Extracts of Text for ONLINE Meetup Talk on Plutarch - Weds 3rd March - 8 pm Greek Time

 Time will be limited to read text together at the talk, and so we will use only use points v, viii, and ix of the extracts below at our meetup talk on March 3rd 2021.

How Can We Measure Our Progress In Virtue (Morals) & Philosophy?’

From Plutarch’s book of essays: Moralia.

(Extracts Translated to English by Arthur Richard Shilleto, M.A.)

EXTRACTS 

§ v. …………………… …….. ‘Similarly they relate of Diogenes of Sinope, when he began to be a philosopher, that the Athenians were celebrating a festival, and there were public banquets and shows and mutual festivities, and drinking and revelling all night, and he, coiled up in a corner of the market-place intending to sleep, fell into a train of thought likely seriously to turn him from his purpose and shake his resolution, for he reflected that he had adopted without any necessity a toilsome and unusual kind of life, and by his own fault sat there debarred of all the good things. At that moment, however, they say a mouse stole up and began to munch some of the crumbs of his barley-cake, and he plucked up his courage and said to himself, in a railing and chiding fashion, "What say you, Diogenes? Do your leavings give this mouse a sumptuous meal, while you, the gentleman, wail and lament because you are not getting drunk yonder and reclining on soft and luxurious couches?" Whenever such depressions of mind are not frequent, and the mind when they take place quickly recovers from them, after having put them to flight as it were, and when such annoyance and distraction is easily got rid of, then one may consider one's progress in virtue as a certainty.

§ vi. And since not only the things that in themselves shake and turn them in the opposite direction are more powerful in the case of weak philosophers, but also the serious advice of friends, and the playful and jeering objections of adversaries bend and soften people, and have ere now shaken some out of philosophy altogether, it will be no slight indication of one's progress in virtue if one takes all this very calmly, and is neither disturbed nor aggravated by people who tell us and mention to us that some of our former comrades are flourishing in kings' courts, or have married wives with dowries, or are attended by a crowd of friends when they come down to the forum to solicit some office or advocateship. He that is not moved or affected by all this is already plainly one upon whom philosophy has got a right hold; for it is impossible that we should cease to be envious of what most people admire, unless the admiration of virtue was strongly implanted in us. For over-confidence may be generated in some by anger and folly, but to despise what men admire is not possible without a true and steady elevation of mind. And so people in such a condition of mind, comparing it with that of others, pride themselves on it, and say with Solon, "We would not change virtue for wealth, for while virtue abides, wealth changes hands, and now one man, now another, has it."

 

And Diogenes compared his shifting about from Corinth to Athens, and again from Thebes to Corinth, to the different residences of the King of Persia, as his spring residence at Susa, his winter residence at Babylon, and his summer residence in Media. And Agesilaus said of the great king, "How is he better than me, if he is not more upright?" And Aristotle, writing to Antipater about Alexander, said, "that he ought not to think highly of himself because he had many subjects, for anyone who had right notions about the gods was entitled to think quite as highly of himself." And Zeno, observing that Theophrastus was admired for the number of his pupils,  said, "His choir is, I admit, larger than mine, but mine is more harmonious."

§ vii. Whenever then, by thus comparing the advantages of virtue with external things, you get rid of envies and jealousies and those things which fret and depress the minds of many who are novices in philosophy, this also is a great indication of your progress in virtue. Another and no slight indication is a change in the style of your discourses. For generally speaking all novices in philosophy adopt most such as tend to their own glorification; some, like birds, in their levity and ambition soaring to the height and brightness of physical things; others like young puppies, as Plato says, rejoicing in tearing and biting, betake themselves to strifes and questions and sophisms; but most plunging themselves into dialectics immediately store themselves for sophistry; and some collect sentences and histories and go about (as Anacharsis said he saw the Greeks used money for no other purpose but to count it up), merely piling up and comparing them, but making no practical use of them.

