2.

Area of concern

2-1

2. THINK-TANK S ATTITUDE TO PHILOSOPHY

Hello. Im Tancred, aka Think-Tank. Like the rest of the bunch at al- sieb, Im an aspiring philosopher and I believe that my attitude to Philosophy is THE Philosophical attitude to Philosophy! Before going any further, Ill say something about what Philosophy we refer to when we say Philosophy

2.1

Area of concern

For convenience, we may divide Philosophy into WESTERN THOUGHT and non-western thought. Western thought is a tradition of Philosophy that stretches from Ancient Greece to the present. Other traditions exist in India, Africa, Japan, China, etc., which we will not go into we may call these non-western thought. Western thought (the Philosophy we are primarily concerned with) is traditionally divided into four ages: Ancient {Il-Qedem, L-Antikita}, Medieval {Il-Medju Evu}, Modern {Il-Modernita, Iz mien -Z Modern}, Contemporary {Iz mien Kontemporanju, Il-Kontemporanjeta}. The borderlines are -Z fuzzy; ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY is usually considered to stretch from Thales of Miles {Talete minn Miletu} to Augustine of Hippo {Wistin minn Ippona}. This will be the period covered by our course. You may ask why? Three basic reasons: 1. We are Western Europeans. Hence we have a particular interest in our Philosophy; 2. Our time is limited. Hence we will deal only with the branch of Philosophy which is given prominence in universities all over the world. Western Thought has a very long uninterrupted tradition. It is the best-known Philosophy, most developed, most global. Most of the Philosophical material published in the world deal with issues raised and discussed in this Philosophical tradition; 3. There is age-old custom of teaching Philosophy that tackles the issues and philosophers we will be dealing with first. They give us a feel of what Philosophy is about. Then we can look at other periods and other traditions and judge whether they are Philosophy or something else by comparison with the Ancient Western stuff.

2.2

Reading Ancient Philosophy

O.K. Now that weve got this straight, Ill say something about my WTWC attitude to Philosophy. My what? WTWC stands for What Text? Which Community?. So, when reading Ancient Philosophy, you have to mind your Ts and Cs. Many History of Philosophy texts on the market, and especially those addressed to pre-University students, divulge Ancient Philosophy as a series of facts about particular persons: X did this, went there, said this, wrote that. Y lived in M, thought up something about P, had a dispute with Z. I believe this gives the beginner a very distorted view of what we are dealing with in Ancient Philosophy. Ancient Philosophy is rather a series of ideas and problems we reconstruct from a number of problematic TEXTS. These texts are the mature fruit of many a discussion within a COMMUNITY of people that tried to put them to practice, and tried to let such ideas influence their lives deeply. Hence, when reading Ancient Philosophy, we need to have some awareness of the Texts and the Community behind the textbook.

2.2.1

THE TEXTS BEHIND THE TEXTBOOK

Ancient Philosophy has come through to us by means of a number of TEXTS. A text is usually open to different INTERPRETATIONS. This means that what you will read in your textbooks is ONE interpretation; another textbook or a web-page on the internet may have another interpretation that may be radically different. This PLURALISM is typical of Philosophy do not panic!!

