Plutarch and the E of Delphi (Part 2)

Plutarch and the E of Delphi (Part 2)

I would like to conclude my look at Plutarch’s essay ‘The E of Delphi’ (pronounced EI) by looking at the final pages of the essay which are given over to his teacher AMMONIUS, the Platonist philosopher. (Remember we are referring to ‘Plutarch of Chaeronea’ (circa 46 to 120 CE), a respected philosopher and writer throughout Greece and Rome, who was a high-ranking priest here in Delphi before the destruction of the Temple of Apollo some 300 years after his death. (Surely he is a good place to look to begin to understand what Delphi was really all about…..)

May I remind Greek members of the group that in my previous post there is a link to Plutarch’s essay on this subject in ‘modern Greek’ for people to read easily. In the meantime, here are a few of the things Ammonius says about the E at Delphi, as recorded by Plutarch.

I will be discussing Plutarch’s other 2 essays about Delphi (‘Why Oracles at Delphi Are No Longer Given in Verse’, and  ‘The Obsolescence of Oracles’) in due course…..probably over a coffee with anyone who is interested, since I feel the material is too sacred for discussion via social media…

[James’ selected Quotes – The E at Delphi - Part 2.  Ammonius the teacher of Plutarch concludes the conversation and gives his own deep opinions on the subject…… ]

 The Speakers:

AMMONIUS, the Platonist philosopher, Plutarch’s teacher.

LAMPRIAS, Plutarch’s brother.

PLUTARCH.

THEON, a literary friend.

EUSTROPHUS, an Athenian.

NICANDER, a priest of the temple.

XVII. Ammonius, as one who himself gave Mathematics no mean place in Philosophy, was pleased at the course the conversation was taking, and said: ‘It is not worth our while to answer our young friends with too absolute accuracy on these points; I will only observe that any one of the numbers will provide not a few points for those who choose to sing its praises. Why speak about the others? Apollo’s holy “Seven” will take up all one day before we have exhausted its powers. Are we then to show the Seven Wise Men at odds with common usage, and “the time which runs”, and to suppose that they ousted the “Seven” from its pre-eminence before the God, and consecrated the “Five” as perhaps more appropriate? ‘My own view is that the letter signifies neither number, nor order, nor conjunction, nor any other omitted part of speech; it is a complete and self-operating mode of addressing the God; the word once spoken brings the speaker into apprehension of his power. The God, as it were, addresses each of us, as he enters, with his “KNOW THYSELF”, which is at least as good as “Hail”. We answer the God back with “EI” (Thou Art), rendering to him the designation which is true and has no lie in it, and alone belongs to him, and to no other, that of BEING.

‘For we have, really, no part in real being; all mortal nature is in a middle state between becoming and perishing, and presents but an appearance, a faint unstable image, of itself.

“It is impossible to go into the same river twice”,

said Heraclitus; no more can you grasp mortal being twice, so as to hold it.

Hence becoming never ends in being, for the process never leaves off, or is stayed. From seed it produces, in its constant changes, an embryo, then an infant, then a child; in due order a boy, a young man; then a man, an elderly man, an old man; it undoes the former becomings and the age which has been, to make those which come after. yet we fear (how absurdly!) a single death, we who have died so many deaths, and yet are dying. For it is not only that, as Heraclitus would say, “death of fire is birth of air”, and “death of air is birth of water”; the thing is much clearer in our own selves. The man in his strength is destroyed when the old man comes into being, the young man was destroyed for the man in his strength to be, so the boy for the young man, the babe for the boy. He of yesterday has died unto him of to-day; he of to-day is dying unto him of to-morrow.

No one abides, no one is; we that come into being are many, while matter is driven around, and then glides away, about some one appearance and a common mould. Else how is it, if we remain the same, that the things in which we find pleasure now are different from those of a former time; that we love, hate, admire, and censure different things; that our words are different and our feelings; that our look, our bodily form, our intellect are not the same now as then?

Time is a thing which moves and takes the fashion of moving matter, which ever flows or is a sort of leaky vessel which holds destruction and becoming. Of time we use the words “afterwards”, “before”, “shall be”, and “has been”, each on its face an avowal of not being. For, in this question of being, to say of a thing which has not yet come into being, or which has already ceased from being, that “it is”, is silly and absurd.

All things are coming into being, or being destroyed, even while we measure them by time. Hence it is not permissible, even in speaking of that which is, to say that “it was”, or “it shall be”; these all are inclinations, transitions, passages, for of permanent being there is none in Nature. XX. ‘But the God IS, we are bound to assert, he is, with reference to no time but to that age wherein is no movement, or time, or duration; to which nothing is prior or subsequent; no future, no past, no elder, no younger, which by one long “now” has made the “always” perfect. Only with reference tot his that which really is, is; it has not come into being, it is not yet to be, it did not begin, it will not cease. Thus then we ought to hail him in worship, and thus to address him as “Thou Art”, aye, or in the very words of some of the old people, “Ei Hen”, “Thou art one thing”. For the Divine is not many things,…..

