Background to Plato
As I intimated on Thursday, we will discuss several key factors that I take to be essential to making sense of Plato. One is the history of the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta, which unfolded thoughout Plato's youth. You are reading excerpts from Thucydides' comprehensive history of that conflict, and I will give you a thumbnail overview on Tuesday of the events surrounding it as they relate directly to the execution of Plato's friend Socrates in 399 b.c.e. by the restored Athenian democracy.
Another piece of the puzzle, as I began to suggest on Thursday, is the complex relationship of Greek societies in the Fifth and early Fourth centuries b.c.e. to spoken and written language. Alphabetic writing was a relatively recent innovation (introduced probably sometime between 750 and 700 b.c.e.), and even in the late Fifth century Athens was still overwhelmingly an oral society, both in its commercial and its political dealings. Literacy was confined to a small elite, and the written word (and number) was largely a mnemonic and accounting device serving to support and reinforce memory, rather than a primary means of communication. This was changing of course, but slowly, and not without creating difficulties. As we shall see, Plato was both an advocate of new ways of doing things made possible in part by growing literacy, and at the same time deeply suspicious of writing as a substitute for interpersonal discourse (much as intellectuals today are often wary of electronics as a wholesale replacement for books, or for seminars).
Thirdly, in due course we will discuss the philosophical/scientific background to Plato's thought, beginning with Parmenides and Heraclitus in particular, and with the so-called Socratic Turn away from cosmological specuation and toward committed moral (and hence social) inquiry. Some of you have a strong background in earlier Ancient Greek thought, and you can be of service to us in helping to clarify these relationships.
A note on retaining the heading "Skeptiblog," which originally referred to a course last spring on ancient and contemporary Skepticism. In part because of Plato's artful use of the dialogue form (in which he himself never speaks), I concur with Alfred North Whitehead's assessment that in every utterance as to Plato we speak under correction. We needn't throw up our hands -- Plato's surviving writings are rich with possible conclusions -- but it is wise to be alert to our fallibility in attributing them wholesale to Plato himself.
8 comments:
what is b.c.e.?
I thought b.c. was 'before christ', what's the 'e'?
This might just be my hope full positive thinking, I really do not see the elimination of paper books occurring. That would be devastating, I would think that some intelligent people would speak up on behalf of the possible failure of electricity and thus no one could read. It is interesting and a little exciting that books could be available online in full text, but I don't understand the reasoning behind taking away actual books you hold in your hand and can read in daylight or at night with candle light if/when electricity fails {even for a day from a thunderstorm}.
Do we ever know what happened to Alkibiades after he fled from Athens?
b.c.e = before common era, and a.d. has been replaced with c.e. (common era)
As far as the readings...
I found it interesting that Cleon sort of fell victim to the type of speaker he advised his listeners to be weary of: telling them that they should not be pursuaded by sly, clever speakers, when he himself did not give solid grounds on why innocent people should be murdered, and used threat (some fallacy?) to try to pursuade his audience.
I also found it interesting that Socrates, in Euthyphro, never enlightens us with the knowledge of piety/impiety, but shows that neither he nor Euthyphro know what those terms imply. And, he explains in the Apology that this is all he really does; admit his own ignorance, and reveals to others their own. Which in some way reminded me of Cleon, in which neither offer anything positive, one from arguing without solid ground, and the other from just pointing out ignorance (which, admittedly is knowledge itself). This connection may appear distant, but it was something that briefly came to mind.
Check our Robert Darnton's thoughtful article in the New York Review of Books this summer on the importance of books: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21732
Alkibiades was far too much of a superstar, and too full of himself, to vanish into obscurity. He changed sides in the war several times, and even briefly advised the Persians. Neither the Spartans nor the Athenians really trusted him, but neither could afford to be without his services as a brilliant tactitian and general (inspirational speaker). He was eventually killed (I believe around 405 b.c.e.)allegedly by the angry husband of a lover, but very probably this was a ruse and his killing was actually an assassination.
Mariah Wolfe is my pen name, and it is the name I use on my blog, so I'm using it here to stay consistant. You know me in class as Marti.
I am beginning to get a better understanding of Plato and Socrates, especially after today's class. The Euthyphro makes much more sense in light of the background information we covered today. I am developing a sympathy for Socrates. I wonder how much the historical Socrates knew about the impact he was having on humanity. Although I accept that we can never know the answer to that question, still, I suspect the people who have had a significant impact on the forward movement of human evolution must have had some notion about what they were up to?
And I agree with Christina: the loss of books would be a travesty.
ORATORS AND JUDGES
In summing up his defense of orators, Diototus states (3.43[3]) "Still, considering the magnitude of the interests involved, and the position of affairs, we orators must make it our business to look a little further than you who judge offhand; especially as we, your advisers, are responsible, while you, our audience, are not so."
This statement raises a question for me about the Athenian assembly: specifically, how was it constructed? I was under the impression that all members of the assembly had equal status as citizens -- that is, they could speak on an issue, and they could also vote on that issue when the debating was concluded. Have I understood this incorrectly? Do orators have a different status than judges? If so, who decides who is an orator and who is a judge?
Diodotus says the judges have "no responsibility" since they are following the advice of the orators. Was this the nature of the assembly at Socrates' trial?
Would someone please clarify this for me?
Socrates could read and write, but deliberately writes nothing. At his death, he expresses concern that his friends, children, and city be as good as possible, but is not otherwise obviously concerned with posterity. Had it not been for Plato's decision, years later, to attempt to extend Socrates' life work through a literary form, we would never have heard of him. For these reasons I suspect that Socrates had no inkling, and less interest, in influencing future generations (though I am glad in some ways that, by accident, he did!
Regarding the question about Diodotus, I think you mistake roles in the process of the Athenian Assembly for formal offices. Any adult male citizen could speak, but of course in practice not all of them could or did; otherwise a single debate could easily have lasted for decades. As happens in a New England town meeting, those with a shared concern often found an articulate individual to make their best case. Orators and advisors, then, are simply those who end up doing most of the speaking, and "judges" are all those who vote on the question when the debate is over (that is, everyone present).
The Assembly was a political decision-making body; by contrast, Socrates' trial was a legal proceeding in which the 501 jurors functioned as both jury and judge. They listened to the speeches of the prosecution and defense, then voted on the verdict.
Post a Comment