Plato's theory of Forms. He severely
criticized the theory of Id eas. According to Aristotle, Plato's abstract
Forms/Ideas cannot explain the concrete facts of experience. Plato's
changeless and motionless Forms/Ideas cannot explain the motion and
change of wordly things.
4. Plato's Forms/Ideas do not explain the world tha t we experience. Plato
says, wordly things are the 'copies' or 'imitations' of Forms/Ideas.
However the questions 'Why these copies exist at all ?' or 'How do
these imitations arise?' remain unanswered
5. According to Plato, Ideas are the essence of things. Y et Plato separates
the Ideas from things and places these ideas is a transcendent world of
their'own. Aristotle argues that the essence of a thing must be in the
thing itself ahdn not outside ot it. Complete separation of the world of
Ideas from the world of things is logically unjustifiable.
6. Plato uses poetic metaphors instead of logical arguments to explain his
views. He says that sense objects are mere 'copies' or 'imitations' of
Ideas. The Allegory of the Cave is also a poetic metaphor.
2.9 SUMMARY
The most important thing about Socrates is that he gave a new turn to
Greek thought. Through his portrayal in Plato’s dialogues. Socrates has
become renowned for contribution to the field of ethics, and it is this
Platonic Socrates who lends his name to the c oncepts of Socratic irony and
the Socratic Method. According to Plato Socrates also made important and
lasting contributions to the fields of epistemology and logic, and their
influence of his ideas and approach remains a strong foundation for much
western philosophy that followed.
Plato was the first person in the history of the world to produce a great all
embracing system of philosophy. Plato was tremendously influenced by
the personality, life and teaching of Socrates. Plato put his philosophy into
the mouth of Socrates.
Plato was primarly interested in the question 'what is the true object of
recollection or reminiscence. There are two levels of knowledge namely
opinion and knowledge. Opinion is divided into common sense
imagination. Knowledge is divide d into reasons and discursive thought. munotes.in
Page 26
Western Philosophy
26 Plato uses. The Allegory of the Cave to explain the development of the
human mind from ignorance to knowledge.
Plato's theory of Forms/Ideas maintains two distinct levels of Reality
namely visible world of sense exper iences and the transcendental world of
Forms/ Ideas. The world of sense experience beyond the world of sense
experience. For Plato, the Forms/Ideas are the ultimate reality. The theory
of Ideas represents Plato's attempt to cultivate human capacity for abs tract
thought.
2.10 REFERENCES
1."A Critical History of Greek Philosophy" by W. T. STACE
2. "A History of Philosophy" Volume1, Greece & Rome by FREDERICK
COPLESTION. SJ.
2.11 UNIT END QUESTIONS
1) Explain Socrates Method in detail.
2) State the characteristics of Socrates Method.
3) Write in brief the ethical theory of Socrates.
1. How does Plato refute the 'sophists' views on Knowledge ?
2. Explain Plato's theory of Knowledge.
3. Elaborate Plato's theory of Forms/Ideas.
4. Write notes:
The Sim ile of Line
The Allegory Cave
4) "Knowledge is recollection"
munotes.in
Page 27
27 3
ARISTOTLE AND POST -ARISTOTLE
1. Aristotle’s theory of Causation (reference to the notion of
teleology), Form and Matter; actuality and potentiality
Unit structure :
3.0 Objectives
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Theory Of Causation (Reference To The Notion Of T eleology)
3.3 Form And Matter
3.4 Actuality And Potentiality
3.5 Stoicism (Epictetu)
3.6 Skepticism (Sextus Empiricus)
3.7 Summary
3.8 References
3.9 Unit End Questions
3.0 OBJECTIVES
To introduce the learners to Aristotle’s Philosophy of four caus e, form
and matter and actuality and potentiality.
To understand Aristotle’s perspective of being and becoming as it is
implied in his notion of teleology and causation.
To understand the importance of Aristotle’s metaphysics as it applies
to his ethics of eudaemon life.
To Understand the unique philosophy of Stoics
To understand Epictetus’ significant Stoic teachings
To understand the importance of skepticism in Philosophy
To understand the approach of Pyrrhonian skepticism
To understand Sextus Empiricus’ skepticism as not doubting
possibility of knowledge but suspending judgements or beliefs.
munotes.in
Page 28
Western Philosophy
28 3.1 INTRODUCTION
Aristotle (384 –322 B.C.E) was one of the greatest philosophers of the
Classical period in Ancient Greece. He was a student of Plato. He was
highly influenced by Plato‘s thought. However Aristotle’s philosophy was
slightly different from Plato’s. He is famous for refuting Plato’s theory of
forms. In contrast to Plato being a poet and an ethico -religious thinker
Aristotle was a scientist and a logician . He has covered a wide range of
disciplines including metaphysics, logic, aesthetics, poetry, psychology,
linguistics etc. Aristotle’s works include Organon (logic),the physics, De
Aximo, Eudemian, Ethics, Nichomechaen Ethics etc. He is known as the
fathe r of western logic and was the first to develop a formal system for
reasoning. Aristotle was the founder of a school based in Athens, Greece
called Lyceum.
Aristotle calls metaphysics as ‘first philosophy’. The starting point of his
metaphysics is the rejection of Plato’s theory of forms. According to Plato,
material objects are changeable and not real in themselves. However
they correspond to an eternal, and immutable Form by a common
name, and this Form can only be perceived by the intellect. Aristotle, a s a
scientist and empiricist preferred to focus on the reality of the material
world. The relationship between form and matter is a central problem for
Aristotle which he arrives at through the conception of four causes.