Therefore the first of the names of the God, and the second, and the third. “Apollo” (Not-many) denies plurality and excludes multitude. Ἴητος means one and one only; Phoebus, we know, is a word by which the ancients expressed that which is clean and pure,…..

Now The One is transparent and pure, pollution comes by commixture of this with that, just as Homer, you remember, says of ivory dyed red that it is stained, and dyers say of mingled pigments that they are destroyed, and call the process “destruction”.

But now that we see them dreaming of the God in the fairest of nightly visions, let us rise and encourage them to mount yet higher, to contemplate him in a dream of the day, and to see his own being. Let them pay honour also to the image of him and worship the principle of increase which is about it; so far as what is of sense can lead to what is of mind, a moving body to that which abides, it allows presentments and appearances of his kind and blessed self to shine through after a fashion.

To my thinking the word “EI” is confronted with this false view, and testifies to the God that THOU ART, meaning that no shift or change has place in him, but that such things belong to some other God, or rather to some Spirit set over Nature in its perishing and becoming,…..

Anyhow, the phrase “KNOW THYSELF” seems to stand in a sort of antithesis to the letter “E”, and yet, again, to accord with it. The letter is an appeal, a cry raised in awe and worship to the God, as being throughout all eternity; the phrase is a reminder to mortal man of his own nature and of his weakness.’

Source: Plutarch. Delphi Complete Works of Plutarch. (Delphi Ancient Classics Book 13) .

Plutarch's 'Isis and Osiris' and some deeper philosophical wisdom.....

 A few words about why I like Plutarch (Πλούταρχος) – and some clues to the richness and wisdom one can find in his writings.

Firstly, let me say that I am talking about the ‘real’ or ‘famous’ ’ Plutarch, well to my mind at least. He is usually known as ‘Plutarch of Chaeronea’ (a city in central Greece) and lived around  46 CE and died around 120.    (In other words, this is not the latter Plutarch of Athens who lived around 350 – 430 CE and was one of the latter Neo Platonist group of that time – a group that I personally have mixed feelings about…… but that is something for another day.)

Plutarch was born into a wealthy and well connected family and received the best possible education.  He travelled to Asia minor and Egypt – and later made a series of visits to Rome where he was given official recognition by the emperors Trajan and Hadrian, which added to his fame.  

He writes in a popular / accessible and practical way…. You will know what Plutarch was getting at after you read the one of his essays – even if you do not agree with him about everything.   If you prefer reading this with specialist vocabulary, supposed esoteric hidden meanings, and the discussion of very vague abstract ideas opened to interpretation or esoteric deliberations - then I think this Plutarch will not be to your taste.

However, if like me - you are not put off by down to earth and straightforward philosophical writing, I think it is fair to say Plutarch’s essays contain a rich source of spiritual and philosophical guidance and nourishment; along with several suggested pitfalls to avoid in a quest to lead a more philosophical life. Keep in mind, he also held responsible positions here in Delphi in the priesthoods there…and was very well respected here. When he speaks about ‘certain’ spiritual things – albeit in a simple and straightforward way - we should consider at least that he not only knows what he is talking about – but has an understanding of these deeper things as well.

Personally, I try to read some Plutarch every year or two at least…… to remind myself of the wisdom within his writings about how to live, and what kinds of attitudes we should have towards other people……

When I hear some modern commentators relegate Plutarch to the side lines simply - because he uses down to earth and very understandable language - I am not that impressed. After all, Socrates himself (who lived some 400 years before Plutarch ) warns us about just accepting ‘clever or stylish  arguments’ over ideas that are presented simply and in a straightforward manner. Socrates is very critical of rhetoric (basically the art of persuasion and clever speech making) - if it is in the wrong hands. By this Socrates means, if the speaker however elegant and polished, does not really what they are talking about and just pretends they do, or is deliberately trying to mislead is audience.…… as is often the case with our political leaders, or people who perhaps are trying to persuade us to buy things we don’t want, or do things that are not good for us.

Plutarch wrote two main works which have come down to us today:

..... One was the more well know Parallel Lives of outstanding Greek and Roman leaders – which deliberately and cleverly compares two leaders at a time who may have different characters or outlooks on certain matters; so the descriptions are very ‘philosophical’ as well, and not just historical.

The second lesser well know work (book) is conventionally known as The Moralia which is a Latin translation of a Greek term for ‘Moral Pieces’ (ēthika), – which comprised of some 26 essays on various subjects – not just moral subjects as we might suppose. (Incidentally, Plutarch’s son, Lamprias, is attributed with compiling and editing his father’s essays and papers into books after Plutarch’s death.)