 

Applicable here is that saying of Antiphanes, which someone applied to Plato's pupils. Antiphanes said playfully that in a certain city words were frozen directly they were spoken, owing to the great cold, and were thawed again in the summer, so that one could then hear what had been said in the winter. So he said of the words which were spoken by Plato to young men, that most of them only understood them late in life when they were become old men. And this is the condition people are in in respect to all philosophy, until the judgement gets into a sound and healthy state, and begins to adapt itself to those things which can produce character and greatness of mind, and to seek discourses whose footsteps turn inwards rather than outwards, to borrow the language of Æsop.  For as Sophocles said he had first toned down the pompous style of Æschylus, then his harsh and over-artificial method, and had in the third place changed his manner of diction, a most important point and one that is most intimately connected with the character, so those who go in for philosophy, when they have passed from flattering and artificial discourses to such as deal with character and emotion, are beginning to make genuine and modest progress in virtue.

§ viii. Furthermore, take care, in reading the writings of philosophers or hearing their speeches, that you do not attend to words more than things, nor get attracted more by what is difficult and curious than by what is serviceable and solid and useful. And also, in studying poems or history, let nothing escape you of what is said to the point, which is likely either to correct the character or to calm the passions. For as Simonides says the bee hovers among the flowers "making the yellow honey," while others value and pluck flowers only for their beauty and fragrance, so of all that read poems for pleasure and amusement he alone that finds and gathers what is valuable seems capable of knowledge from his acquaintance with and friendship for what is noble and good.  For those who study Plato and Xenophon only for their style, and cull out only what is pure and Attic, and as it were the dew and the bloom, do they not resemble people who love drugs for their smell and colour, but care not for them as anodynes or purges, and are not aware of those properties? Whereas those who have more proficiency can derive benefit not from discourses only, but from sights and actions, and cull what is good and useful, as is recorded of Æschylus and other similar kind of men. As to Æschylus, when he was watching a contest in boxing at the Isthmus, and the whole theatre cried out upon one of the boxers being beaten, he nudged with his elbow Ion of Chios, and said, "Do you observe the power of training? The beaten man holds his peace, while the spectators cry out." And Brasidas having caught hold of a mouse among some figs, being bitten by it let it go, and said to himself, "Hercules, there is no creature so small or weak that it will not fight for its life!"

And Diogenes, seeing a lad drinking water out of the palm of his hand, threw away the cup which he kept in his wallet. So much does attention and assiduous practice make people perceptive and receptive of what contributes to virtue from any source. And this is the case still more with those who mix discourses with actions, who not only, to use the language of Thucydides, "exercise themselves in the presence of danger," but also in regard to pleasures and strifes, and judgements, and advocateships, and magistrateships make a display of their opinions, or rather form their opinions by their practice. For we can no more think those philosophers who are ever learning and busy and investigating what they have got from philosophy, and then straightway publish it in the market-place or in the haunt of young men, or at a royal supper-party, any more than we give the name of physicians to those who sell drugs and mixtures. Nay rather such a sophist differs very little at all from the bird described in Homer,  offering his scholars like it whatever he has got, and as it feeds its callow young from its own mouth, "though it goes ill with itself," so he gets no advantage or food from what he has got for himself.

§ ix. We must therefore see to it that our discourse be serviceable to ourselves, and that it may not appear to others to be vain-glorious or ambitious, and we must show that we are as willing to listen as to teach, and especially must we lay aside all disputatiousness and love of strife in controversy, and cease bandying fierce words with one another as if we were contending with one another at boxing, and leave off rejoicing more in smiting and knocking down one another than in learning and teaching. For in such cases moderation and mildness, and to commence arguing without quarrelsomeness and to finish without getting into a rage, and neither to be insolent if you come off best in the argument, nor dejected if you come off worst, is a sufficient sign of progress in virtue. Aristippus was an excellent example of this, when overcome in argument by the sophistry of a man, who had plenty of assurance, but was generally speaking mad or half-witted. Observing that he was in great joy and very puffed up at his victory, he said, "I who have been vanquished in the argument shall have a better night's rest than my victor."

