Philebus Synopsis 11A-38C (2)

PHI 3150 History of Ethics 5B01 - 5B02 Prof. Jeffrey Golub SYNOPTIC OVERVIEW OF THE PHILEBUS CONTENTS LIST OF CHARACTERS AND TERMS DIAGRAM OF ONE/MANY AND LIMIT/UNLIMITED OUTLINE OF THE MAIN ARGUMENTS AND STRUCTURES I. WHAT IS THE HUMAN GOOD? a. Pleasure or Thought. i. Cannot be Pleasure 1. Pleasures are many, good and bad. How can many be one? ii. Cannot be Thought 1. There are many different sciences. How can many be one? iii. Must be some Mixture. How is this Mixture to be understood? 1. The many and the one; idea a. Examples of Letters, Voice, Music b. The Good life must be some kind of Mixture of Pleasure and Thought. i. The Good life must be: 1. Most complete 2. Most sufficient 3. Most desirable ii. Life of only pleasure without thought is not 1, 2, or 3. iii. Life of only thought without pleasure is not 1, 2, or 3. iv. The Good life must be somewhere between these two extremes. c. The question “What is the Human Good?” only leads to this result. We must ask a newer and more fundamental question. II. WHAT IS THE CAUSE OF THE HUMAN GOOD? a. “First Prize” goes to the mixed life of Pleasure and Thought. b. “Second Prize” goes to Mind. i. The Many, the One, the Unlimited, Limit and Cause. 1. Many things are grouped under one idea. 2. In order to know what anything is, we must know the bond between Many and One, the Unlimited and Limit. 3. Combinations of these four produce individual things, through some cause. Knowledge of cause that joins many things under one limit or idea is the essential requirement for all true knowledge. ii. Mind alone is the cause and the limit. c. “Third Prize” or even worse goes to Pleasure i. Pleasure is the unlimited 1. Example 1: Natural Balance 2. Example 2: Pleasures of the Body vs. Soul 3. Example 3: Desire 4. Example 4: Pleasure can be painful, pain can be pleasant ii. The True and False Pleasures (TO BE CONTINUED…) PHI 3150 History of Ethics 5B01 - 5B02 Prof. Jeffrey Golub LIST OF CHARACTERS AND TERMS Author: PLATO – (428 – 348 BCE) Perhaps the most renowned and influential philosopher in the western tradition, second only perhaps to Aristotle. Companion of Socrates and teacher of Aristotle, he founded the Academy (387 BCE) in Athens, the first school of philosophy and the primary stepping-stone for the development of thought. Aristotle studied at the Academy, and it experienced great change throughout its history, with the Skeptic and Stoic schools of philosophers (see Hellenistic Philosophy), with Neo-Platonic revivals, until its eventual closing in 529 CE. Plato himself never (or almost never1) writes anything in his own voice. Instead, all of his surviving written works take place as dialogues between Socrates (for the most part) and a number of different historical or fictional characters. Plato never speaks in his own writings, only Socrates and the other characters. But Socrates himself never wrote anything of his own philosophy; he only spoke publically with others. This is noteworthy, because it creates a need for interpretation from the very outset: how much of Plato’s writings belong to him, and how much belong to Socrates? Characters: SOCRATES – (469 – 399 BCE) Main speaker of this and most of Plato’s dialogues. Socrates was an actual historical person. We have records of him through Plato’s writings, but also through many other sources (Aristotle, Xenophon, Aristophanes, et al.) Socrates was very well known because he had a reputation for continually interrogating Athenian and foreign citizens, politicians, and poets. On most occasions, Socrates would demonstrate that each person was ignorant about the things he or she claimed to know best. This exhibition of ignorance was usually public, and hence, was very humiliating and shameful to the ‘patient’. The majority reacted with anger toward Socrates, and he was eventually put on trial and executed by those who had built deep resentment toward him.2 A small number, however, chose to accept this humiliation and shame as a kind of purification from ignorance, discovering that it is a great gift to become aware that some things are not as well-known as they seem at first. Indeed, if we had to define Socratic philosophy, it wouldn’t be too far off to say: Socrates deals primarily with taking those things we find so obvious and making them seem most perplexing. Socrates’ style of argumentation is called refutation. A refutation does not prove the truth of an argument; it only shows that an opponent’s position is inconsistent with his or her own evidence. In its most basic form, it proceeds like this: • Socrates will say, “You claim to be wise in X. So tell me, what is X?” • His opponent will say, “X is y.” • Socrates responds “Okay. But tell me, is y also z, or not?” • His opponent will say either “Yes” or “No”. • If “Yes”, Socrates will respond “But z seems to be not-X.” • His opponent responds “Yes” or “No”. If “Yes”, then Socrates responds: • “So if you agree that y is z, and that z is not X, then X cannot be y. But you said X was y, and you claim to be wise about X, but you are not.” 1 There is a collection of texts called Epistoles (which translates as Letters). The seventh letter is the most probable text to have been written by Plato and to have set out his own ideas in his own voice. But this is up to a great deal of scholarly debate. In any event, we are able to read an interpret the Philebus without wondering whether Plato really holds the views about which he writes. 