Within The Moralia Plutarch writes an essay explaining The E at Delphi, and I will make a few comments about this over the next week or two.  Greek members of this group can read Plutarch’s Isis and Osiris, and about the E in Delphi from:

https://www.kaktos.gr/el/authors/archaioi-suggrafeis/ploutarchos/ploutarhos-ithika-10-978-960-352-354-3.html

However, let me finish this post by telling you some of the more unusual things (but very straightforward and important things) Plutarch says within his essay on the Gods Isis and Osiris.  I feel these are importance quotes to share with people who are on the philosophical path….

Some Quotes from Plutarch’s essay on Isis and Osiris

(Plutarch is talking to a friend, Clea, in Delphi)

🔑All good things, my dear Clea, sensible men must ask from the gods; and especially do we pray that from those mighty gods we may, in our quest, gain a knowledge of themselves, so far as such a thing is attainable by men. For we believe that there is nothing more important for man to receive, or more ennobling for God of His grace to grant, than the truth.

🔑For the Deity is not blessed by reason of his possession of gold and silver, nor strong because of thunder and lightning, but through knowledge and intelligence.

🔑Therefore, the effort to arrive at the Truth, and especially the truth about the gods, is a longing for the divine. For the search for truth requires for its study and investigation the consideration of sacred subjects, and it is a work more hallowed than any form of holy living or temple service; and, not least of all, it is well-pleasing to that goddess whom you worship, a goddess exceptionally wise and a lover of wisdom, to whom, as her name at least seems to indicate, knowledge and understanding are in the highest degree appropriate. For Isis is a Greek word,…..

🔑.....for she is wise, and discloses the divine mysteries to those who truly and justly have the name of “bearers of the sacred vessels” and “wearers of the sacred robes.” These are they who within their own soul, as though within a casket, bear the sacred writings about the gods clear of all superstition and pedantry; and they cloak them with secrecy, thus giving intimation, some dark and shadowy, some clear and bright, of their concepts about the gods, intimations of the same sort as are clearly evidenced in the wearing of the sacred garb. ……

🔑 It is a fact, Clea, that having a beard and wearing a coarse cloak does not make philosophers, nor does dressing in linen and shaving the hair make votaries of Isis; but the true votary of Isis is he/she who has legitimately received what is set forth in the ceremonies connected with these gods, and uses reason in investigating and in studying the truth contained therein…

🔑 But for all this there is only one true reason, which is to be found in the words of Plato: “for the Impure to touch the Pure is contrary to divine ordinance.”  [Note: This is particularly important for readers searching for the truth, the beautiful, the good or the divine….]

🔑 In Saïs the statue of Athena, whom they believe to be Isis, bore the inscription: “I am all that has been, and is, and shall be, and my robe no mortal has yet uncovered.” Moreover, most people believe that Amoun is the name given to Zeus in the land of the Egyptians, a name which we, with a slight alteration, pronounce Ammon. But Manetho of Sebennytus dthinks that the meaning “concealed” or “concealment” lies in this word.

🔑 When they, therefore, address the supreme god, whom they believe to be the same as the Universe, as if he were invisible and concealed, and implore him to make himself visible and manifest to them, they use the word “Amoun”; so great, then, was the circumspection of the Egyptians in their wisdom touching all that had to do with the gods. 10 1 Witness to this also are the wisest of the Greeks: Solon, Thales, Plato, Eudoxus, Pythagoras, who came to Egypt and consorted with the priests; and in this number some would include Lycurgus also.

🔑 ……and you must not think that any of these tales actually happened in the manner in which they are related. The facts are that they do not call the dog by the name Hermes as his proper name, but they bring into association with the most astute of their gods that animal’s watchfulness and wakefulness and wisdom,b since he distinguishes between what is friendly and what is hostile by his knowledge of the one and his ignorance of the other, as Plato remarks. Nor, again, do they believe that the sun rises as a new-born babe from the lotus, but they portray the rising of the sun in this manner to indicate allegorically the enkindling of the sun from the waters.

🔑 If, then, you listen to the stories about the gods in this way, accepting them from those who interpret the story reverently and philosophically, and if you always perform and observe the established rites of worship, and believe that no sacrifice that you can offer, no deed that you may do will be more likely to find favour with the gods than your belief in their true nature, you may avoid superstition which is no less an evil than atheism.

🔑 Moreover, Lysippus the sculptor was quite right in his disapproval of the painter Apelles, because Apelles in his portrait of Alexander had represented him with a thunderbolt in his hand, whereas he himself had represented Alexander holding a spear, the glory of which no length of years could ever dim, since it was truthful and was his by right. 25 1 Better, therefore, is the judgment of those who hold that the stories about Typhon, Osiris, and Isis, are records of experiences of neither gods nor men, but of demigods, ewhom Plato and Pythagoras and Xenocrates and Chrysippus, following the lead of early writers on sacred subjects, allege to have been stronger than men and, in their might, greatly surpassing our nature, yet not possessing the divine quality unmixed and uncontaminated, but with a share also in the nature of the soul and in the perceptive faculties of the body, and with a susceptibility to pleasure and pain and to whatsoever other experience is incident to these mutations, and is the source of much disquiet in some and of less in others. For in demigods, as in men, there are divers degrees of virtue and vice.