 

We can also test ourselves in regard to public speaking, if we are not timid and do not shrink from speaking when a large audience has unexpectedly been got together, nor dejected when we have only a small one to harangue to, and if we do not, when we have to speak to the people or before some magistrate, miss the opportunity through want of proper preparation; for these things are recorded both of Demosthenes and Alcibiades. As for Alcibiades, though he possessed a most excellent understanding, yet from want of confidence in speaking he often broke down, and in trying to recall a word or thought that slipped his memory had to stop short. And Homer did not deny that his first line was unmetrical,  though he had sufficient confidence to follow it up by so many other lines, so great was his genius. Much more then ought those who aim at virtue and what is noble to lose no opportunity of public speaking, paying very little attention to either uproar or applause at their speeches.

§ x. And not,,,,,,,,,,,,

                                                                                 x x x x x x x x x x

The full text of Plutarch's essay and others in his Moralia is available as follows:

Available free in English on Amazon (Kindle):

 https://www.amazon.com/Plutarchs-Morals-Plutarch-ebook/dp/B0082W83DO

(Full Plutarch essay available for free and easily printable from:

https://jameslongerstuff.blogspot.com/2016/06/this-down-to-earth-essay-by-plutarch.html

Also, there is a more contemporary translation by Robin Waterfield at:

https://www.amazon.com/Essays-Penguin-Classics-Plutarch/dp/0140445641

 

For Greek readers - This essay is available in ancient+modern Greek from the delightful Kaktos bookshop – (temporarily selling online rather than in Panepistimeo) – see Book 2 of Plutarch’s Ethics at:

https://www.kaktos.gr/el/authors/archaioi-suggrafeis/ploutarchos/ploutarhos-ithika-2-978-960-352-346-8.html

(Pages 171 to 221 …. odd pages only - is the essay I will be talking about in ‘modern’ Greek. The ‘even’ pages are Ancient Greek.)

 

Text for Meetup Group Members For the Talk on Plato's Cave

 

Extracts of Plato’s Cave:

(Plato’s Book Republic – 514a to 517a)

Translated by:  Waterfield, Robin. Republic (Oxford World's Classics) OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.

(Socrates is recounting a discussion he has had previously with his friend Glaucon - regarding the education of the young - and the future leaders of the Athenian state.)

The Prisoner Ascends from the Cave   (Plato’s Republic – 514a to 517a)

514a ‘Next,’ I said, ‘here’s a situation which you can use as an analogy for the human condition—for our education or lack of it. Imagine people living in a cavernous cell down under the ground; at the far end of the cave, a long way off, there’s an entrance open to the outside world. They’ve been there since childhood, with their legs and necks tied up in a way which keeps them in one place and allows them to look only straight ahead, but not to turn their heads. There’s firelight burning a long way further up the cave behind them, and up the slope between the fire and the prisoners there’s a road, beside which you should imagine a low wall has been built—like the partition which conjurors place between themselves and their audience and above which they show their tricks.’ b

‘All right,’ he said.

‘Imagine also that there are people on the other side of this wall who are carrying all sorts of artefacts. These artefacts, human statuettes, and animal models carved in stone and wood and all kinds of materials stick out over the wall; and as you’d expect, some of the people talk as they carry these objects along, while others are silent.’ c

This is a strange picture you’re painting,’ he said, ‘with strange prisoners.’    515a   

‘They’re no different from us,’ I said. ‘I mean, in the first place, do you think they’d see anything of themselves and one another except the shadows cast by the fire on to the cave wall directly opposite them?’

‘Of course not,’ he said.

 ‘They’re forced to spend their lives without moving their heads.’ ‘And what about the objects which were being carried along? Won’t they only see their shadows as well?’ b

‘Naturally.’

 ‘Now, suppose they were able to talk to one another: don’t you think they’d assume that their words applied to what they saw passing by in front of them?

‘They couldn’t think otherwise.’

“And what if sound echoed off the prison wall opposite them? When any of the passers-by spoke, don’t you think they’d be bound to assume that the sound came from a passing shadow?’

‘I’m absolutely certain of it,’ he said.