Contending that the universe has a telos (purpose) and each thing aims to
realise its final purpose, he introduces a teleological explanation of this
mechanical and material world.
Stoicism was a philosophical movement of the Hellenistic period. It
derives its name from the word stoa poikil ê meaning porch in the Agora at
Athens where the members of the school met and conducted lectures. It was
founded by Zeno of Citium in Athens in the early 3rd century BC. No
complete work of any of the first three heads of the Stoic school: the
‘founder,’ Zeno (344–262 BCE), Cleanthes (d. 232 BCE) or Chrysippus
(d. ca. 206 BCE) are found. The only complete works by Stoic
philosophers -Seneca (4 BCE –65 CE), Epictetus (c. 55 –135) and the
Emperor Marcus Aurelius (121 –180) remain and these works are mainly
focused on ethics.
Skepticism is a topic of interest of epistemology in Philosophy. It is the
attitude of questioning or doubting instances of knowledge which are
considered as mere belief. Philosop hical skepticism either denies that
knowledge or rational belief is possible or atleast claims that we can know
nothing with certainty about all things or only about non -empirical things
like god or soul.
3.2 THEORY OF CAUSATION (REFERENCE TO THE
NOTION OF TELEOLOGY)
‘Change’ is the inevitable reality and even the nature of the world. Some
changes are natural while some are due to human actions. During the munotes.in
Page 29
Aristotle and Post-Aristot le
29 What is
it for?
Final Cause What
made it?
Efficient Cause What
is it?
Formal Cause What is it
made of?
Material Cause process of change, things take a new form. Thus the question of change
raises many philosophical issue s.
For Aristotle the process of change involves movement, generation, decay,
growth etc. There is some explanation to the question of ‘why’ change
takes place. Thus in the analysis of change or movement, Aristotle offers
his theory of four causes. Aristotl e’s term ‘aitia’ is translated as cause
which does not have everyday English language usage. In philosophical
scholarly traditions it is understood as ‘explanation’. According to
Aristotle, “we do not have knowledge of a thing until we have grasped its
why, that is to say, its cause”.
The following are the four questions that correspond to the four causes:
According to Aristotle, anything whether it is a natural object or a man -
made object or living or non-living thing can be explained with the help of
these four causes.
(1) The material cause - The material cause is the matter that composes
the changing object, It is the physical aspect that can be sensed and is
known. For example - the bronze of the bronze statue; the wood of the
wooden table.
(2) The formal cause – The formal cause is the form or pattern of the
thing. It also means archetype, definition, essence, shape, structure of
the things. It is the determining idea or cause that first appears in the
mind. For example - the blueprint of the building or statue.
(3) The efficient cause - The efficient cause is what sets the object in
motion. It is the source or principle of change. The efficient cause is
what triggers the creation of becoming of that thing. For example -
father of the child, sculptor, etc.
(4) The final ca use - The final cause explains the purpose of the thing’s
existence, the end or goal of that object. It is the ultimate purpose for
our being.
Notion of Teleology
Rational human conduct is generally explained with reference to ends
or goals pursued or about to be pursued. On similar basis, humans
understand the behaviour of other things in nature, either as themselves
pursuing their ends or goals or as designed to pursue some purpose. This
purpose, goal or end is termed as telos and the most interesting acco unt of munotes.in
Page 30
Western Philosophy
30 telos was that given by Aristotle. According to Aristotle a complete
explanation of anything must consider its final cause along with its
efficient, material, and formal causes.
With the explanation of the final cause Aristotle arrives at the concep t of
telos. The notion of teleology was prominent among Aristotle’s
predecessors. However he rejected their view that extrinsic causes such as
God is the primary cause for natural things. For Aristotle, nature itself is
the internal principle of change.
Teleology is the study of the ends or purposes that things have. Aristotle
believed that the best explanation to understand why things are the way
they are one must understand what purpose they were designed to serve.
Aristotle’s emphasis on teleology implie s that there is a reason for the
existence of everything in the universe. He does not just see purpose in
anatomical make -up or biology, but also how human life is organized and
directed toward a final end. Thus Aristotle's conception of nature is not
simp ly mechanical but teleological. According to him, nature demonstrates
functionality in a more general sense than is illustrated by humans.
Aristotle observed that a telos does not necessarily and always involve
plans, motives, intention or intelligence.
According to Aristotle, once a final cause which constitutes the telos is
determined, the material, efficient and formal causes are understood.
Check your progress :
Elucidate upon the theory of four causes given by Aristotle.
Explain the theory of causation with special reference to the notion of
teleology
3.3 FORM AND MATTER
Aristotle begins his discussion on form and matter by first explaining the
status of each cause. According to him, the formal and the final cause are
the same. Formal cause means what a thing is in its essence. The final
cause is what the thing becomes, after the essence (form) of the thing has
been realized. Further he states, that the efficient cause means that which
brings the movement or change in the things by means of the energy put
into it. But why is the marble cut and molded in a skillful manner? Because
the end i.e. sculpture had to be realized. Thus the final cause is what guides
the efficient cause. Hence, we can say that it is the final cause which is the
real explanation beh ind the efficient cause.
Thus it can be said that final cause is the real cause of becoming and
movement in the world. If the final cause is the reason for the form and
movement in the object then final cause in fact is the formal and the
efficient cause. According to Aristotle thus all the three causes - efficient,
formal and final are really one and he calls them together - the Form of the
thing. The material cause cannot be reduced to any kind of causes. Thus in munotes.in
Page 31
Aristotle and Post-Aristot le
31 Aristotle’s philosophy there are only two th ings namely the Form and
Matter which explains the becoming and the development in the world of
things.
