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.)

 

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……..

Where Does Evil Come From - Is Proclus Right ? - Or Darth Vader ?

 

From:  Life Choices - Important tips from Socrates, Plato and Aristotle

By James Head (New Edition – June 2020 https://www.amazon.com/dp/1540552624 )

From Essay 2 - The Nuts and Bolts of Plato

…….. My final point in this section on metaphysics is that Plato believes that the universe and everything in it has been created or has flowed out of the one source of everything, which is beyond all description, and which he calls ‘the One’ and/or ‘the Good’. This of course is an interesting idea for a man like Plato who was born and brought up as a polytheist to believe in the Olympic religion with many Gods. One thing I also find particularly interesting here (and a little irritating if I am honest) is that although he says that the One is beyond all description (in an almost scientific way) he then describes the One as the Good, which kind of adds a religious kind of dimension or overtone to it all. Plato also says that everything that flows out of the One is also good and perfect, but the further away things get from the One (the source of all things) the less perfect they become.

If everything that flows out of the One is good and perfect, then why is there evil and suffering in the world you may ask? Socrates advises us in many of his conversations with people, that it 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, selfish, or irrational actions?

 For example, when a lioness jumps on an antelope and savagely kills it to feed her cubs, we usually do not regard that as evil at all; we just think of this as part of ‘nature’. However, when a man kills his neighbour for no apparent reason, of course we are shocked and consider it in some way an evil thing to do, since we consider the human being to be a civilised creature, capable of rational choices, and therefore having the facility to choose to act wisely and decently towards other people. So in a Platonic world view, evil (which is mainly what we tend to call certain ways of behaving) is really a lack of good intent or action, or the lack of control over one’s desires, or in the case of a madman – the lack of a correctly functioning rational mind.

Similarly, and more simply perhaps, if an earthquake kills 200 people, again we do not regard it as evil – just an act of nature; whereas the religious fanatic that blows up a passenger plane with 200 people on board we ‘regard’ as evil; since he lacks moderation in his religious beliefs and actions. Note that moderation (or temperance) is the visible expression of ‘The Good’, and as far as we human beings are concerned, largely concerned with the Life Choices we make.

I think as philosophers we need to consider whether good and evil really are external forces acting in the world around us (or even throughout the universe), or are they simply just human qualities; since we all seem to have the possibility of good and evil choices and actions within us. Hopefully, we choose ‘good’ (or at least ‘relatively good’) actions over evil ones. However, 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. On the other hand, 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 no doubt be arrested and put on trial for murder.

Somehow, I want to believe in evil as an external force (you can blame the movie Star Wars and Darth Vader for that), but at times I am really not convinced whether evil is an external force or not. Sometimes I cannot help but wonder if the whole idea of ‘evil’ is a man-made concept rather than any external force operating in the universe; which we need to do our utmost to avoid. As far as our practical lives are concerned (in our human bodies at least), good and evil may be simply be about the choices we make as individuals and communities; and the choices and decisions our leaders and organisations of influence (e.g. the banks, the media, the Justice Department, and other powerful bodies) make on our behalf. Nevertheless, most organised religions with influence in our modern world today 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. What do you think? (My concern is that evil is usually thought of as being abstract and ‘out there’ somewhere – when in fact it is all around us, and manifests itself in very ordinary things like: people selling us stuff we do not need and getting people into debt, a culture of fear and insecurity, a reduction in quality leisure time, wars we do not really need, good people turning a blind eye to what they know is very wrong, and  the corruption and dumbing down of young minds. I refer to these things as ‘the circles of evil’.

We all need to try and make sense of the universe, our place within it, and why things happen the way they do all around us. Therefore, if someone prefers to think of ‘evil’ as an external force (as indeed it may well be although I have expressed some personal doubts above on this), and this helps them to deal with and understand things better, and make better life choices as a result, then I see no harm per se in that.

According to the latter Neo Platonist Proclus in his essay ‘On the Subsistence of Evil’ (Proclus’ Theology of Plato - Book I Chapter XVII), once the unfolding of the One or the Good gets as far as producing a temporal universe full of time-bound lives (like ours), then it will be necessary that temporal things come to an end. This, according to Proclus (and remember there is controversy about some of the Neo Platonist explanations of Plato’s texts) explains why our physical bodies eventually fail. It is in order to make room for further bodies to take their place; and this is not evil in itself. However, if a perpetual thing such as a human soul (in Plato's view at least) identifies itself with a temporal physical body; then the process of decay and death ‘appears’ like an evil to that individual. However, perhaps this is a mistake of perspective, since no harm can really come to a soul from the demise of the physical body. Indeed, the only real harm that can come to us (that is, our souls if we have one) is through our own acts of injustice which is a ‘disease of the soul’. Proclus calls the first kind of evil ‘natural’ and not really evil at all, and the second kind unnatural, since in his view it can only be the result of a creature with free will acting ignorantly or irrationally.......

 

Footnote:

If you find this subject interesting check out my earlier post (23rd June 2018 - see archive) on this subject that includes some additional points for consideration. 

I particular I mention:

          ‘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.’