‘All in all, then,’ I said, ‘the shadows of artefacts would constitute the only reality people in this situation would recognize.’ c

‘That’s absolutely inevitable,’ he agreed. d

‘What do you think would happen, then,’ I asked, ‘if they were set free from their bonds and cured of their inanity? What would it be like if they found that happening to them? Imagine that one of them has been set free and is suddenly made to stand up, to turn his head and walk, and to look towards the firelight. It hurts him to do all this and he’s too dazzled to be capable of making out the objects whose shadows he’d formerly been looking at. And suppose someone tells him that what he’s been seeing all this time has no substance, and that he’s now closer to reality and is seeing more accurately, because of the greater reality of the things in front of his eyes—what do you imagine his reaction would be? And what do you think he’d say if he were shown any of the passing objects and had to respond to being asked what it was? Don’t you think he’d be bewildered and would think that there was more reality in what he’d been seeing before than in what he was being shown now?’

‘Far more,’ he said.

‘And if he were forced to look at the actual firelight, don’t you think it would hurt his eyes? Don’t you think he’d turn away and run back to the things he could make out, and would take the truth of the matter to be that these things are clearer than what he was being shown?’ e

‘Yes,’ he agreed.

‘And imagine him being dragged forcibly away from there up the rough, steep slope,’ I went on, ‘without being released until he’s been pulled out into the sunlight. Wouldn’t this treatment cause him pain and distress? And once he’s reached the sunlight, he wouldn’t be able to see a single one of the things which are currently taken to be real, would he, because his eyes would be overwhelmed by the sun’s beams?’

‘No, he wouldn’t,’ he answered, ‘not straight away.’516a

‘He wouldn’t be able to see things up on the surface of the earth, I suppose, until he’d got used to his situation. At first, it would be shadows that he could most easily make out, then he’d move on to the reflections of people and so on in water, and later he’d be able to see the actual things themselves. Next, he’d feast his eyes on the heavenly bodies and the heavens themselves, which would be easier at night: he’d look at the light of the stars and the moon, rather than at the sun and sunlight during the daytime.’ b

‘Of course.’

And imagine, he’d be able to discern and feast his eyes on the sun—not the displaced image of the sun in water or elsewhere, but the sun on its own, in its proper place.’

‘Yes, he’d inevitably come to that,’ he said.

‘After that, he’d start to think about the sun and he’d deduce that it is the source of the seasons and the yearly cycle, that the whole of the visible realm is its domain, and that in a sense everything which he and his peers used to see is its responsibility.’ c

‘Yes, that would obviously be the next point he’d come to,’ he agreed.

‘Now, if he recalled the cell where he’d originally lived and what passed for knowledge there and his former fellow prisoners, don’t you think he’d feel happy about his own altered circumstances, and sorry for them?’

‘Definitely.’

‘Suppose that the prisoners used to assign prestige and credit to one another, in the sense that they rewarded speed at recognizing the shadows as they passed, and the ability to remember which ones normally come earlier and later and at the same time as which other ones, and expertise at using this as a basis for guessing which ones would arrive next. Do you think our former prisoner would covet these honours and would envy the people who had status and power there, or would he much prefer, as Homer describes it, “being a slave labouring for someone else—someone without property”, and would put up with anything at all, in fact, rather than share their beliefs and their life?’ d

‘Yes, I think he’d go through anything rather than live that way,’ he said. e

‘Here’s something else I’d like your opinion about,’ I said. ‘If he went back underground and sat down again in the same spot, wouldn’t the sudden transition from the sunlight mean that his eyes would be overwhelmed by darkness?’

 ‘Certainly,’ he replied.

‘Now, the process of adjustment would be quite long this time, and suppose that before his eyes had settled down and while he wasn’t seeing well, he had once again to compete against those same old prisoners at identifying those shadows. Wouldn’t he make a fool of himself? Wouldn’t they say that he’d come back from his upward journey with his eyes ruined, and that it wasn’t even worth trying to go up there? And wouldn’t they—if they could—grab hold of anyone who tried to set them free and take them up there, and kill him?’