🔑 The assumption, then, is that the demigods (or daemons) have a complex and inconsistent nature and purpose; wherefore

🔑 …..That Osiris is identical with Dionysus who could more fittingly know than yourself, Clea? For you are at the head of the inspired maidens of Delphi, and have been consecrated by your father and mother in the holy rites of Osiris. If, however, for the benefit of others it is needful to adduce proofs of this identity, let us leave undisturbed what may not be told, but the public ceremonies which the priests perform in the burial of the Apis, when they convey his body on an improvised bier, do not in any way come short of a Bacchic procession; for they fasten skins of fawns about themselves, and carry Bacchic wands and indulge in shoutings and movements exactly as do those who are under the spell of the Dionysiac ecstasies.

🔑 The Egyptians, as has already been stated, point out tombs of Osiris in many places, and the people of Delphi believe that the remains of Dionysus rest with them close beside the oracle; and the Holy Ones offer a secret sacrifice in the shrine of Apollo whenever the devotees of Dionysus wake the God of the Mystic Basket.

🔑 We must not treat legend as it were history at all, but we should adopt that which is appropriate in each legend in accordance with its verisimilitude.

Believing just eighty per cent in the soul, as I suspect quite a few people do these days, can be an awkward place to be......

 

Extract From James Head’s Book – Life Choices: Important Tips From Socrates, Plato and Aristotle    https://www.amazon.com/dp/1540552624 

  Chapter 5 - Plato’s Phaedo

...... Remember, we are not meant to study Plato as if he is the font of all truth and knowledge, since in Plato’s philosophy our human soul is meant to be that font; assuming of course that we have one in the first place and that we occasionally listen to our souls if we do. His books should not be read like a religious dogma. Plato was just a philosophy teacher and writer (albeit an enormously respected one), and like any other philosophy teacher or spiritual guide, he can only point people towards the truth. The student must then put one foot in front of the other and walk at his or her own pace towards the truth.

Plato writes to stimulate our investigation and exploration of the truth, and many of the questions he raises and asks us to consider for ourselves are important signs for us to follow; especially if we want to ‘prove’ the existence of the soul to our own satisfaction at least – or alternatively perhaps disprove it. Believing just eighty per cent in the soul, as I suspect quite a few people do these days, can be an awkward place to be. Generally speaking, ‘life’ is much easier and straightforward if you believe (or disbelieve) one hundred per cent.  (Even at the end of The Phaedo, one of Socrates’ closest friends Simmias, says he is still not certain about the existence of the soul.)

It is interesting to note that the word ‘theory’ literally means ‘to contemplate’ in Greek, and Socrates and Plato only want us all to come to our own theories and opinions on these matters, hopefully with well thought out reasons to back them up. Very usefully, in my opinion, Socrates and Plato offer us a structured approach towards such contemplation and investigation which all too often is a rather vague or confusing undertaking. When investigating anything (even the existence of the soul), having a structured approach helps us to arrive at our own opinions on many important spiritual and practical matters.

Be careful as you take those first philosophical steps through the pages of The Phaedo, since Plato combines accepted factual information, well known Greek myths, lesser known allegories, and some divine riddles of his own making within his text. He does this to stimulate our minds, promote our understanding of reality, and allow us to create our own unique paths towards the truth, and perhaps also to the mystical visions he describes. Plato is opening some windows for us to look through to see new things, or perhaps just to see some familiar things again but from a different perspective.

Let me now set the scene of The Phaedo a little more for people either new to this book or indeed to Socratic philosophy generally. Socrates aged 70 has been found guilty by the law courts of ancient Athens of impiety and corrupting the youth of the city, and has been sentenced to death. It is 400 years BCE……..

An Underlying Problem to Finding our Own Unique Path ……. as Individuals and as a Society.

What Is The Purpose of Life?  Does It Matter Anyway.....?

A regular question to the attendees of my philosophy talks in Athens is ‘what is the purpose of life’. It’s not that I particularly like asking this question, it’s just that the underlying ideas behind it seem to crop up quite regularly when discussing various topics within Greek philosophy.

Quite often people seem to assume that I’m asking about ‘divine purposes’ or any reason or purpose that a God (should one exist) decide to create the universe and everything in it. Well the audience naturally tend to fall into two camps here depending on their own spiritual position.

The more religious among us start to try and come up with an answer for a universal ‘purpose of life’. Then, oddly in some ways, the people who do not believe in any kind of God or divine hand in the universe answer the question negatively, saying there is no purpose to life whatsoever. Of course, it’s quite difficult answering some of these deep questions off-the-cuff at a talk, so I cannot be completely sure that these people really think there is no purpose at all to life if there is no God.