2 If you are interested in the trial and death of Socrates, I would highly recommend Plato’s Apology, which depicts Socrates’ defense speech at the trial, and also gives a keen biographical picture. PHI 3150 History of Ethics 5B01 - 5B02 Prof. Jeffrey Golub In this dialogue, we find out that Socrates has gathered together Philebus, Protarchus, and several other young men to ask what is the “best of all human possessions” (19C), although we enter the discussion late, just at the moment in which Philebus gives up on the previous arguments. PROTARCHUS – (fictional person) It is unknown who Protarchus was, or if he historically existed. He inherits the argument that “pleasure is the good” from Philebus, who has given up in the argument. Protarchus demonstrates a far greater willingness than the ‘father’ of the argument (Philebus) to engage in thoughtful speech and confident, honest answers, and is not angry if he is forced to change his position. Plato often invents fictional characters, sometimes even playing on the meanings of their names. For instance, here “Protarchus” can be taken as a combination of the Greek words protos and arche, which could together mean “first beginning.” Indeed it is Protarchus who creates a new beginning in the dialogue when Philebus has failed and bowed out. It is with Protarchus, and not Philebus, that we as readers find the beginning of the book. But this, of course, is highly speculative and requires much interpretive evidence. PHILEBUS – (fictional person) It is likewise unknown whether Philebus was a real person or not. In the dialogue, he participates very seldom and then only briefly. When he does speak, it is usually only in response to a question or as a dismissal of a point he seems to feel is uninteresting. He begins the dialogue by giving up. Because he stridently maintains that pleasure is the good, we might assume that he is engaged in the argument what is the good for a human being only to entertain himself, and had no real authentic interest in answering the question. He argues only so long as it is fun. Perhaps Philebus simply stopped caring and gave up when things became boring to him and thus displeased him. The dialogue is the named Philebus, even though Philebus himself plays a relatively minor role. We should wonder why this is. One possibility is that the name of the dialogue is simply the occasion for a much greater and deeper conversation, much as the discussion of pleasure takes us into far more involved matters than simply whether pleasure is good. TERMINOLOGY: The following is a very basic glossary for terms we will use often in the dialogue. This list is a work in progress. Mind – one term that covers all mental experience and operations. This includes knowledge, science, thought, memory, opinion, judgment, consciousness, perception, and intelligence. Mind also comes to mean cause and limit. Pleasure – one term to cover desire, enjoyment of the senses, feeling. Pleasure is always related to Pain, and to Desire. Pleasure is identified with the unlimited. The Good – the best and most excellent possession of human life, what is most complete, most sufficient, and most desired; that for the sake of which all is done. Goods in general – general aims, goals, or ends that we seek in everyday life. Idea – related to the Greek verb “to see.” An idea is the kind of definition or prime example of something. For example, if there were an idea of a human being, it would be that pattern which defines any particular human being as human being. Idea is another term related to the One and the Limit. PHI 3150 History of Ethics 5B01 - 5B02 Prof. Jeffrey Golub The Four Kinds (16D – 17A; 24A – 26A; 27C): (1) (2) The Many: Related to the Unlimited. It is the multitude of distinct and different individual things in the world. This could be different living being, different languages, different times, different numbers, different college subjects— whatever. So long as there are differences, there will be at least two or more unique things. The Unlimited: Related to the Many. This