‘They certainly would,’ he said.   517a

The Escaped Prisoner Must Go Down Into The Darkness Again To Help The Others

(Republic-519c/d to 520e):

 

‘Our job as founders, then,’ I said, ‘is to make sure that the best people come to that fundamental field of study (as we called it earlier): we must have them make the ascent we’ve been talking about and see goodness. And afterwards, once they’ve been up there and had a good look, we mustn’t let them get away with what they do at the moment.’  e

‘Which is what?’

 ‘Staying there,’ I replied, ‘and refusing to come back down again to those prisoners, to share their work and their rewards, no matter whether those rewards are trivial or significant.’

‘But in that case,’ he protested, ‘we’ll be wronging them: we’ll be making the quality of their lives worse and denying them the better life they could be living, won’t we?’

‘You’re again forgetting, my friend,’ I said, ‘that the point of legislation is not to make one section of a community better off than the rest, but to engineer this for the community as a whole. Legislators should persuade or compel the members of a community to mesh together, should make every individual share with his fellows the benefit which he is capable of contributing to the common welfare, and should ensure that the community does contain people with this capacity; and the purpose of all this is not for legislators to leave people to choose their own directions, but for them to use people to bind the community together.’ e

520a

‘Yes, you’re right,’ he said. ‘I was forgetting.’ b

 ‘I think you’ll also find, Glaucon,’ I said, ‘that we won’t be wronging any philosophers who arise in our community. Our remarks, as we force them to take care of their fellow citizens and be their guardians, will be perfectly fair. We’ll tell them that it’s reasonable for philosophers who happen to occur in other communities not to share the work of those communities, since their occurrence was spontaneous, rather than planned by the political system of any of the communities in question, and it’s fair for anything which arises spontaneously and doesn’t owe its nurture to anyone or anything to have no interest in repaying anyone for having provided its nourishment. “We’ve bred you, however,” we’ll say, “to act, as it were, as the hive’s leaders and kings, for your own good as well as that of the rest of the community…..

You’ve received a better and more thorough education than those other philosophers, and you’re more capable of playing a part in both spheres. So each of you must, when your time comes, descend to where the rest of the community lives, and get used to looking at things in the dark. The point is that once you become acclimatized, you’ll see infinitely better than the others there; your experience of genuine right, morality, and goodness will enable you to identify every one of the images and recognize what it is an image of.

And then the administration of our community—ours as well as yours—will be in the hands of people who are awake, as distinct from the norm nowadays of communities being governed by people who shadow-box and fall out with one another in their dreams over who should rule, as if that were a highly desirable thing to do. No, the truth of the matter is this: the less keen the would-be rulers of a community are to rule, the better and less divided the administration of that community is bound to be, but where the rulers feel the opposite, the administration is bound to be the opposite.”’ c d

end

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  

"Know Thyself" - Socrates advises Alciabades - who wants to put himself forward for political office.

Part A - The Importance to “Know Thyself” (and to Know What the “Self” Actually Is) – and then Part B - Tips On How To Find the Correct Spiritual Path for You.

The following two blog posts were originally written as one evening presentation - talk. I think its easier to divide this talk into two seperate blog posts - hence the occassional reference such as: 'thanks for coming this evening.... etc'.

Part A - Socrates Encourages Alcibiades to “Know Thyself”.

I think it is a well accepted phrase among spiritual people that they are somehow “following the path” – or at least that they feel they should be. But what does this mean for people who find themselves a little bit lost – and maybe bewildered or overwhelmed by the necessities and expectations of our modern Western Society.

Where can we find “the path”?
Where should we look?
Does it matter which path we choose?

These are all questions that many people ask themselves and especially people in their mid-twenties and older.