Every individual substance is a combination of matter and form. The form
is that which brings the universal element in the objects of the similar kind.
Matter brings particularity and uniqueness to each substance. Unlike Plato,
Aristotle believed that matter and form are inseparable aspects of
individual thing. The form and matter coexists within individual things.
The form or being or essence of the object is unchangeable whereas the
matter brings about change or is the principle of becoming. Matter takes
different forms, and every new form already exists within the things. Thus
form and matter are eternal principles of things. Thus to explain the
process of being and becoming in the world, we must consider the Matter
as that which changes but persists and the unchangeable Form which
together are responsible for the developing world around us.
Check your progress :
Discuss in detail the Aristotelian theory of form and matter
3.4 ACTUALITY AND POTENTIALITY
Aristotle introduces the distinction between matter and form which applies
to every individual substance. The form of a substance is its essence that
enables it to function as a whole whereas the principle of matter is the stuff
or the material the thing is composed of. This distinction is connected to
another Aristotelian distinction between potentiality (dunamis) and
actuality (entelecheia). On the basis of teleological explanation of this
world, Aristotl e believes everything in this world strives to achieve its
purpose or end. The self-contained ends/purposes brought about by the
form of that substance, Aristotle calls, entelechy.
According to Aristotle dunamis or potentiality is not simply a thing’s
powe r to produce a change but its capacity to be in a more wholesome
state. Take for example, marble, which can be carved into a sculpture.
According to Aristotle, the marble has a potential to become a sculpture;
the marble is potentially a sculpture.
Thus th e matter (marble), in Aristotle’s terminology is linked with
potentiality; the final product or the form (sculpture) is linked with
actuality. Thus potentiality and actuality are the different stages of
development in individual substance. The potential st age which is the first
stage lies hidden within the things and during the process of change the
potential is actualised.
However the stages of potentiality and actuality are relative categories. A
thing could be the actuality of one thing but that same thi ng could become
the potentiality of another thing. For example, an adult male is an
actuality of a young boy but a mere potentiality of fatherhood.
Just as Aristotle gives form priority over matter, similarly he gives
actuality (aspect of form) priority over potentiality (aspect of matter). munotes.in
Page 32
Western Philosophy
32 Check your progress :
Discuss in detail the Aristotelian distinction between actuality and
potentiality .
3.5 STOICISM (EPICTETU)
The philosophy of stoics :
Stoicism considers philosophy not as a particular discipline of knowledge,
but chiefly as a way of life. According to it, philosophy is a practice of the
skill which is concerned with what is beneficial to life. Its major focus is
eudaemonic virtue ethics . According to Stoicism the practice of virtues is
sufficient to achieve eudaemonia.
The Stoics held that errors in judgement take place due to attachment to
external things like health, wealth, and pleasure and lead to certain
destructive emotions. Stoicism t aught that people should develop self -
control and maintain a will ( prohairesis ) that is "in accordance with
nature " in order to ov ercome these destructive emotions.
Stoicism of epictetus (c. 50 – c. 135 ad)
Epictetus was a Greek Stoic philosopher born into slavery at Hierapolis
Phrygia (present - day Pamukkale, in western Turkey). His teachings were
written down and published as Disco urses and Enchiridion by his pupil
Arrian. Epictetus studied under Musonius Rufus, a Roman senator and
Stoic philosopher.
Epictetus’s philosophy is centred around the ideas of integrity, self -
management and personal freedom. He advocates two central ideas - 1)
volition and 2) correct use of impressions.
The following are the key ideas of Epictetus’s Stoicism:
1. Philosophy and the art of living: According to Epictetus, moral
philosophy has practical purpose of guiding people to lead a better life.
At the same t ime he believes that our sufferings come from our own
errors in judgements and mistaken beliefs about what is truly good and
this affects our characters and capacity to flourish and be happy. So to
be happy and flourish in life is completely dependent on u s. He argues
that philosophy does not promise anything external for man. Each
person’s own life is the subject matter of the art of living.
2. Virtues -the only Good: According to Epictetus the only good is the
virtues (arête) which means excellence. Stoics be lieve that pleasure,
wealth, status do not lead to a happy life. According to them, the
eudaemon (‘happy’) life is achieved only through virtuous activities.
According to Epictetus, in order to progress towards excellence one
must understand the true natur e of one’s being and maintain one’s
moral character in the right condition.
3. Living in harmony with nature: This teaching concerns with
focussing on two things - attention to our own actions and attention to
the world which prompts those actions and where ou r actions have munotes.in
Page 33
Aristotle and Post-Aristot le
33 impact. Accepting one’s fate as what God has determined, is for
Epictetus the meaning of living in harmony with nature.
4. Making Progress: In order to make progress, it is important that while
one is enjoying life one must remain away from ind ulgence and learn
to take blame for one’s failures. This is necessary for achieving
excellence and eudaemon life.
5. Authority over ourselves: For eudaemonic life, it is necessary to
maintain our volition and moral character in the right condition. For
that w e must first understand what is in our control and power. No one
else but our own self can control and maintain our moral character.
Other external things or situations are not in our power. But we have
authority over our capacities to judge what is good and evil, to adapt
ourselves to any situations, power over our minds, our opinions,
intentions, what we value etc. We must develop the capacity to be
indifferent to evil or unpreferred things that can weaken our moral
character.
6. Proper use of Impressions or perceptions: When we perceive
something, it forms an impression and we become aware of it. Proper
use of impression implies how we move from perceiving to forming
judgement about it. For a eudaemonic life it is necessary that we form
correct judgements. Therefore proper use of impressions plays an
important role for eudaemonia.