signifies anything that has no definition or limitation but is rather just stark “continuity”, ever more and more. The hotter and colder, the greater and smaller, these are unlimited because they are never a precise quantity, but rather always relative, more than or less than. It “always advances and never waits”. Has no beginning, middle, or end. The One: Related to the Limit. Unifying multiple different units under one single trait. For example, we call the 26 different and unique letters “the Alphabet”. We take many numbers such as 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and unify all of them into one single group—“Even”. We take Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Kant— four different and unique people— and make them One by saying “human being” or “philosopher” The Limit: Related to the One. It is specifically any boundary, stop, or break that literally defines some thing as a distinct and discreet unit. The limit is where one things stops and something different starts. It is a precise or an exact amount, a “so- much”. It is an end to the continuity between more and less. Mixture: Any one individual thing (substance) that is a combination of its unlimited and limited aspects. An individual square is a combination of the indeterminate space it occupies (let’s say x cm2) and the determinate four, equal lines that bind its (let’s say four lines, 2 cm each). The ‘mixture’ is a square with an area of 4 cm2. Cause: What makes something become what it is. Every effect, or every generated thing, requires a cause. The ground or reason for why two elements (limited and unlimited) are combined into a mixture. A cause is the reason or purpose in virtue of which something exists as it does. Thorough, scientific knowledge of something requires knowledge of the cause. The One is only understandable because of the Many which it unifies. The Many is only understandable because any multitude is made up of individual units or ‘ones’. The Unlimited is only understandable because of the Limits we set around it. It is impossible to imagine pure continuity without boundaries. The Limit is only understandable because of the Unlimited which it bounds. It is impossible to imagine a bound or limit without some expanse which it sets off (try to imagine a square without sides, or the sides of a square without the inner space.) (3) (4) PHI 3150 History of Ethics 5B01 - 5B02 Prof. Jeffrey Golub OUTLINE I. What is the human good? (11A – 12B): Socrates and Philebus have been arguing for a candidate to assume the role of the “best human possession.” Philebus has argued that it is pleasure, enjoyment, and all other similar things. Socrates has argued that it is not these things, but rather, to be thoughtful, to think, remember, calculate, and hold right opinions. Philebus has failed to follow the argument all the way through, and has given up—he “washes his hands” of the argument, he gives up responsibility for it and effectively leaves the conversation. Protarchus picks up the abandoned position and begins speaking with Socrates. I.a.i: Pleasure cannot be the Good, because it is not simple and one, but complex and many. The Good cannot be complex and many: (1) (12D) – The unintelligent person enjoys unintelligent opinions and activities, and the intelligent person enjoys the opposite. But both the unintelligent and the intelligent person have the same result—pleasure. To say that pleasure is the good for both people is to say that two very dissimilar activities achieve the same goal. (2) (12E – 13A) Furthermore, the feeling of pleasure is identical to the concept of pleasure, but this does not prove that every pleasure is the same as every other pleasure. For example, every square is a shape, and every circle is a shape, but just because they are both shapes, this does not prove they are both the same. Quite the contrary, they are most different. (3) (13A – B) Therefore, to say that pleasure is good amounts to saying that any and all pleasures, whether they be good or bad, can all be called by the name “good.” This is to say that all the many pleasures, good or bad, are in fact one, “the Good.” But a good and a bad pleasure are the most opposite of pleasures, just as a square and a circle are the most opposite of shapes. (4) Therefore, to say the all different pleasures are good is like saying “the most unlike of all things is most like to the most unlike”, or simply, the Bad is identical to the Good. But this cannot be so. I.a.ii Therefore, Thought cannot be the good either. (14A) There are many kinds of thinking, many sciences, many arts and technical skills. If we insist that Thought is the sole human Good, we must also act “irrationally” and ignore all these differences. We force all difference into a