It would be a lie if I said that I thought the answers to the above and similar questions were easy or fast ….. that we could find peace of mind and lasting satisfaction by the quick read of a prescribed book, or the application of an all encompassing – one size fits all – regime of spiritual practice as offered by some traditional mainstream religious organizations. The reality perhaps is more complicated…. and perhaps the truth is that we are all unique individuals – all finding ourselves in a unique place – and after personal contemplation - all having a different ideal destination or goal for our lives. If this is the case, my belief is that these things (like finding the path) will usually take time and some effort to discover. This is perhaps a little out of “fashion” for many people in our instant material gratification – “I want it now” western society. We seem to be getting out of the habit of waiting for things or gradually working towards things. For example, we no longer save for a new car or TV we get it today – often on credit. Similarly, I saw an advert for magic mushrooms called “Old Philosopher” offering “instant enlightenment”. Although mushrooms are not my thing – instant enlightenment for 3 dollars a hit does not sound bad………. or I am afraid……. believable.

Our task of finding the spiritual path is also made harder with things like the influence of the TV and much other media – and the education system also doing its part in the pre conditioning of young people to “do well” in the modern material and excessively consumerist world. These things seem to do their very best to obscure and hide the spiritual path from people – and indeed ridicule anyone who seeks “the truth” or wishes to explore different ways of living – perhaps with slightly different goals for their lives than what the consumer led society offers us – or increasingly “requires” of us. What I am in fact suggesting is that truly finding the spiritual path and then following it is not quite as easy as some people make out.

In order to appreciate some of the key tasks necessary in finding the path perhaps we should imagine a lost tourist standing on a busy street corner in an unfamiliar big city. The tourist turns the big map one way and another trying to work out what to do and which way to go. In as sense this is a very straightforward example of someone trying to find his or her path. Imagine also that this is an inexperienced or novice tourist – in a strange city – outside of their usual familiar comfort zone – where what to do and where to go have always been easy for them – or pre-conditioned for them since an early age. As the tourist keeps turning the map one way and another they seem just to get more and more confused.

You see there are two essential pieces of information the tourist needs in order to find the path using the map. Of course they need to know where they want to go on the map. Whether they want to go back to the hotel or to the museum obviously makes a difference to the path. However, the first thing the tourist really needs to know in order to work out the right path is: “Where Am I?” This is the first question they need to ask – since if they know where they are – and secondly where they want to go – the task of finding the way in between is much easier. That is why at London underground and other metro stations around the world there are often local street maps on the walls near the exits of the metro stations – and usually in big red letters it says: “YOU ARE HERE !” 

Returning to our main theme – finding the correct spiritual path – it is my opinion that perhaps there are several possible fine philosophical or spiritual paths to follow. However, before people assume that fine philosophies must surely come from exotic lands in far away places, I would like to remind them that there is also a very fine and richly documented philosophic tradition closer to home in Europe. For simplicity I shall refer to this as the ancient Greek philosophy of Socrates and Plato. I say this for simplicity because ancient Greece has several other very influential philosophers with their own philosophies separate to the Socratic-Platonic tradition. In addition, Socrates the teacher and mentor of Plato was well aware of many other Greek and foreign philosophers who preceded him – and these were obviously an influence on him one way or another. In the same way, following on after Plato many other philosophers commentated on and developed his ideas – Plotinus and Proclus being two very notable examples. Indeed many Platonic ideas can be traced into early Christian thought.

Now I mention the Socratic-Platonic Greek tradition for an important reason; which is that they put a great deal of emphasis on that first essential question in finding our spiritual paths: “Where Am I?” For convenience, I will say that the way they dealt with this was that they emphasised the phrase “Know Thyself” – which incidentally was one of the two statements written above the entrance of the Temple of Apollo in Delphi, Greece which was the spiritual heart of Greece. The Socratic-Platonic tradition emphasises that in order to begin any spiritual or philosophical path we must first know who we are – and furthermore “WHAT” we are. As I mentioned earlier – for many of us – getting to know ourselves and who we are deep inside and what makes us tick – often takes a little time, effort and emotional pain.