 2.2

Reading Ancient Philosophy

2-2

. 1. 1 1 D im c m n h Dv m m dm n p o c tDh dt(tdte m l y c tD bD o c D o D D D o ae tD rm D n m 111DdtyD un ke g,n bh rID h rD yD y e wpy dtyD un bD n s D bDh dt(tdD m,) D v un m dv h 111T Interpretations often reflect the philosophical BACKGROUND OF THE INTERPRETER, his/her idea of what philosophy is and should be. Since our textbooks are written by Contemporary Philosophers, the interpretation will reflect some of the problems of Contemporary Philosophy1. This is because as Philosophers (or Historians ) we are not interested in collecting quaint old things simply because they are quaint and old. We are interested in the thought of past authors because it has influenced the way we think on certain matters that concern us intimately. We are interested in what they had to say because it may provide insights that will help us deal with our own problems. Aristotle lived in a very different political system than ours, and he never imagined that science would go so far as to be able to clone an animal. Even so, his ideas on politics and ethics are central in many a debate on modern politics and bioethics. A Philosophically-interesting reading of Aristotle today is one that re-reads the Aristotelian text seeking to make it say something about the issues that concern us this is creative interpretation. A consequence of this is that Philosophy textbooks, just like history textbooks, age. As an experiment, go to a library and get a history book of 40 years ago. Find out where it was written and the political ideas dominant in that country at the time. Note how much the latter influences how the book is written. An 1960s English textbook would probably belittle the importance of Scotland and Wales and their history, be prejudiced against women, Roman Catholics and Irishmen, and would blatantly sing the praises of British colonialism from cover to cover. I know of a good old university maths book in Britain that was removed from the syllabus because the wording of some of the problems was politically incorrect . 1. 1 1. D x tfdkn n g)e )o ye ,t)c e rtD 3dt) c n h m D h rDe ,c th d)D D Dn y D n D dm t)e 3 D Historians and philosophers studying Ancient Philosophy start with some material which they have to sort and work up into a sensible and interesting text. They decide how to arrange it, which material to discard, which to give prominence. Your textbooks are COLLAGES: the person who wrote them did not invent the facts, but it was s/he who put them together in that way. Another author would have created a very different textbook with the same available material, just like another artist would have created a different collage with the same material. Imagine you were asked to write a book on somebody who you do not know. You are not allowed to meet the person or ask questions about him/her, instead, you are let into his/her office at night and you are allowed to rummage through the contents of his/her waste paper bin. A friend of yours is also asked to write a similar book in the same way. Surely, the resulting biographies would be very different indeed, since your friend would use the material from the bin differently from you. The texts behind the textbook (the material in the collage / bin contents in the biographies), in the case of Ancient Philosophy, consist mainly of fragments and testimonies. The only early fullscale texts that were copied again and again through history (and which hence survived corruption and destruction) are the works of Plato and of Aristotle. All the rest was lost but for some summaries (testimonies) of books (or of ideas of ancient authors) and a few quotes from these books/authors (fragments). Such summaries and quotes are found embedded in later texts that continued to be preserved and copied because of their cultural and religious significance. For example, some old Christian authors quoted Greek philosophers and mentioned their ideas in synthesis in their theological works. Hence such Christian theological works (preserved for their religious significance) survived to the present, and within them the quotes and syntheses that constitute fragments and testimonies (respectively) of the Ancient Philosophers. Imagine you are taking notes from a literary work. You quote some phrases you deem important, and summarise the rest. It so happens that the original work is lost, and only your notes remain.
At present, the two main rival schools in Philosophy are the Continental School (the Philosophy as practiced and taught in France, Italy, Spain, parts of Germany, and areas of their linguistic influence in Europe, Asia, Africa, America, Asia) and the Analytic School (predominant in Britain, U.S.A., certain parts of Germany and their respective areas of influence). The interpretations of the ancient texts in your textbooks tend to reflect the vision of Philosophy held by the Analytic tradition.
1