As I quickly remind to the non-religious people - whether we are religious / spiritual and not - at some level we all still need to have ‘some’ purpose in life as we get out of bed in the morning and go about our daily routines. I disagree that no God necessarily means no purpose whatsoever.

……. and then we start to get to the nub of the question; or rather my intended question. For example, if someone asked me whether the pen I am writing with is a good pen or not, I can say yes or no, only because I know what a pen is - and what it is for. The same is true of say a glass to drink water from. Does it achieve its known purpose well or not….  However, if I asked someone whether they were a good person or not, if they do not know what a person actually is – and what our purpose is – then it is pretty difficult to say yes or no with any certainty; and everybody’s opinion about themselves and the way they live would be as good as anyone else’s. There would no recognizable truth to anyone’s answer. (Be careful of one of the traps with this. I asked a young gentleman ‘what’ he was and he replied that he was an engineer – and a good one too. Of course, this would not necessarily make him a good person…… it’s not quite the same thing.)

So when we start to talk about and consider finding the right path, and being ‘good’ people who use our time wisely (or at least fairly wisely), things start to get a little complicated. It is easy enough to know whether we are simply ‘busy’ people – but again, that is not the same thing at all. Afterall, some of the worse tyrants in history were fairly busy people…...

If we do not have ‘some’ idea of what our purpose is as individuals - surely it gets difficult to say with any certainty what the best or better path for us to follow actually is, and indeed, what sorts of things we should be doing and not doing so often along that path, and how we use our time.

Perhaps this is one of the underlying problems with society as a whole in the 21^st century as traditional religious explanations of the world have tended to crumble to the forces of the media, consumerism and scientific dogmatism.

Whether we are religious or not - without some idea of what the main purpose of a human being is and what it is for - surely it will be difficult to say with any certainty at all whether our goals and objectives (indeed purposes) are good and wise ones, or foolish.

 

[Comments welcome below]

https://www.oraclesfromdelphi.org/

On the nature of Good and Evil - 01

Good and Evil – What is it?

       In the Phaedo, after Socrates has his chains removed, he says that he feels a pleasure from his legs where the chains had been just a short while before. He suggests that pain and pleasure may be part of the same thing - and perhaps joined together in some way with a common head. In other words, he suggests that these two opposites are connected in some way.  Indeed, in the Socratic thought, the connection of various opposites is a common thought - i.e. something can only become hot if it was cooler before; the fast running race horse must have been running slowly to begin with before it was running fast. We can think of many more smaller ‘particular’ examples of this connection of opposites by a common root or thread.

       However, also in the Phaedo, when Socrates gives his first ‘proof’ of why he thinks that the soul exists (from his five proofs) he talks about the proof of ‘generation of opposites’ and that life is generated from death, and vice versa. As a proof that the soul exists, I do not find this convincing, and my reasons are not important for the purposes of this short article on good and evil. Nevertheless, it does suggest another level of ‘opposites’ being connected in some way.

        So, when trying to decide what good and evil are and where they come from - one avenue of exploration and personal investigation is to consider whether good and evil are connected in some way.

       Secondly, we can consider whether good and evil are external forces acting in the world around us – or even throughout the universe. Are good and evil simply just human qualities – since we all seem to have the possibility of good and evil actions within us - but hopefully choose ‘good’ (or at least ‘relatively good’) actions over evil ones. Sometimes the situation gets a little blurred since if you killed 10 enemy soldiers in a war you might well receive a medal from your government for doing so. However, were you to kill the same 10 soldiers after the war had ended as they enjoyed a drink and discussed old stories of the war, you would be arrested and put on trial for murder.

       I would suggest that good and evil may simply be predominantly human qualities, since when the lioness kills the antelope to feed her Cubs - it is not considered an act of evil; but a man killing his neighbours for no apparent reason would probably be considered so by many. Similarly, when an earthquake kills 200 people we do not consider it as an act of evil. However, when the religious fanatic blows up a passenger aeroplane, or leaves a bomb in a bar full of young people enjoying a drink or a concert, then we do regard the killing of the 200 people as an act of evil. As in most philosophical thought, the practical details appear important; or are good and evil ‘absolutes’ of ‘perfect ideas’ and therefore never changing?

       Now in traditional platonic thought (or at least as suggested by the later commentator Proclus some 800 years after Plato) evil as such does not exist; since the whole universe in his view flows out of the one source of everything; and that one source is always good. In this view, evil does not exist - only a lack or even complete absence of the ‘the good’.  In regard to our human concept of evil and evil actions by some people; this idea suggests that evil actions are simply a lack of ‘good judgement’ or the inability to make a ‘good’ rational choice. For example, an otherwise good man might kill another man in a moment of anger - and thus have committed an evil act as a lack of good judgement; and he would no doubt regret his action the following day. Similarly, but somewhat differently, the madman who kills his neighbour over a minor matter would be lacking the healthy and good mind in order to make a good rational choice. Even if he  did not regret his action the next day if in a confused and unstable mental state, in many ways it would be hard to define his actions as a result of some ‘evil power’ operating within the universe, or at least within anthropomorphic part of it. The man was simply unwell and lacking a good healthy mind to make a reasonable action.