single identity. But how can you call many different things “one?” Side Note: This question anticipates the discussion of One/Many and Limit/Unlimited. See diagram above. I.a.iii: Protarchus concedes. “Let there be many unlike pleasures and many different sciences (thoughts).” On one hand, the Good, whatever it is, must be single and identical to itself. It must be one. Pleasure and Thought, on the other hand, are here proven to contain many different types and kinds. Thus, they are many and multiple. Side Note: Perhaps it is some third, beyond these two. PHI 3150 History of Ethics 5B01 - 5B02 Prof. Jeffrey Golub I.a.iii.1 (14C – 18D) “The many are one and the one many is an amazing utterance.” It’s easy, on one hand, to claim that one thing is many (a whole, constructed out of its parts). On the other hand, it is just as easy to claim that many things are one (the parts that come together make a whole). (15A) But what is meant when we try to say the “the Good” is one, even though there are many instances of goods? What is meant when we try to say “Humankind” is one, or “Beauty” is one single thing, when there are plainly many different humans and many different beautiful things? (15B – C) Must define: (1) Does such “one single thing” actually exist? (hint: Category or Idea) (2) Does such “one single thing” remain the same independently of all the changes in particular things? (3) Does such “one single thing” come to be as composed of the many? Let’s call such “one single thing” an idea (similar to One and Limit). This is one of the first requirements for the definition of something. I.a.iii.1.a. Knowledge of the idea requires knowledge of the bond between One and Many. (17 B-C) We are not wise for knowing only One or only Many alone, but must know both. (17 D-E) Again, we do not know a language if we know only one letter, or even if we know all of them. We do not know music if we know one note, or even if we know all notes. We do not know tones in a language because we know one, nor even if we know all four. We only know any of these things insofar as we understand the intervals or bonds between the multitude of each single unit and the unity of all together, into one ‘idea’ (Language, Music, Tone etc). (18B – D) Example of Vowels (A, E, I, O, U) and Consonants (B, C, D,…S, T…etc.). Vowels are unlimited voiced sounds, Consonants are limited unvoiced stops. The intervals between sounds and stops come together to form speech. Side Note: (18A, 18D) Philebus, not Protarchus, finally makes an interruption here. He has been quiet the whole time, and now joins back in, but only briefly. Whenever Philebus interrupts, it is noteworthy, as it generally marks a transition point in the main argument. I.b Return to the Main Argument (19B) Protarchus says “Socrates, it seems to me, is asking us now about the species of Pleasure, whether they are or not, how many they are, and what kinds they are. And in turn, about Thought likewise on the same terms.” (20A) After summarizing the past arguments, Protarchus begs Socrates to begin again and to stop “casting us [all] into perplexity” and confusion. I.b.1 (20C) The good is neither Pleasure, nor Thought, but perhaps some Third The arguments there have shown us the necessity to rethink the question and start again. (20D) Socrates leads Protarchus to redefine the good. It is: (1) Most complete (2) Most sufficient (3) Most desired. PHI 3150 History of Ethics 5B01 - 5B02 Prof. Jeffrey Golub I.b.ii - iii (21A) The challenge: Let there be a life of pleasure but with no thought, and on the other hand, let there be a life of thought but with no pleasure. Will either of these satisfy conditions (1), (2), and (3), and thus be choice-worthy as the best life? (21C-E) Without thought, we would not be aware of pleasures, nor remember them, nor anticipate them. Without pleasure, we would be “entirely unaffected” in life to contemplate and judge. A life of pleasure without thought is a life of a fish. A life of thought without pleasure is a life of a computer. Neither is choice-worthy as best. (22A) If neither the Life of Pleasure nor the Life of Good is best, perhaps it is some third, mixed life. Side Note: (22C) Philebus speaks up again, major transition point. II. What is the Cause of the Human Good? Introduction of the concept of cause. The original question, “What is the Good” is incorrectly asked, because in order to answer, we must say some kind of activity is identical with the Good. But this is taking two dissimilar things and forcing them together. We saw why this was a problem, above (see 12D – 14A). We need a new beginning, a more fundamental question. We cannot ask, “What is the Good” before we ask, “What causes the Good.” This is an essential question. I cannot have knowledge o