So what do Socrates and Plato have to tell us to help us find our path and know ourselves? Without getting too bogged down in historical dates and details it is perhaps interesting to know that Socrates was put on trial in Athens in 399 B.C. – then aged 70 – and received the death penalty in that year for “trumped” up charges. I guess his student and friend Plato was about 28 by then. Within 12 years or so of this event Plato aged about 40 set up his “Academy” in Athens in 387 B.C. for the general advancement of education and learning – and the study of the ideas of his teacher Socrates. Plato wrote more than 20 books – usually in the form of “Dialogues” between Socrates and his various students and friends – in order to make a written record of Socrates’ ideas and conversations. Traditionally, Plato’s writing are grouped into 3 groups being early, middle, and later period writings. His earlier works are generally thought to be truer recordings of Socrates’ teachings, while middle and later writings are thought more and more to include Plato’s own ideas although he often supposedly portrayed these ideas as being spoken by Socrates in his dialogues. (You may remember that Socrates is believed to have written nothing and we only know of Socrates ideas through a few sources – by far the most important being Plato’s writings.)

In England many people understandably take pride in educational institutions such as Oxford and Cambridge which have both been around for some 500 years. Imagine then the scene in Athens during the 5th century A.D. about 1500 years ago. Plato’s Academy by say 450 A.D. is some 837 years old – an unbroken seat of learning for all this time. It has by now become primarily a place for the study of philosophy and the texts of its founder Plato. The headmaster or principal of the Academy is a philosopher called Proclus – and the school has been moved to Proclus’ modest house to avoid the unwanted attention and possible danger from the Christian authorities then in power in Athens….. Incidentely, Proclus died around 485 c.e. and one of the first exhibits you see on the way into the New Acropolis Museum is about his little house where Plato’s Academy was then based. Anyway; at Plato’s Academy by then it had become an established tradition that the first book of Plato that the new students (young men and women) studied was a book called: ‘The First Alcibiades’. This was because it encouraged and emphasised to the new students the importance of “KNOW THYSELF” and the importance of asking ourselves: “Where We Are” so that we can start our philosophical or spiritual path from a realistic place and in the correct way. At Plato’s Academy some 800 years after its foundation – it was viewed as essential to KNOW THYSELF first and indeed to contemplate and discuss what we actually are and indeed what the “self” actually is.

What then is The First Alcibiades all about and why is it (or just its message) an important part of helping us today to find our often hard to find and obscured spiritual and practical paths for life (?) Well, as mentioned the dialogue is about us first getting to know ourselves. The dialogue is a conversation between a middle aged Socrates and Alcibiades as a young man – about 20’ish we suppose. Alcibiades has taken it into his head to try and “do well” in political life. Quite possibly this notion of “doing well” included a fair bit of doing well for him or her self as with many politicians from then to now. Socrates stops Alcibiades on the very day he is heading towards the city centre to put himself forward for political office. Although Socrates and Alcibiades have known and seen each other around regularly for many years – indeed since Alcibiades’ childhood – Socrates has not spoken to Alcibiades for a year or two at any length for divinely inspired reasons as Socrates explains. There are many interesting points and ideas raised in this short dialogue of Plato but I shall try and select just those especially relevant to knowing ourselves and finding the path we seek….

Firstly, Socrates asks Alcibiades what he thinks he has to offer the people of Athens if he becomes a political statesman for them. What special skills, abilities or experience does he have to do the job he is seeking? Through his usual questioning technique Socrates uncovers and encourages Alcibiades to admit that actually he does not know anything about political matters – negotiations or the affairs of state etc. [What’s new? ]
Socrates then gives examples along the lines of whether we would let someone
fix our car unless they were trained or experienced mechanics; or whether we should let someone perform a medical operation on us unless they are trained or experienced doctors? So why – Socrates asks Alcibiades – would we want someone to run the city or country for us who did not have any training or experience in these matters. (Perhaps we would do well to ask some of our modern day would be politicians or ministers similar questions. ?)

Socrates points out to Alcibiades that unless we are aware (or 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 a particular subject. He says we will fall into the trap of being “DOUBLY IGNORANT” – That is; firstly not knowing something; and secondly thinking we do know about something or have the appropriate skills – so that we do not bother to inform ourselves and correct this lack of knowledge. Simply put; this is why for example we consult lawyers and solicitors on legal matters. We know we are not experts in this area and so we consult with people who are trained and experienced experts in this area. It’s no big problem if you do not 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. (It’s why I no longer even try to repair my car. These days I know I don’t know how.)