       Most organised religions with influence in our modern day promote the idea of evil as being some kind of divine power and give various explanations of how it came into being in the first place (fallen angles etc), and how it operates - and who it operates on and through.

       The above few short paragraphs offer no clear answers – but simply allow us to start our investigation of evil. Socrates advises us in many of his conversations with people, that is wise before you start to discuss something, that you define exactly what you mean by the term being discussed - i.e. evil in this case. Is it a divine and malignant force operating in the universe (as suggested in the Star Wars movies or some major organised religions today) that affects us all if we are not very careful; or is it simply when human beings make badly judged or irrational actions.

       Additionally, if good and evil are in some way linked (as are pain and pleasure as previously discussed above regarding the removal of Socrates chains) it would suggest that all of us have the potential for evil thoughts and deeds unless we are careful with our thoughts and actions - and have control and discipline over our desires, tempers, and other emotions. We might do well therefore, to consider ways that encourage us and help us to keep our emotions under control; and how to avoid things that slowly lead us towards bad and evil acts. For example, the police officer who accepts a small bribe this month from a drug dealer for a small favour- is likely to find him or herself is at risk a month or 2 later of being forced to take another bribe for a much more serious favour. The person who makes small false declarations with their company expenses this month, is more likely in a month or 2 to make bigger force declarations - and risk losing their good name, job and most importantly for philosophers – VIRTUE.

       In my view, we have to be real careful about things that tempt us towards small acts of badness or corruption, since these small steps lead us down the start of a path that may be difficult to stop once we had started.

       As in Plato’s Phaedrus - the charioteer must try to use the horse which is good and noble, rather than that which is ugly, selfish, brutish, and bad in every other way.

‘Plato’s Academy’ versus ‘The Platonic Academy’

‘Plato’s Academy’ versus ‘The Platonic Academy’

(the quickest of summaries….)

Extract below taken from James’ Monday night talk in Athens:
'Socrates, Plato, Know Yourself and Live Moderately’.

    

     Although tonight is not a history lesson – I do want to give you now just a few dates and facts now about Socrates and Plato. Socrates lived for 69 or 70 years and died 400 b.c.e. [….or 399 to be precise with the dates... which in most ways we do not need to be as philosophers - rather than historians)   So if we do the maths …. 400’ish B.C.E. less 70 - means Socrates was born about 469 or 470 B.C.E.   Now Socrates had many students over the years – but he did not run a school and have loads of students like a regular teacher - or usually give talks to big groups of people. (There were just a few exceptions to this…)  He spoke to small groups of people and friends and to individuals mostly. As mentioned - the most well known of these friends and students was Plato – who was born about 40 years after Socrates – so that’s about 430 B.C.  (or 428 for those who like to be precise :)   The philosophical interaction and friendship between the two of them can only of lasted about 12 to 15 years at most – which is not a long time really.

     Yet; Socrates had a profound effect on Plato – who after Socrates death (when he was still only a young man about 30) started writing down the words and ideas of his teacher and friend Socrates in books – usually as short dialogues - between Socrates and whoever he was talking to at the time. (Incidentally - Socrates sentenced to death by suicide and Plato distraught and disgusted – but we won’t go into that this evening… It’s all in Plato’s book ‘Phaedo’ if you are interested.)

     Now there is quite rightly – much academic controversy about Plato’s books in the matter of how much of what he wrote was truly Socrates words and ideas – and how much was Plato giving his own views and ideas through the mouthpiece of Socrates in his books. Remember – as 90% of what we know about Socrates comes from the books of Plato this is pretty important if you are interested in this stuff. These days, most commentators on the subject agree that probably Plato’s earlier books were closer records of the words and ideas of Socrates - than perhaps some of his later books which may of contained some (or a lot depending on your point of view) of Plato’s own ideas and stories as well.  [My own opinion on this is….. he didn’t need a mouthpiece… + often obvious when he was or was not using Socrates mouth… eg Gorgias…]

     As well as writing these books about Socrates - 10 years after Socrates death – Plato now aged about 40 – decided to open a school for philosophy – and opens the first ever ‘academy’ – Plato’s Academy …. for general studies and the study of philosophy in its various forms. This is where the word ‘academy’ comes from – literally…. ( By the way - the site of this old academy – the first ‘academy’ in the world ever - is just a 15 minute bus ride out of the centre of Athens if you are interested…. and I can tell you how to get there later if you want.)

The School of Athens is one of the most famous frescoes by the Italian Renaissance artist Raphael. It is in the Vatican Museum of Rome - and is huge! Well worth the the trip...