 2.2

Reading Ancient Philosophy

2-3

The quotes will hence constitute fragments of the original work, and the summaries will be the testimonies. We distinguish between one and the other because the grammatical cues by which you introduce a summary are different from those by which you introduce a quote. If you write: The author says: Philosophy is beautiful we know that Philosophy is beautiful are the literal words written by the author (assuming you quoted correctly). If you write: The author speaks very enthusiastically about Philosophy we know that this is your rendering of the authors words. In this case, the difference is introduced by the use of the colon and inverted commas. Hence, even if you quoted badly and didnt understand a thing about the book, we would still be able cut up your notes into fragments and testimonies, since the distinction is based on grammatical cues, not on the authenticity of the material. . 1. 1 1WD ? v e dD tD tD )e h rDn h )n 3dt) c n h m D h rDe ,c th d) D e dv (n D o D D dm t)e 3 4D FRAGMENTS are great because (assuming they were quoted properly) they give us the very words of the author which we can evaluate for ourselves. Unfortunately they are out of context, and we do not know the importance of that phrase for the original author. We often see insignificant remarks said by politicians blown up into big issues in the newspapers, while the main focus of the speech of that politician is ignored. This resembles a noteworthy problem regarding fragments. It could well happen that the secondary author (e.g. the Christian theologian) quoted a very marginal comment from the Ancient Philosophers book because that comment served the secondary authors purpose. We are hence led to think that the main thing that the Ancient Philosopher had to say was that comment, when, in fact, the focus of the Philosophers book was on something radically different. TESTIMONIES present themselves as overviews of a book or of the entire thought of a Philosopher. Hence, we may assume that they are presenting us the most important ideas of that Philosopher, not just any remark made anywhere in a book. This is a great thing about testimonies: they give us the complete picture of the authors thought and focus on what is important. The problem with testimonies is that they are interpretations the original ideas have already been digested and reconstructed by the secondary author. Hence, the final work of the Historian of Philosophy, if based solely on testimonies, would be an interpretation of interpretations.

From all this, we learn that a Historian of Philosophy, working on a batch of fragments and testimonies, may discard the material he/she will consider unimportant, not very reliable, not very interesting for his/her purposes. He/she may have material that does not fit in very well with the rest of the stuff regarding the same author; he/she will decide what to leave out be it the aberrant material or the bulk. Hence the RELATIVE WEIGHTS to give to the different fragments and testimonies is ultimately the historians decision. . 1. 1 1HD 5 n y c e h b) m D tuD o (d)D The manuscripts from which we get these fragments are often damaged they have missing bits called lacunae (due to faded ink, bookworms ) and missing pages, hence the reader must make intelligent guesses to determine some of the words. They are not punctuated (no commas, full stops, dashes ) so the person reading them has to determine where phrases start and stop, and what sense to give to the whole thing. As an experiment, try to take a random paragraph from a book, remove the punctuation and delete bits of words here and there. Then try to reconstruct it and compare it to the original. It could end up saying a very different story indeed. Here again, thus, the sense given to the text itself is ultimately fixed by the historian (or better the philologist2 whose critical text the historian chooses to adopt).3
2

Philologists are language experts who decipher old manuscripts and reconstruct the writing therein into reada ble texts which can be used by Historians, Philosopher, Literature students etc. An important philological work is that of constructing critical texts: when we have more than one manuscript of the same piece of work (and manuscripts differ due to copying errors, missing bits etc.), philologists seek to reconstruct a text as close as possible to the original from the different manuscripts. The reconstructed text (critical text) is then published with all the major differences in the

 2.2

Reading Ancient Philosophy

2-4

. 1. 1 1PD x v ttp D n D c h m dth dD m mh D )h n (n v ) e dn Such factors (the background of the author of your textbook, the weighing of the relative importance of the available fragments/testimonies, the critical text used (i.e. the punctuated text reconstructed from the manuscript/s)) influence greatly the outcome. The finished product, i.e. your textbook, is the result of several choices by the author (the Historian of Philosophy) given the many variables. What do we have to keep in mind when we read it? For one thing, we must remember that it was not written by an omnipotent historian. It is not the last word on the subject, nor the only word. So many choices may be challenged, so much material may be reconstructed and evaluated differently that we would be reading the textbook very childishly if we did not stop here and there to ask: why is s/he presenting this Philosopher in this way?, what textual material is s/he using to back this conclusion about this Philosopher?, is this the only thing we know about this Philosopher, and if not, why is the author of my textbook focussing solely on this? Obviously, few of us have the chance of going so see the old manuscripts in Greek and Latin (even if an occasional glance at the Perseus Project (www.perseus.org) texts and translations on the web might be well worth it). Thus, much of these questions are more easily asked than answered. At this level of Philosophy, however, it is worth having a look around to see what other authors have to say on the same topics/philosophers. www.epistemelinks.com is a great starting point4.

