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?

Grasping the Hidden Meanings and Main Themes in Plato

It is said that of all the Greek philosophers that Plato is the hardest to get a definite handle on. There is a story that shortly before his death he had a dream in which he was a swan and that people were chasing him with nets trying to catch him without success which seems to symbolise this point nicely. So why is this so, that it is difficult for anyone to get a definite fix on Plato and know exactly what he means in his writings. Well firstly, he usually writes in a wonderful rich poetic style, and as with most poets he fits many layers of meaning into the words and phrases he uses. Additionally, many of the subjects he talks about require a lot of contemplation from the reader themselves, and as a result, we all ‘kinda’ finish up with a slightly different opinion or feeling of what it was all about after we read one of his books, or even a small section of a book such as one of his wonderful myths or allegories.

Now Socrates did not like this idea at all, that people all went away with their own different idea about what he was trying to explain, and this is definitely one of the reasons Socrates had for not writing anything down for general circulation (i.e. books) although he may well have made some odd notes for his own use. Socrates preferred to discuss things face to face so that afterwards his friends, students, or other associates could ask questions and then leave him knowing exactly what he had meant. This is certainly not the situation for many of us after reading one of Plato's books.

Even Plato himself, this great ancient writer and poet, says quite definitely in his writings that the written word is inferior to the spoken word when it comes to explaining philosophical matters. And in a way we all agree with him anyway, otherwise teachers would not need to turn up for lessons but simply post the text of their lessons on their websites. Similarly, business people would not need to fly around the world for meetings – they could just send an email. In a way we all feel that the face to face spoken word method is usually best when trying to explain something, and that somehow it will offer greater insights than just reading about something. For example, we have all had experience of the limitations of emails for conveying personal matters.

So when we consider further this difficulty of getting a fix and definite understanding on Plato’s meanings, we need to keep in mind that there were different layers of meaning in his books rather like a poet. We also need to realise that some things were purposely veiled and hidden by Plato in his texts so as to allow only his more experienced and trusted students of philosophy reading them to understand them fully and receive the full wisdom hidden within them. This quite naturally begs the questions ‘why’ did he choose to do this, and 'what' was it that he only wanted trusted students to know. And sorry, it is only a question …. and just one of several questions I will leave hanging in the air during this essay for your own further consideration at some other time. Philosophy teachers (like maths teachers) tend to ask questions rather than just give out answers; and we all need to ask ourselves personally why Plato put in the veils and the hidden meanings.

Finally, on this rather mysterious point of hidden meanings,......

......... Having made my above remarks about the difficulties of generalising about Plato’s meanings, let us now try and catch that elusive swan if we can and see what he is about. As mentioned I am going to divide Plato’s main ideas, or rather some central themes which occur often throughout his books into three main areas – metaphysics (literally meaning above physics laws), psyche and matters concerning the soul; and ethics – meaning more or less what is right and wrong in the way we live our lives as individuals and civil societies.

(From Essay 2  - 'The Nuts and Bolts of Plato' of James’ new book ‘Life Choice – Important Tips From Socrates, Plato and Aristotle’ - Extracts of p. 35 - 40)   

For more details and a description of this book click:  Life Choices at Amazon

(Available as eBook or paperback)