All simple enough so far… Socrates through his questioning technique has made Alcibiades admit that he lacks knowledge and experience on a whole range of issues. But then Socrates goes further by discussing that if we are going to teach ourselves or otherwise inform ourselves wisely about things – then we better have some understanding at least of what “the self” actually is…. and that this is truly what “Knowing Thyself” is about.

So what does Socrates say “the self” is ? Well he discusses with Alcibiades that there is a difference between taking care of our shoes and taking care of our feet. He says that the shoes are merely “appurtenant to the feet. Similarly he mentions that rings are merely appurtenant to the hands and are not the hands themselves.

Socrates then points out the difference between the tools a craftsman uses – such as a shoemaker using a knife to cut the leather – being different to the craftsman them self. In the same way the musical instrument is different to the musician themself. This may seem obvious to us and perhaps unnecessary for Socrates to explain; but Socrates is creating “universals” or universal principles and truths in his young students mind.

Socrates then makes the distinction between the eyes and hands that shoemakers and musicians use compared to the shoemaker and musician themselves. He says - and in the light of the universals established Alcibiades agrees – that they are not the same thing.

Finally Socrates says (P.56 text): ‘And, does not a man use his whole body?’
Alcibiades replies: ‘most certainly’
Socrates then says: ‘A man therefore is a thing different from his body?’
Alcibiades replies: ‘It seems so’.
Socrates then asks: ‘What sort of a being then is a man?’
…. To which Alcibiades replies: ‘I know not’.

Socrates has really explained to Alcibiades that what we really are is our “souls” and that “knowing ourselves” is really about knowing that we are souls – and that to take good care of oneself (and be happy and lead the good and virtuous life etc) it is of primary importance to worry less about material possessions and celebrity etc – but to ensure that we take good care of our souls and live in a way that is good for the soul. For example, luxuries are only appurtenant to our bodies – and our bodies are in the end only appurtenant to our souls.

Well this may be all very easy to quote from Plato’s writings on Socrates – but what does it all mean to our lives today. What can we learn (either in specific details or general principles) about how to find our best unique spiritual path today….

Well let’s first ask ourselves a few practical questions and maybe discuss a few of your questions so far before I move on (part B follows… )

1. Firstly, do you believe that we human beings have a soul – and that the soul lives on after our body has died? It doe s not matter why or how you think or feel that. Now depending on what answer a person gives to this question – it will usually have a big effect on the way people live their lives….

-Now for those who “do” believe I ask this second question:

2. Do you believe that the kind of life we live or lead here on earth will somehow effect the way our souls go on after we die? ….. “Judgement” may be too strong a word maybe… I am just talking about a vague sense that “good” people who try to live “good” lives (however we then go on to define those terms) somehow benefit in some way when “we move on”.

3. Now for those who “do not” believe in a soul which goes on after death I ask this: Do you think that it is better to try and live in a “good and virtuous way” (as said – however we then go on to define that) rather than living in a greedy, selfish, non-caring way?

So whether we believe strongly in the existence of the soul – or maybe just a little – or even not at all – perhaps many of us can still agree that some ways of living are preferable to others. (Socrates was fairly modest about all his ideas after all. In another of Plato’s dialogues he says that even if he is mistaken and the soul does not go on – he still prefers to live a good and decent life than the life of a bad guy – so he has nothing to loose or fear either way.

Part B is: "Your Own Spiritual and Philosophical Path - And Tips How to Un-Cover It.

This is a more personal piece of writing by James - and refers less directly to Socrates and Plato. Therefore this piece appears on the blogg: "James' Philosophical Agora" at: 
 http://jamesphilosophicalagora.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/part-b-tips-on-how-to-uncover-your-own.html

Acknowledgements Re part A Above:

1)Thanks to Tim Addey of the Prometheus Trust for many ideas gained from his talks on “Know Thyself” and all things Socratic and Platonic. (See links)