7. The three stoic disciplines: The three stoic disciplines also called as
topoi (fields of study) are practical exercises for eudaemonia. It
includes:
i. The Discipline of Desire: This practical exercise concerns with what
should be truly desirable for a stoic student. According to it, the only
desirable thing should be virtues and virtuous activities.
ii. The Discipline of Action: This practical exercise concerns with our
impulses and motiva tions to act and not actions per se. It concerns with
what we as rational beings ought to do in order to attain excellence. The
consequences of our actions are not in our power but to act is.
iii. The Discipline of Assent: Assent means to agree, or to go along with.
Assenting to something means forming judgements about things and
committing to those judgements. This practical exercise is also
important for eudaemon life.
8. God: According to Epictetus the term ‘God’ ‘the gods’, and ‘Zeus’
can be used interchangeabl y. God is portrayed as the ‘captain’ of the
ship of life, as ‘the Giver’ of things in life to whom we owe everything
back. According to Epictetus, a Stoic student would not blame God or
the universe or find faults with them if they understand themselves an d
the God in the right way. This is because the world is designed in such
manner that each one has in its possession everything according to
one’s worth. For Epictetus the order and harmony in the world is
maintained by this intelligent designer - the God. munotes.in
Page 34
Western Philosophy
34 9. Life: Epictetus gives various metaphors for life - Life as a festival
which we must enjoy and be prepared for anything that comes our way,
life as a game that concerns with how we play and not the game itself,
life as a play - which suggests that we must ac cept our role in this world
and play our characters sincerely, life as weaving which tells that we
must make the best possible thing with what resources we have, life and
military service where we all should aim to serve god.
3.6 SKEPTICISM (SEXTUS EMPIRIC US)
Pyrrhonism: Philosophy :
Pyrrhonism is form of philosophical skepticism that emerged in the
ancient Greek and Roman world. It was founded by Pyrrho in the fourth
century BCE. The knowledge about this school survives in the works of
Sextus Empiricus who wrote in the late second and early third century CE.
Just like Stoicism, the main aim of this school was eudaemonia. For the
purpose of eudaemonia, Pyrrhonism advises suspension of judgement
about all non-evident matters. With suspension of judgement com es
attainment of a state of equanimity or ataraxia which is the way to achieve
eudaemonia.
Sextus Empiricus: Skepticism :
Sextus Empiricus was a second or third century CE Pyrrhonian skeptic.
His book Outlines of Pyrrhonism is the fullest account available on
Pyrrhonian skepticism. Pyrrhonian skepticism not just questions the
philosophical, scientific and theoretical matters but also involves having no
beliefs at all.
In Greek, skeptesthai means to investigate. According to the Pyrrhonian
skeptic, the dogma tic philosophers believe they have made a discovery
when they investigate into something. On the other hand academic skeptics
believe that nothing can ever be known. However a Pyrrhonian skeptics
always carry on their quest for truth. This is how, accordin g to Sextus,
skeptics get their name. Since Pyrrhonian skeptics are always in search of
answers, it means there are no fixed set of beliefs of this school. Thus this
means that to be a skeptic is to not ascribe oneself to a fixed set of beliefs.
Then what is meant by Skepticism? According to Sextus, Skepticism is an
ability or skill and a kind of philosophy not known by its contents or
doctrines per se but by their attitude to philosophical problems.
According to Sextus a skeptic is someone who has the skil l to find for any
given argument an equally opposing yet convincing and valid argument.
But how does one come to acquire such an ability or skill? According to
Sextus, one acquires the skill of questioning both sides of an argument or
raising arguments for both sides of an issue, when one is seeking
equanimity or tranquility. Sextus believes that the complexities of the
world confuse us and bring us trouble. For instance Sextus offers the
example of tattooing - in some cultures it is seen as a taboo whereas in
Egyptian and Sumerian cultures it is considered as an acceptable practice.
Such practices confuse us to think whether something is good or bad. Due
to such confusing situations, one starts investigating into things. munotes.in
Page 35
Aristotle and Post-Aristot le
35 Sextus believes that a person investi gating answers comes to have single -
mindedness which helps him to scrutinise all sides of an issue. Single -
mindedness enables one to develop skeptical skill which is an ability to
consider both sides of a question with equal convincing power. So if we
are investigating into truth persistently, we seek tranquillity in matters of
opinion. So, skeptics who were trying to resolve the confusion between
what is thought of about a thing and how it appears to us, they were unable
to find the answers. This in turn l ed to their suspension of judgement.
Suspension of judgement about matters did not bring more trouble but
only tranquillity. Given their skeptical skill, the seekers of truth did not
find answers as such but definitely reached the equanimity of mind by
suspending judgements about matters of opinion.
Sextus explains this unexpected attainment of tranquillity on suspension of
judgement with the help of an example. Apelles a painter was painting a
horse and wanted to show lather on the mouth of the horse. Desp ite
multiple attempts he was unsuccessful and finally gave up, took the
sponge on which he was cleaning the brush and threw it at the painting.
The sponge, on been thrown, accidently created the representation of the
lather on the mouth of the horse just as Apelles had wanted. This
demonstrates that the struggle of Apelles pacified when he in fact stopped
struggling and allowed things to be.
3.7 SUMMARY
Aristotle’s metaphysics was a study of the nature of things and ourselves.
By bringing metaphysics to the world of sense experience he attempts to
show that every existence is not without purpose. His metaphysics
examines the various concepts like what it is to be a substance, cause or
explanation for being, the purpose of becoming. The life of every existing
thing has a telos and the aim of each such thing is to actualise that telos
which is in the potential form. Realising one’s complete form is a necessary
condition for a eudaemon life. This is the point where his metaphysics
further meets with his ethics.