     So this friend and student of Socrates ‘Plato’ opens his academy 10 years after Socrates death in 399/400 B.C. and this educational institution (and I emphasise the name ‘Plato’s Academy’ ) then carries on almost uninterrupted as a place of learning in Athens– for about 400 years until 86 BCE when this original academy was closed and destroyed during the Mithridatic Wars– and the students and teachers scattered to some other cities – notably to Alexandria in Egypt.

     Then another 400 years or so later – in about 410 CE some other philosophers, now usually referred to as the Neo-Platonists, opened a new philosophy school calling it ‘the Platonic Academy’ – and in many ways revived the interest in the written texts of Plato – although some of the interpretations of the texts they gave have been controversially received by modern commentators. Some respected commentators say that the Neo-Platonists (such as Proclus) have helped to explain the deeper and hidden meanings within Plato’s original texts; but other respected commentators would say they have added their own later interpretations to the texts and have nothing much of value to add to our understanding of Plato’s writing - and indeed the central ideas of Socrates. Like many arguments, as indeed Socrates himself says in the Phaedo, there are probably good and bad points in both points of view. This is a pretty involved discussion and not one we need to concern ourselves with in any depth this evening – but something just to make you aware of. In any case this new later Platonic Academy came to an end in 529 CE when the Roman Emperor Justinian closed all the philosophical schools in Athens, of which there were several – and not just this new ‘Platonic Academy’.

     Let’s also consider all the schools, colleges and universities around the world today that study Socrates and Plato in one way or another….

     Now what on earth did all these old Platonic academies back then - and modern schools and colleges around the world today study -  and what was it about Socrates and Plato that so many people worldwide have found so important for so long?

Socrates advises us to 'Know Thyself' - or do we already know what we are ?

My previous blog post discussed the idea of 'double ignorance' and the essential two qualities a philosopher needs being to 'wonder' about things and to have the curiosity to find out things when we do not know. This blog post develops this theme with a quick look at Plato's book: The First Alcibiades - where the question is posed: Do we really know 'what' the human being is?  This question in Socratic philosophy is often summarised as the need for us all to 'Know Thyself'.....

'Socrates points out to Alcibiades that unless we are aware (or at least have it pointed out to us) that we do not know something, we will not try to find out about that thing and try to correct our lack of knowledge in that area. Socrates says, as discussed in the introduction to this book, that we will fall into the trap of being ‘doubly ignorant’. That is; firstly not knowing something; but secondly thinking that we do know about it so that we do not even bother to inform ourselves and correct this lack of knowledge. Incidentally, an ancient Oracle (places where the future was predicted and where questions about all sorts of things were thought to be answered by the Gods) once said, when asked who was the wisest man alive, that it was in fact Socrates. This confused Socrates a great deal, and the only reason he could come up with for the Oracle’s answer was that at least he knew he knew nothing which made him a lot wiser than the people who thought they knew about things when clearly they did not.

It is no problem if we do not know something – providing we realise we do not know. These days we consult lawyers and solicitors on legal matters, and accountants about financial matters. We know we are not experts in these areas and so we consult with people who are trained and experienced with these specialist subjects. We talk to doctors about medical matters, and mechanics about problems with our cars. It is normal to do so and it is no big problem not to know something providing you are aware of it and indeed admit it to yourself and others when necessary. In modern day life we consult experts on a whole range of subjects. Presidents and Prime Ministers have whole teams of specialist advisors in different areas where they know they have little or no specialist expertise or experience themselves.

All simple enough so far….. Socrates has made Alcibiades admit to himself that he lacks knowledge and experience - with politics and affairs of State in this case. However, then Socrates goes a step further by discussing that if we are going to teach ‘ourselves’ about things or otherwise look after ourselves wisely (i.e. make the best Life Choices for ourselves), then we better have some understanding at least of what ‘the self’ actually is, and this is truly what ‘Knowing Thyself’ is all about. Socrates agrees that you have to know where you are before starting a philosophical path (or any other path); but he says it is also important to know ‘what you are’, and this is what it truly means to Know Thyself in the Socratic sense. Socrates is asking:

How can we look after something well (including ourselves) if we do not even know what it is?

So what does Socrates say ‘the self’ is; or in other words: what kind of creatures are we? Well he discusses with Alcibiades that there is obviously a difference between someone taking care of their shoes and taking care of their feet. He says that the shoes are merely added on to the feet and are not the actual feet them self. Similarly, he mentions that rings are merely added on to the hands and are not the hands or indeed the actual person themselves. Alcibiades agrees as Socrates explains by asking him more short questions to answer. Socrates then points out that there is a difference between the tools a craftsman uses, such as a shoemaker using a knife to cut the leather, and the shoemaker himself. In the same way the musical instrument the musician uses is different to the actual musician who again only makes use of the instrument. Such things are only used by the 'self' and Socrates wants Alcibiades to understand the distinction between the person them self and the things he or she merely uses. Of course Alcibiades agrees to these examples, and this may all seem very obvious to us and perhaps unnecessary for Socrates to explain to Alcibiades. However, Socrates is creating universals or universal principles and truths in his young student’s mind. Socrates is getting Alcibiades to follow his path of logic and the steps of his argument one step at a time, almost like a geometric mathematical proof. (Perhaps this is another reason why Plato wrote those strange words above the entrance to his Academy?)

