A Cursory Examination of Classical Philosophy Essays

A Cursory Examination of Classical Philosophy Essays A Cursory Examination of Classical Philosophy Essay A Cursory Examination of Classical Philosophy Essay Essay Topic: Classical Moderation, according to Homeric tradition, is a virtue of humanity. It, along with other â€Å"Homeric virtues,† such as strength, courage, physical prowess, and wisdom in accomplishing goals in unique ways, are considered the model of human excellence. The Iliad, written by Homer, is a story that emphasizes the need for moderation and illustrates how the lack of it, can lead to tragedy. One of its main characters, the hero Achilles, while possessing many of the virtues mentioned above, lacks the virtue of moderation.It is Achilles’ pride and anger which lead to disaster and his eventual death. In the story, Achilles is at first angered by Agamemnon, the brother of Menelaus, king of Sparta. After a raid on a Trojan ally, the Spartans capture a beautiful girl, a daughter of a priest of Apollo. The girl is given to Agamemnon, but the priest pleads for her return. After Agamemnon refuses, the priest prays to Apollo to help get his daughter back. Apollo answers with a plag ue that wreaks havoc on the Spartan army.Agamemnon returns the girl to stop the plague, but demands that he receives Achilles’ prize as a replacement (another exceptionally beautiful woman). They quarrel over the prize, but in the end, Achilles complies, but is outraged. Achilles, being the greatest Greek warrior, having an uncontrollable anger has serious consequences. He refuses to fight at first, and this leads to a change in momentum to the Trojan army. However, when one Achilles’ closest friends dies at the hand of Hector, the Trojan hero, Achilles turns his focus on revenge. He kills Hector then drags his body from his chariot back to camp.The moral of this story is about moderation. It shows how the lack of moderation, even though all the other virtues may be present, can result in tragedy. As the oracle at Delphi said: â€Å"Nothing too much. † Hubris is another concept we see introduced in classical Greek mythology. Hubris, in Homeric poetry is when hum an beings act or think beyond their nature or intended limitations. It is a form of great arrogance as it attempts to portray humans as gods themselves. Hubris isn’t restricted to simply believing one is on equal footing with the gods however.It can also happen when one doesn’t honor the gods properly or do as they command (or expect). According to Homeric tradition, and even in the writings of others, such as Pindar, there must be a distinction between mortal man and the gods. Human beings are not immortal, not divine, and thus, have no right to put themselves on the same playing field as those who are. Thales, Heraclitus and Parmenides Thales, whom Aristotle calls the founder of philosophy, was a metaphysical monist who believed that water is both the cause and element of everything, and that everything is filled with gods.Thales, as Aristotle explains, seems to have believed that because water is essential for practically all living things, and that it is the only n atural substance that can have different forms (solid, liquid, gas), it must possess highly unique qualities. He reasoned that it is because of these qualities that water is the underlying nature of all things. Thales believed that all things are filled with gods in the sense that reality is immortal. He is using the essential property of the gods (immortality) to describe reality itself.And he does so by describing nature from within the framework of nature itself, in contrast to using an external framework. Heraclitus’ views of reality are quite a bit different. He believes that reality is a constant flux and opposition. It is Heraclitus who made the famous statement â€Å"you cannot step twice into the same river. † This is the crux of the first part of his theory of reality. It’s the idea that nothing stays the same; everything is in a constant state of change. The second part of his theory about reality involves opposition, or strife.Strife, according to He raclitus is not a bad thing; it is in fact, necessary. It allows for balance; it guarantees that order is maintained. Parmenides’ views of reality are stranger still. He held that there is no â€Å"many,† but rather only â€Å"the One. † He disagrees with Heraclitus’ view that everything is in a constant state of flux. He believed that reality is unchanging, undivided and eternal. As a rationalist (the first rationalist philosophy actually), he believed that the only way to know of reality is not through experience, it is through reason.Of the three philosophies, the one that most makes sense is that of Heraclitus’. While I do not subscribe to his overall philosophy, it does make sense to me that there is a sort of â€Å"order† in the universe. Heraclitus refers to this order as the Logos. As a Christian, this means something more than just â€Å"order. † But Heraclitus uses the term to describe order by way of patterns. I can see an order to the universe as well. It is a necessary order, one that allows life to exist. It is a fine-tuning of elements and physical laws that enable life to prosper.But in addition to this order, I think there is