The life of Epictetus as a Stoic teacher can be regarded as a personal quest
for philosophic enlightenment. He devoted his life to enlightening others.
The chief concerns of his stoicism was kinship with God, emotional
adaptiveness, self -development throug h virtues, detachment from the
material distractions of worldly life. He made sure to inculcate these
teachings into his students by guiding them to correct their perceptions,
judgments and aiming for a eudaemon life.
Check your progress :
Discuss in detai l the Stoic teachings of Epictetus
Sextus raised great concern for the certainty of all types of knowledge.
According to him, no claim must be trusted before judging it. The ones
who claim to have found the truth have only found the criterion of truth.
No discovered claim should be judged as true or false. This does not mean
he does not believe in the possibility of knowledge like the academic
skeptics. He only insists on giving up the belief whether anything is
knowable or not. munotes.in
Page 36
Western Philosophy
36 Sextus argues that curiosity , encourages one to engage in the investigation
of things expecting to find tranquillity when they discover the answers.
However in the process one ends up not discovering the expected answers
but rather suspending judgment about the matter at hand, and yet
unexpectedly tranquillity follows. Suspending judgements is not difficult
according to Sextus as one can always live as it is without having any
fixed beliefs.
Check your progress :
Give a detailed account of Sextus Empiricus’ Skepticism .
3.8 REFERENCES
1. Masih, Y. A Critical History of Western Philosophy (Motilal
Banarsidas, New Delhi)
2. Shields, C., 2007, “Explaining Nature and Nature of Explanation”, in
C. Shields, Aristotle, London/New York: Routledge
3. Falcon, Andrea, "Aristotle on Causality", The Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy (Spring 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
4. causality/>.
5. The Discourses of Epictetus, revised translation by Robin Hard, with
an introduction by Christopher Gill, London: Everyman, 1995
6. Bonhöffer, Adolf, 1894, The Ethics of the Stoic Epictetus, W.O.
Stephens (trans.), New York: Peter Lang, 1996.
7. Annas, J., and J. Barnes, 2000, Sextus Empiricus: Outlines of
Scepticism (Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosop hy),
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, second edition.
8. Bett, R. (ed.), 2010, The Cambridge Companion to Ancient
Scepticism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9. Mates, B., 1996, The Skeptic Way: Sextus Empiricus’s Outlines of
Pyrrhonism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3.9 UNIT END QUESTIONS
1) Discuss in detail the distinction between actuality and potentiality
with reference to form and matter.
2) What are key ideas in Epictetus’s Stoicism?
3) Discuss Pyrrhonian skepticism with reference to Sextus Empir icus.
munotes.in
Page 37
37 4
MEDIEV AL PHILOSOPHY
1. Peter Abelard (Relationship between reason and faith)
Unit Structure :
4.0 Objective
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Peter Abelard (Relation Between Reason And Faith)
4.3 Characteristics Of The Schools Of Mu'tazilites And Asharites
4.4 Characteristics Of Mu’tazilite School
4.5 Characteristics Of Ash’arites’ School
4.6 Moses Maimonides (Philosophy And Theology)
4.7 Summary
4.8 References
4.9 Unit End Questions
4.0 OBJECTIVE
To understand the significant contribution of Peter Abelard t o Jewish
Philosophy. To understand Abelard’s reconciliation of reason and faith.
To understand the significant changes in Islamic world due to the
distinct philosophical approaches of Mu’tazila and Ash’ari schools.
To understand the distinct characteristic s of Mu’tazilites’ school
To understand the distinct characteristics of Ash’arites’ school
To understand Maimonides unique contribution to Jewish ethics and
thought.
To understand Maimonides views on God via negative or Negative
Theology.
To understand Mai monides views on the therapeutic nature of
philosophy.
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The Medieval Philosophy is known by its name specifically for it emerged
roughly around the time from the fall of the western Roman empire in the munotes.in
Page 38
Western Philosophy
38 5th century until after the renaissanc e in the 13th and the 14th century. It was
chiefly known of rediscovering the ancient Greek and Roman cultures
which developed during the classical period and focussed on theological
problems of the relation between reason and faith, existence of God,
purpose of theology and metaphysics etc.
Peter Abelard ( c. 1079 – 21 April 1142) was one of the greatest French
Catholic philosophers, logician and theologian. The two of his
masterworks include Logica ‘ingredientibus ’ and Dialectica . He is also
known as the father of nominalism – the view that only particulars exist
and only words (nomen) are universal. He argued that God can be known
through logic as well as through emotions. He was probably the first to use
the term theology in its modern sense when he argued for the relation of
reason to faith.
Moses Ben Maimon (1138 –1204) also known as Maimonides or Rambam
was a medieval Jewish philosopher and Torah scholar. His writings on
Jewish law and ethics received great acclaim. He worked as a rabbi,
physician and p hilosopher in Egypt and Morocco. He wrote a fourteen
volume book on Jewish law, which was a codification of Halacha called
the Mishneh Torah which held significant authority among the Jewish
community. His book ‘the Guide of the Perplexed’ is a work of Jewish
theology, thought and practice. He was influenced by Aristotle, Al -
Farabi, Ibn Sina, and his contemporary Ibn Rushd. He was known as a
prominent philosopher in both the Jewish and the Islamic world.
4.2 PETER ABELARD ( RELATION BETWEEN REASON
AND FAITH )
In matters of religion, Peter Abelard was of the view that reason is the
foundation for faith. However his position on faith and the extent of the
place of reason in matters of faith suggests that he was not just a man of
reason but also a man of faith.