2.2.2

THE COMMUNITIES BEHIND THE TEXTBOOK

From the time of Socrates and Plato perhaps even that of the Presocratics until the dawn of Christianity, philosophy always arose from an initial choice of a mode of life, from a panoramic vision of the universe, from a voluntary decision to experience the world along with other people, in a community or school. Out of this conversion on the part of the individual emerged the philosophical discourse that would predicate representation of the world on the choice of a way of life. Ancient philosophy is thus not a system. It is a spiritual exercise that is essential for the attainment of wisdom. Hadot 2002: inside cover

. 1. 1. 1 D ;v m ) (v uD )e D e uD 3y3 ; m ) (v m y) v n n y D )- be ) ty,mb)o c c bh mt) y n n e D s n Dm v y n tqD n o Do e )e D m m n Dn dm D

Pierre Hadot, a French author, sees Ancient Philosophy primarily as a way of life. A healthy lifestyle means that we take practical measures that keep our bodies fit (e.g. doing exercises that fight our tendency to become obese). A saintly lifestyle is one wherein we take practical measures to keep ourselves holy (e.g. a Christian or a Muslim prays, fasts and does acts of charity as spiritual exercises that are thought to fight a persons tendency towards sinfulness and evil). Similarly, according to Hadot, a philosophical lifestyle (as understood in Antiquity) is one wherein we take practical measures to fight ignorance, gain stable knowledge (sophia) and approach the truth by eliminating falsehoods. Such a practice of purification (katarsis) from ignorance was usually practiced in communities, and often took the form of esoteric rituals. It was often secretive and in some way constituted a quasi-religious practice that stood aloof from the public religion, somewhat like Freemasonry in modern times.5
manuscripts noted down. E.g. manuscript A has John went to the physician; manuscript B has John went the physician; manuscript C has John went to the doctor. The critical text would have John went to the physician (footnote: Man. C has doctor instead of physician). 3 There are several other problems that one may mention. The meaning of some words in the LOCAL DIALECT, say, of st Miles in the 6th century BCE, may be wider or narrower that that in Homer, Hesiod or 5th century Athenian: in the 1 case (Milesian dialect) it is hard to know, in the cases of Homer, Hesiod or 5th century Athenian we possess a large enough literary body to be able to determine precisely what is meant by certain words. The temptation is obviously to assume that all Greek practically identical to 5th century Athenian (Classical Greek) which is far from the case (ancient Milesian may be more distinct from Classical Greek than modern Portuguese is from French). PHILOSOPHICAL JARGON was still developing, so we have no sure way to tell if cert ain key terms are used 'philosophically' or poetically. 4 Theres loads of links at http://www.philosophypages.com/, http://www.heythrop.ac.uk/lib/gate/libgate.html . 5 Often, the practice of philosophy was conceived as a spiritual exercise through which one was purified from falsehood, from ignorance; similarly, in the early Christian communities, spiritual exercises (e.g. prayer, fasting, pilgrimage, charita-