something sustaining it, keeping it from â€Å"burning out,† and that source is God. The Socratic Method The Socratic Method is is a way for someone to discover truth. It requires someone to be willing to go where reason takes them. It’s the asking of questions in such a way, that even the most commonly accepted ideas and values are challenged. It dives deep into the heart of things which are often taken for granted, and it is through this process, Socrates believed, that we can discover what is real, actual, or true. But in order to do this, one must possess a certain character.They must not be wishy-washy, changing their position without good reason, nor should they be dogmatic, not changing their position despite there being a good reason to do so. There ar e many dialogs written by Plato that center around Socrates using this method with various people he meets informally, and in some cases, such as the Apology, formally (in the courtroom). In the dialog Euthyphro, he discusses the nature of piety, or holiness with his friend Euthyphro. Euthyphro offers a definition of piety when Socrates asks, but Socrates finds this definition insufficient and challenges it by asking questions.Euthyphro changes his definition several times. Eventually, the final question that is posed is â€Å"Is the holy loved by the gods because it is holy, or is it holy because it is loved by the gods? † In the Apology, Socrates is on trial, so he begins his method of questioning by challenging his accusers directly. One of the accusations is that Socrates is an atheist. He asks Meletus, who made this accusation, if he still maintains that Socrates is an atheist. Meletus confirms that he does. Socrates then also asks him if he maintains the accusation that Socrates is teaching the youth about new gods.Meletus answers that he does. So Socrates asks how a contradiction can be true. Either it is the case that Socrates is an atheist, and therefore, by definition does not believe in gods and cannot teach that other gods exist†¦or it is the case that Socrates is teaching the youth about new gods and is therefore, not an atheist. Socrates uses this technique in several instances, pointing out the inconsistencies in the charges brought against him. In the dialog Crito, Socrates is in his prison cell talking to his friend Crito, who wishes to help Socrates escape from prison.Crito believes that Socrates has been unjustly charged and sentenced to death. Socrates however, refuses to escape and reasons with Crito about the idea using the Socratic Method. Socrates gets Crito to agree that causing injury is an evil, and evil ought not ever been done. Socrates, using his questioning method, asks Crito if it is ever good to do evil in return fo r evil. Crito answers â€Å"No. † Socrates then, through this questioning method, gets Crito to agree that circumventing law for personal gain is an evil. And because it is an evil, they cannot attempt an escape.Socrates accepts his sentence and maintains the position that he did the just thing. The Metaphysics and Epistemology of Plato and Aristotle Plato’s metaphysics was one of dualism. There is the world of the material, or the physical, which is always changing. It is a world of the senses. In this reality, there exists both the perceptions of the objection and the objections themselves. Shadow of a bird, a reflection of trees over water, the actual bird and trees themselves are all a part of this world. But it is merely a perception of the real world.The real world, where true knowledge comes from, is the world of Forms. Plato’s Forms are the world of the intelligible, and as such, can only be known by reason. It consists of the thoughts of these objects i n the material world, but also contains virtues such as beauty, justice and good. The thoughts of objects in this world are the lower forms, and the virtues or ideals are the higher. We can understand thoughts of objects (such as the perfect triangle or mathematics), but we must use reason to discover the ideals. In regard to Plato’s epistemology, he posited his Recollection Theory.This theory claims that we do not really learn anything new. Instead, we remember our knowledge from a previous existence. Plato believed in reincarnation, and said that we acquire knowledge prior to birth, yet forget this knowledge upon being born. During our lives, we â€Å"recollect† that knowledge that we’ve learned already. Like Plato, Aristotle’s metaphysics was that of dualism. And like Plato’s metaphysics, Aristotle also believed in a world of matter and a world of forms. However, Aristotle disagreed about the nature of these two worlds.For example, for Aristotle , his world of matter contains objections that actually exist; they were very real. We sense this world through our sense organs. While these objects are made up of generic â€Å"stuff,† they are also made up of forms. A statue of a man, for example, can be made of stone or of marble. The stone or marble is the material stuff that we can sense. But the statue also has a form, a form of a man. While both statues may be made up of two different materials, they are made of one common form, â€Å"man. † Aristotle’s epistemology involves induction. Induction is the process by which we can know first principles.First