According to Abelard, reason has a role to play in matters of faith but its
role is only a limited one. However there exists two sects of thinkers in
theology - firstly, the anti -dialecticians and secondly, the pseudo -
dialecticians. The anti -dialecticians re fute the synthesis of reason and faith
and believe that reason cannot have any place in matters of faith. On the
other hand pseudo -dialecticians favour the synthesis of reason and faith
and believe that reason is the only means to understand matters of fai th.
According to the pseudo -dialecticians, we must accept only that which is
given by or supported by reason. The fact that Abelard believed reason has
a role to play in matters of faith brought him in conflict with the anti -
dialecticians. Whereas the pseudo-dialecticians attacked him for giving
only a limited role to reason in matters of faith.
According to anti-dialecticians, the meaning of any statement of faith is
basically very simple. So there is nothing more to grasp besides the simple
meaning and he nce reason is not needed to understand that. They were
semantic realists about the plain meaning of statements of faith. Abelard, in munotes.in
Page 39
Medieval Philosophy
39 favour of dialectical method to understand statements of faith, believed
that there is never just a simple meaning to be gr asped. Every statement of
faith has to be verified with various references to clarify the meaning of it
in the context in which they are used. On verification it could be observed
that same words or sentences have different meanings in different
contexts. Thus to analyse the meaning in various contexts, reason is
required in matters of faith.
On the other hand, the pseudo -dialecticians believed that reason cannot
have just a limited role in matters of faith. In fact for them reason is the only
means to grasp the meaning of statements of faith. Abelard attacks them for
holding that everything can be only explained by reason. Acknowledging
that human reason has its own limits and capacity, some meanings or
truths lie outside that limit. Nevertheless, even if s tatements of faith have
reality beyond human reason, Abelard strongly believed it cannot be
beyond faith. He explains this using his understanding of the theory of
identity to highlight the dynamics of the Holy Trinity. The three entities -
the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are the same as one another as they
are the same thing – the God. At the same time, they are also not the same
as there are three different entities and also by definition what it is to be a
father cannot be what it is to be the son or similarly the holy spirit.
However, even if they are numerically three they are not numerically
different from God who is one, otherwise there would be three gods and not
one God. Moreover the qualities that differently apply to the Father, the Son
and the Holy Spirit also do not together apply to the God.
Abelard contends that beyond this reasoning, one cannot think. Reason
only validates the analysis to the extent it can go, beyond that everything
rests on the foundation of faith.
4.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SCHOOLS OF
MU'TAZILITES AND ASHARITES
Mu’tazila was an Islamic group that flourished in the cities of Basra and
Baghdad , both now in Iraq, during the 8th to the 10th centuries CE. The
name means to ‘withdraw’ or ‘separate oneself from’ and is marked by the
school’s founder Wā il ibn’ A ā’s withdrawal from the teachings of
Hasan al -Basra over a theological disagreement. The Mu’tazila were
called theological rationalists who believe that understanding religion is
possible through reason. They believed that reason, independent of all
revelations is of no use for religious understanding. For them, reason must
accompany scriptures in order to determine right and wrong or good and
evil.
Ash’ari is among the leading theological schools of Sunni Islam and
derives its name from its founder Abu al -Hasan al -Ash’ari, an Islamic
scholar and Sunni Muslim refo rmer of the 10th century. It was founded on
orthodox dogmatic guidelines based on scriptural authority and semi -
rationalism. Asharite school opposed the teachings of its rival Mutazilite
school. munotes.in
Page 40
Western Philosophy
40 4.4 CHARACTERISTICS OF MU’TAZILITE SCHOOL
The Mu’tazilites’ s chool was influenced by Ancient Greek Philosophy and
was developed around three important principles: the creation of Quran,
divine justice and human freewill. The Mu tazilites believe that the Quran
was created in time and is not co-eternal with God even
if it is the eternal will of God. It also centres on the concepts of divine
justice and divine unity and worked to resolve the problem of evil.
According to the Mu'tazilites since God is believed to be just and wise, he
cannot bring about anything t hat is irrational or act unjustly. Therefore,
evil must be human errors resulting from divinely bestowed free will.
According to Mu tazilites, good and evil are rational concepts which
cannot be determined by simply reading or interpreting scriptures. They
can only be understood by the means of reason because knowledge of
anything is only derived from reason. Even the injunctions of G od are
believed to be accessible by reason. Thus reason and revelation must go
hand in hand for right knowledge of good, evil and just and to know what
is religiously obligatory.
The five chief principles that form the crux of this school include
monotheis m, justice and unity, the inevitability of the threats and promises
of God, the intermediary state of sinner i.e. Muslims who commit sins and
die without repentance are neither believers nor non -believers, but in an
intermediate position and lastly the commands of right and the wrong.
In matters of freewill, Mu’tazilites believe that humans have been divinely
bestowed with freewill and so evil results from human freedom of action
and is not created by the good God. Morals are either good or bad and it
can b e determined only by reason. Even if the Quran teaches that God
directs the lives of human beings, it does not mean that there is
predestination. According to Mu’tazilites, God brings suffering or joy to
test the extent of human faith and to see what cours e of action one chooses
in those times. For Mutazilite, such passages from Quran only refer to
divine justice and how God will carry out justice on the day of judgement.
Therefore the concept of divine justice, punishment and reward is only
reasonable if it is given to beings who have free-will.
Discuss in detail the characteristics of Mu’tazilites’ school.