 2.2

Reading Ancient Philosophy

2-5

As we shall see, certain philosophical ideas developed in communities all over Greece: such presocratic communities (e.g. the Milesian school, the Eleatic school, the Pythagorean communities) are the first philosophical schools6. Though these schools often take positions against the public Greek religion, they are often closely linked to the secret Greek religion (cults of Dionysus, Orphism , see below); hence Ancient Greek Philosophy is not secular, a-religious, valueneutral. When the schools move to Athens in the 5th century, and new schools are founded in this city-state, they become progressively less mystical and more scholarly in the modern sense. Post-socratic schools were mainly composed of a group of rich young men (disciples) living for a number of years with a learned master who would impart to them most of his encyclopaedic knowledge. Eventually most of these men would make it to prominent public offices due to their learning and erudition, and would abandon the school (though some would remain to constitute the permanent school community). Hence, as Athens become the philosophical haven, philosophical schools develop from secret quasi-religious communities into famous private-tuition providers, but all along this transition, they are never too bound to the sphere of the sacred as not to be able to put it to question radically, nor too free from it to provide a value-free education. For example, Platos philosophy, while criticizing some traditional beliefs about the Gods, is full of Orphism which is itself a religious practice. Hence, when your textbook pits philosophy against religion, handle with caution: you should ask yourself which form of religion is the Ancient Philosopher criticizing? . 1. 1. 1. D x v tD y n 3dv tD tc m(v m ) (v tD de tD D v dD y n n Many textbooks present Ancient Philosophy as a list of names of philosophers and a corresponding list of ideas/theories. This easily gives the impression that ancient philosophers were people who thought up whole systems of thought on their own, in their mind, and then wrote them down in a fat volume. Is this correct? Is Philosophy an exclusive activity of hermits, or is it predominantly the product of a community thinking together over a long period of time? Thales, the first presocratic philosopher, is presented as a loner, too absorbed looking at the starry sky to notice a well along his path. This legendary stereotype of the philosopher is immortalised in the famous image of the philosopher: a statue of Socrates, on his own, lost in his deep thoughts. Surely, Plato, in The Symposium, does offer a caricature of Socrates as the guy who gets an idea in the middle of the street and freezes in his steps for an hour or two while he figures it out. But this is only one side of the coin. Ancient philosophy was practised in communities, where ideas were discussed and developed in the group. Often, such ideas were passed on from generation to generation of people belonging to that closed group and hence developed over hundreds of years before being written down and attributed to some legendary founder of the philosophical sect: we know very little about the historical Pythagoras or Socrates; most of the theories attributed to them were developed in the schools they founded several years after their death. Philosophical schools were thus exclusive clubs holding a set of beliefs on the nature of the world and on morality. You chose to join such a group and that entailed choosing a way of reading reality (yourself, others, the world around you), i.e. that shared in the sect. You took time to learn this (initiation), then you were accepted as a full member and allowed to discuss matters and act in the group. Think of certain vegetarian associations in modern times: people in such associations hold that humans are not to kill animals for food, and that animal food is not suitable for persons. Once you learn this and other basic beliefs, and how to plan a diet ensuring proper nutrition while avoidble actions) were sought as means of purification from sinfulness (note: Christians believe that evil comes from sin; So cratics believed that evil comes from ignorance). It is interesting to note that the Platonic dialogues (in which Socrates is often the main character) were written to be performed; just like traditional Greek tragedy. They were intended as a spiritual exercise: a means of katarsis (purification). The DIALECTICAL QUESTIONING therein is a form of ritual (Aristophanes in The Clouds does portray Socrates the main character in these dialogues as a sort of esoteric, mystical guru ) that seeks to purify the people questioned (and the onlookers) from their falsehoods. 6 Skole in Greek means leisure (time not dedicated to profitable labour); a school is an association wherein you would meet other people and spend time doing things that would not earn you a living: learning new theories about the world, discussing morality, thinking about the role of humanity in the world, meditating, practicing rituals

 2.2

Reading Ancient Philosophy

2-6

ing animal products, you may engage in the activities of the group, and discuss deeper issues (e.g. animal rights). This is not just a theory in a book: it influences your life and your health intimately. Similarly, an ecological club would have you recycle everything you use: it conditions what you buy and consume, how you use your free time, etc. Now think about a Christian teenager who decides to join a religious community, such as Hare Krishna, without telling his parents. His parents think he is attending some vegetarian society, but obviously, Hare Krishna is much more than that. In a way, Ancient Philosophical schools were similar to this situation. Members continued to attend public ceremonies just like everyone else, but within the school, a lot of the traditional beliefs about the gods were replaced by new ideas. Such ideas, if proclaimed publicly, could easily have been condemned as contrary to the shared religion, heretical, impious; hence the discussions were often secret. (As a matter of fact these sects flourished in Ancient Greece because Politics and Religion were tolerant enough to permit this, as we shall see below.) To conclude, the characters you meet in your textbooks are not hermit philosophers. They represent communities rather than individuals. And each theory is not simply a brainchild of some genius: it is something that many people tried to live out and live up to.