Socrates then makes the distinction between the eyes and hands that a shoemakers or musician makes use of compared to the shoemaker and musician themselves. Alcibiades agrees that the shoemaker and musician merely use their hands and eyes but that they are not actually the shoemaker or musician. He goes on to explain that this is the same with the arms, legs, feet, etc. that while they are used by the musician and the shoemaker they are not the actual musician or shoemaker themselves; they are just added on to whatever the musician or shoemaker actually is ‘in essence’ and are merely used by them. Let me now quote direct from Plato's dialogue what comes next (First Alcibiades-129c/d):

SOCRATES: But the tool is not the same as the cutter and user of the tool?

ALCIBIADES: Of course not.

SOCRATES: And in the same way the instrument of the harper (musician) is to be distinguished from the harper himself?

ALCIBIADES: It is.

SOCRATES: Now the question which I asked was whether you conceive the user to be always different from that which he uses

ALCIBIADES: I do.

SOCRATES: Then what shall we say of the shoemaker? Does he cut with his tools only or with his hands?

ALCIBIADES: With his hands as well.

SOCRATES: He uses his hands too?

ALCIBIADES: Yes.

SOCRATES: And does he use his eyes in cutting leather?

ALCIBIADES: He does.

SOCRATES: And we admit that the user is not the same with the things which he uses?

ALCIBIADES: Yes.

SOCRATES: Then the shoemaker and the harper are to be distinguished from the hands and feet which they use?

ALCIBIADES: Clearly.

SOCRATES: And does not a man use the whole body?

ALCIBIADES: Certainly.

SOCRATES: And that which uses is different from that which is used?

ALCIBIADES: True.

SOCRATES: Then a man is not the same as his own body

ALCIBIADES: That is the inference. 

SOCRATES: What is he, then? 

ALCIBIADES: I cannot say. [i.e. I don't know... ]

Just notice that as soon as Alcibiades says: 'I cannot say' or 'I don't know' he suddenly ceases to be doubly ignorant on this matter. He had always assumed that he at least knew what he was - and so had not thought about it much. Socrates with his questions has suddenly made him realise that he does not really know 'what' he is, and that it is something he needs to investigate and think about from now on.'

From Essay 1 of James’ new book ‘Life Choice – Important Tips From Socrates, Plato and Aristotle’ (p. 25 – 27)

See paperback at: https://www.createspace.com/6627322

See eBook at: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1540552624  

Avoiding 'Double Ignorance' & With Practical Philosophy Action Must Follow Investigation

In order to make up our own minds on various issues we must of course first ‘wonder’ about these things in the first place, but then secondly, we must have sufficient curiosity to find out why things are the way they are. Only if we really know what fairness, honesty, and goodness actually are can we make an informed decision about them.  Of course, we will not find out about these and other things if we already think we know all the answers to everything; we will remain what Socrates describes as ‘doubly ignorant’; that is; not knowing something – but thinking that we do and therefore not bothering to find out what something really is, or what are the correct answers in a particular situation.

Traditional Socratic (+ Platonic and Aristotelian) philosophy is also very much a practical subject and not just an intellectual pursuit. It is certainly not the sole preserve of university academics and their students. Philosophy is much too important to be left in just a few hands - it is something that we all need to be engaged with. For example, Aristotle (the student of Plato who was the student of Socrates) asks what would be the point of us just being wiser intellectually if it was not going to improve our lives (as individuals or various communities) and make us happier and better people on a practical level in the real world. A simple modern example is the Board or management meetings that many commercial companies and other organisations have regularly to discuss things like what went well in the previous months, and what could be done better in the months ahead. Well there is absolutely no point in having such meetings unless some of the ideas on how to improve things in the months ahead are implemented after the meeting – or at least efforts are made to implement them whether successful or not. There would be absolutely no point in having a Board or management meeting otherwise.

Socratic philosophy is concerned with many practical areas of our daily lives but three main areas of philosophic discussion or investigation can usually be identified. Firstly, there is the consideration of what ‘the good life’ actually is and how to lead it on a personal level. Metaphorically speaking this can be thought of as looking inwards at ourselves.  Secondly, there is the investigation of good politics and society for the best life possible of our communities and societies, almost looking outwards towards other people and society at large. Thirdly, there is the investigation of the divine and spiritual (metaphysical) areas that many people often associate with philosophy; how did I get here, and where I am going; is there a God or a heaven? We can think of these types of questions and investigations as looking ‘upwards’…….

From the introduction of James’ new paper version of his book ‘Life Choice – Important Tips From Socrates, Plato and Aristotle’ (p.8)