4.5 CHARACTERISTICS OF ASH’ARITES’ SCHOOL
The main characteristic of Ash’arites’ school is founded on orthodox
dogmatic commandments derived from the authority of the scripture.
According to Ash’arites the comprehension of the
unique characteristics of God are beyond human reason. According to
them, the God possesses all the qualities and names mentioned in the Quran
but they are distinct from God’s essen ce. munotes.in
Page 41
Medieval Philosophy
41 According to this school, moral values like good, bad, right and wrong are
not simply objective realities. As mentioned in the Quran, good, right and
just is that which is commanded by an omnipotent and benevolent God
whereas bad, wrong or unjust is th at which God forbids. Unlike Mu’tazila
who believe that God being just cannot do something unjust, Ash’arites
believe that God being all powerful, does have the capability to command
or do something that may seem to human mind as unjust. For they believe
that what seems unjust to human beings is simply human error. They
believe that Quran and Mohammed always validate intellectual enquiry, so
the older interpretations of Quran and the Hadith should be consistently
developed and re-interpreted.
Ash’arites strongly believe that God being all knowing and forgiving
forgives the sins of those in hell rewards the faithful. They believe in the
uncreatedness of the Quran in essence; however, it is created when it t akes
on a written form. Knowledge of God is possible through the study of the
Quran and the Hadith of Mohammed alongside the holy names and
attributes of God. The main attributes of God include permanence, without
beginning or end, absolute, independent an d oneness. According to them
in order to be a true Muslim one must believe in the five pillars of Islam -
Shahada (Faith), Salah (prayer), Zakat (charity), Sawm (fasting), Hajj
(pilgrimage). Besides this one must also believe in all the prophets of
Islam an d in angels.
Ash’arites insist that human freewill is only in matters of thought and
intention and not in action. Even if all possible human actions known
to man are created by God, still the responsibility of those actions and
their consequences lie with the one who acquires the act.
4.6 MOSES MAIMONIDES (PHILOSOPHY AND
THEOLOGY)
Views On Theology :
According to Maimonides, what philosophers refer to as the Necessary
being is no different from the God of Abraham. He envisions God as
having qualities or att ributes which are quite different from the man -made
descriptions of God. On account of this uniqueness, the Torah commands
that one must not just love and revere God but also fear him. For
Maimonides, the Torah is based on this view that, in order to love God one
must contemplate God’s works and appreciate the order and harmony in
the creation. Recognising the greatness in his creation, one may come to
the realisation that how insignificant one is in God’s comparison and
inevitably come to fear him. Maimoni des philosophical approach was
quite identical to the principle of scholasticism. He relied on the
Aristotelian science to find basis for understanding the teachings of the
Talmud. According to this view, there can be no discrepancies between the
truths revealed by God and the scientific and philosophical findings of
man. munotes.in
Page 42
Western Philosophy
42 His theological views do not begin with the definition of God, but rather
with the description of the created world. Rather than show that God’s
essence implies existence he shows that the world’s orderly existence
implies the existence of the God. The limited, finite nature of the world
point to an unlimited and infinite being. Thus Maimonides derives the
existence of an omnipotent and omniscient God from the workings of the
universe. At the same time, Maimonides insists that even if this provides a
sufficient ground to show that God is, it does not show what God is. This
is because the descriptions we use to understand God are derived from
human language which has a limited scope and thus cannot grasp the
complete essence of God. Thus God cannot be put into any one man -made
category or concept. Does that mean all descriptions of God are
meaningless and untrue? Maimonides insists that in order to correctly
describe God in his true essence on e must speak in negations. For example
‘God is powerful’ must be said as ‘God is not lacking in power’. It means
God is neither powerful in the human sense of the term nor is he powerless,
rather he does not lack in power. Such negative sentences do not li mit the
description of God’s power into limited human boundaries. Such
negations imply that God is neither this nor that but other than this. Human
expressions fail us and do not always grasp the essence of the things. This
reveals that God is beyond human understandings. This view of
Maimonides is called negative theology.
Views On Philosophy :
Maimonides insists on attainment of highest perfection which is intellectual
and suggests ways to achieve it. This can be achieved by means of proper
behaviour, whe ther for the individual or the community. On a political
level, the state must not just protect life and property but also educate its
citizens in religious matters. On a personal level, highest perfection can be
achieved by controlling the passions throug h morality and take interest in
science and philosophy.
Like Plato and Aristotle, Maimonides too believes that like the body, the
soul can be diseased or healthy. Sick souls must seek wise rulers just as
sick bodies need physicians. He believes that the Je wish law is exactly
based on understanding of the soul and seeking its perfection. Like
Aristotle, he insists upon the attainment of the golden mean. Like
Aristotle, Maimonides develops his views around the virtues of character
that become a part of indivi dual’s personality through observation and
practice. Thus a wise ruler will always recommend virtuous actions and
forbid wrong habits to cure the sick soul. For Maimonides, attaining the
mean between extremes is like imitating God because the works of God
are perfect without the possibility of excess or deficiency.
Even the Jewish law does not command extreme celibacy or starvation to
achieve perfection. This is because the qualities that are really necessary
are good judgment, kindness, and compassion. For the purpose of
moderate disposition, Jewish law speaks of charity, honouring parents,
sexual abstinence, avoid hatred or revenge. munotes.in
Page 43
Medieval Philosophy
43 However, Maimonides also recognises the need to sometimes choose
extremes for therapeutic reasons. According to Maimonides, a practitioner
of means and whose character traits are balanced is called wise (hakham),
however a person who chooses extremes when circumstances demand is
known as pious (hasid). So piety is an excellent trait in the real sense as it
calls for transcending the mean. In the analysis of anger, Aristotle believes
a person who gets angry at the right time and at the right person is
praiseworthy because he practices the mean. To bear insults is as wrong as
being too violent is. So right amount of anger is a virt ue. For Maimonides,
anger is an extremely bad trait so avoiding such traits to its extreme is a
virtue. Extremes in matters of certain emotions will not affect the mental
health.