principles are that which we need no further questions or demonstrations to be true. They form the foundation upon which all other reasoning and truth statements rest. The process of knowing, induction, involves both perception and knowledge of reality. It beings with perception, which is the acquisition of information about reality through our senses. Th e second step is memory. It is the retention of this information about reality that is necessary to begin reasoning about it. However, we must experience perception many times in order to properly formulate reasons about it.Each time we do so, it is stored into our memory; we accumulate the experience, and it becomes a stronger memory. Eventually, we reach the fourth step, which is knowledge. When we are able to understand the essence of something through this process, it becomes knowable. The Epicureans, Stoics and Skeptics The Epicureans, Stoics and Skeptics each had philosophies on how to live one’s life, what to believe about reality, and what to do about fears and certain beliefs. The Epicureans believe that one ought to maximize pleasure while minimizing suffering.However, they were also quick to point out that moderation is necessary. That is, unlike what we commonly think about hedonism, the Greek word for pleasure, it is not the case that they taught that any pleasur e ought to be taken. It is not a philosophy of self-indulgences, but one of contentment of the basic, yet essential necessities of life. About what to believe about reality is that we are driven by desire. But not all desires are equal. Some of them we should satisfy, but some of them we should not because the cost of doing so is more than they are worth.Since we have the desire to be happy, to obtain this, we need to exercise control and limit those desires to the ones that are necessary. And to do this, one must live the simple life. In addition, Epicureans believe that we ought to ignore that which does not serve the goal of living that simple life. Philosophy is but a tool in which we can do this; it is not virtuous to pursue philosophy for the sake of philosophizing. Epicureans also believe that we ought not to be concerned with the gods or with death. Epicureans believe that the gods are not nterested in our day to day affairs, so it makes no sense to fear them. Likewise, they hold the fear of death is not rational because while we are living, death is not with us. And when we die and death occurs, we do not exist so we experience nothing to worry about. So in either case, we are not being directly affected by death, so we ought not to be worried about it or fear it. The stoics believed in fate. They believed that we do not control outside events, so there is no need to be concerned with it. These external events cannot make us feel a certain way; it is only how we react to these events that affect us.So if we can change the way we think about these events beyond our control, we will come to realize there is nothing to fear, it all happens whether we want it to or not, it is beyond our control. The goal of stoicism is to reach Apathia or the freedom from passion. This is done by coming to understand that outside events, as we said above, are beyond our control. When this happens, we are living in harmony with nature. And unlike the Epicureans, the Stoics believe that pleasure is never to be pursued because it is not an appropriate end. The Skeptics, like the other two schools of thought, believe it is possible to live the good life.They do so by suggesting that knowledge is an illusion and it is the insistence that this knowledge is real or true, that causes conflict and strife because it leads to disappointment (unhappiness). So by suspending judgment about truth and moral statements, one can then be happy. Skeptics claim that attempting to reason about reality results in either an â€Å"infinite regress† or circular reasoning, so there is no point in trying to reason about such things, and instead, one ought to simply suspend judgment. An infinite regress is when claim A is contingent upon claim B, which is contingent upon claim C, and so on.There are an endless number of claims that are contingent upon another, and obviously, this is problematic. Circular reasoning occurs when the conclusion that is reached is a reason fo r support of one of the reasons for the conclusion itself. The argument goes in a circle, thus is not a valid argument. Skeptics claim that all attempts at reason result in one of these 2 problems, therefore, we ought to suspend judgment. Of the three philosophies, the one that may be closest to reality is that of the Epicureans. But this should not be taken to mean that it is sufficiently representative of reality.It just happens to be the closest of the three. Specifically, the part of epicurean though that I think makes the most sense, is that we ought to live a contented life that maximizes necessary pleasures or desires while minimizing pain and suffering. I think this is a rather pragmatic philosophy that we follow in our daily lives already. Everything that we do seems to do that which brings us pleasure and avoids that which causes pain. But I think this is as close as it gets to being a philosophy that accurately represents reality and how to live.