For Maimonides, the highest goal is not simply practical wisdom as
suggested by Aristotle but humility and shame in the presence of God.
Since God is beyond emotions, our goal should be to rise above the
emotions. Ideally, a person should act in a completely dispassionate way
and choose and act according to the need of the circumst ances without
being affected by emotions. So not just choosing extremes but also
sometimes rising above it is the main crux of Maimonides’s practical
philosophy. The ability of judgement of such persons will not be affected
but only that they will not come from any particular character trait.
Like Plato, Maimonides believes that philosophy has therapeutic effects.
Maimonides argues that people usually put efforts into something
imaginary and temporary things. Giving example of Job, Maimonides says
that Job realised that the things he once valued are unimportant. According
to Maimonides, philosophy teaches us to be detached from material gains
and focus on the intellectual and moral perfection. Moral perfection is not
just a necessary condition for intellectu al perfection but after intellectual
perfection is achieved, that is after one realises that earthly goods are
impermanent, his behaviour will undergo a transformation. Such a person
will spend as much time as possible in a state of awe and reverence. In
such a state even the distinction between moral and intellectual perfection
disappears.
In sum, Maimonides believes in the therapeutic potential of philosophy. It
has the ability to cure sick souls of their mistaken approaches about the
material world, errors in judgement and takes the individual towards the
goal of intellectual perfection through moral perfection.
4.7 SUMMARY
Ash’ari and Mu’tazila schools of Islam developed their own unique ways
of thinking about theological problems. The main difference be tween
these schools centre on the discussion of human freedom of action.
Ash’arites strictly refute Mu’tazilites views on freewill. According to
them, human beings may or may not have some freedom of action but they
definitely only have total freedom of th ought. Freedom and justice are the
realms of God only. So human beings have no power to create any action. munotes.in
Page 44
Western Philosophy
44 Secondly, according to Mu’tazilites, God rewards the faithful with heaven
and punishes the sinner with hell. God cannot do anything that is unjust.
However, according to Ash’arites, this is doubting God’s knowledge and
capability. Ash’arites, unlike Mu’tazilites, believe that God’s actions or
commands are beyond human understanding. Human reason cannot
understand divine justice. So sometimes God being all powerful and all -
knowing may do or command something that may seem unjust to us but it
is simply an error in our understanding. God also may forgive the sins of
those in hell. Ultimately, they believe that whatever God does is just and
fair.
Discuss in detail the characteristics of Ash’arites’ school.
Elaborate upon the distinct features of Mu’tazilite and
Ash’arite school
Maimonides through his theological has greatly influenced many
Scholastic philosophers, particularly Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas
and Duns Scotus. He was a popularly known as a Jewish Scholastic. His
main aim throughout his works in Jewish theology and philosophy was to
reconcile Aristotelian philosophy and science with the teachings of the
Torah. He remains one of the most read Jewish thinkers among modern
scholars. His therapeutic approach to philosophy and negative theology
provide renewed approach to these areas in Jewish community. His work
Mishneh Torah remains one of the most logical, precise and an
authoritative codification of Jewish law and ethics.
Peter Abelard was a man of faith as well as man of reason. Even if he was
known for championing reason in matters of faith, he recognised the limits
of reason and accepted the realm of faith as larger than what reason can
grasp. H e insisted on the moderate use of reason in matters of enquiry into
religious issues. He is rightly described as the logician of the middle ages
and the boldest theologian who pushed theology and philosophy beyond
their limits. He was known for his wit, ge nius and argumentative ability.
By showing the relation between reason and faith, he became the first to
use the term theology in the modern sense.
Check your progress :
Discuss the relation between reason and faith as brought out by Peter
Abelard
4.8 REFE RENCES
1. Martin, R. C.; M. R. Woodward; D. S. Atmaja (1997). Defenders of
Reason in Islam: Mu'tazilism from Medieval School to Modern
Symbol. Oxford, England: Oneworld Publications
1. Frank, Richard M. (2016) [2008]. Gutas, Dimitri (ed.). Classical
Islamic Theo logy: The Ash'arites. Texts and Studies on the
Development and History of Kalam. Variorum Collected Studies munotes.in
Page 45
Medieval Philosophy
45 Series. Vol. III. Abingdon, Oxfordshire: Routledge. ISBN 978 -0-
8607 -8979 -6Pines, S. (trans.), The Guide of the Perplexed, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1963
2. "Moses Maimonides | Biography, Philosophy, & Teachings".
Encyclopaedia Britannica.
3. Hartman, David (1976). Maimonides: Torah and Philosophic Quest.
Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America. ISBN
9780827600836.
• McCallum, James Ramsay, 1948, Abelard’s Christian Theology ,
Oxford:
Blackwell. (Includes substantial selections from Abelard’s Theologia
Christiana .)
• King, Peter and Andrew Arlig, "Peter Abelard", The Stanford Encyclopaedia of
Philosophy (Fall 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
.
4.9 UNIT END QUESTIONS
1) How does Peter Abelard explain the role of reason in matters of faith?
2) Distinguish between the characteristics of Mu’tazila and Ash’a ri
schools with special reference to human freewill
3) Discuss the therapeutic nature of Philosophy as brought out by
Maimonides
4) Explain the negative theology of Maimonides
.
munotes.in