Lecture Notes on Platos Republic Book I

I.

Book I Notes What is Justice?

1. Background: Book I is a discussion on the nature of Justice between Cephalus (a wealthy old man),
Polemarchus (the son of Cephalus who invites Socrates to come to their house for conversation), Thrasymachus (a Sophist of the younger generation known for their emotional appeals as argumentative strategies), Glaucon (a brother of Plato), Adeimantus (another brother of Plato), Lysias (a well known writer of speeches and also son of Cephalus), and Socrates. The discussion is said to have taken place in 411 B.C.E. in Athens. SEP = Self-Evident Proposition a claim that is taken by all as obviously true and needing no justification.

2. Definitions of Justice put forth: a.

Def. #1a: Cephalus Justice is to speak the truth and pay back any debts one may have incurred. (p. 5)

(1) Socrates counter-example: But it is not always just to apply this rule. For example if a
friend asks you to store their weapons for you and then, when in an insane state of mind asks for them back, justice says one should not return the weapons (i.e. pay your debt back). Thus this definition fails because it cannot always be applied.

b. Definition #1b: Justice is doing good to a friend and never evil. (1) Polemarchus agrees with the implication of Def. 1b as pointed out by Socrates: that Definition
1b leaves out enemies: just as we do good to friends we should do evil to enemies.

(2) Socrates reminds his friends of the analogy of Justice to Art (or skill): Justice is an art and is
analogous to other arts such as medicine or cookery in that it gives something to someone. So what does Justice give exactly?

c.

Definition #1c: Polemarchus Justice is that art which gives good to friends and evil to enemies (p. 6)

(1) Socrates looks for an analogy to justice from everyday life examples of giving good to and
giving harm to Who gives good to friends and harm to enemies in times of sickness? the physician; When traveling by boat? the pilot; When can the just person do the most harm/good? in times of war says Polemarchus.

(2) Implications: when a person is healthy, no need of a physician; when not traveling by boat, no
need of a pilot, and thus in time of peace justice is of no use?

(3) Socrates looks for a new analogy where justice is of use in peace and war: husbandry,
shoemaking are useful in the good times (unlike medicine). So justice is of use when making contracts which tie together business partnerships.

(4) Socrates tests this example of justice as useful in partnerships: when playing cards, a skillful
player is more useful and better partner than a just person; in construction a builder is more useful than a just person; in music, a guitar player is preferable than a just person. Polemarchus sticks to his view that in a money partnership a just person is best.

(5) Socrates gets more detailed at this point. What exactly is a just person good at in money
partnerships? A just person is not as good in the use of money than a financial counselor or horse buyer. Polemarchus here says that a just person is best at guarding money in a safe. (a) Socrates draws an inference here: Justice is useful when money (or property) is useless (when money or property is, quite literally, not being used).

(b) Thus Justice is useful when the things it guards are useless, and justice is useless when the things it guards are being used. (c) Thus Justice is not good for much. (d) But Socrates continues, perhaps there is something that justice is good for: The best at the throwing punches is the best at preventing punches the boxer; the best at preventing or escaping from disease is best at creating disease the doctor; the best guard of a military base is the best at invading the enemy the soldier; the best at security is the best at stealing (thievery). (Implied: thus the best at any specific art is also best at destroying the objects of that art). (e) Since justice is an art and given the above examples in (d), it follows that the just person who is best at keeping money is also best at stealing. Thus the just person is a thief, which Socrates thinks also is implied by (5) above. Thus justice is theft for the good of ones friends and for the harm of ones enemies? This is rejected since it seems to contradict the everyday experience of justice.

d. Definition #1d: Justice is loving those whom one thinks good and hating those whom one
thinks evil.

(1) Socrates counter-example: people often make mistakes about who is good and evil. We
often choose friends who actually are enemies and treat as enemies those who are actually our friends. Thus we end up treating the good badly and the evil well.

(2) But (1) above contradicts the view of just persons as never committing injustice. (3) Polemarchus suggests, and Socrates agrees, to strictly define friend as one who is, as well
as seems, good and enemy as one who seems only to be good but is not really good. (thus Plato introduces a key distinction in beliefs between seeming/appearance and actual/real

e.

Definition #1e: Justice is doing good to our friends when they are good and harm to our enemies when they are evil.

(1) Socrates draws an analogy between the abuse of animals and humans: When horses are
injured they are made worse in their good qualities; when dogs are abused they are also made worse in the good qualities of dogs. Its also the same with humans when we are abused or harmed we our good qualities are diminished.

(2) That quality of humans that makes us best and good is the quality of justice. (3) Thus abusing or harming humans makes us less just or unjust. (4) In the other arts this does not occur: musicians cannot make humans unmusical; horse trainers
cannot make humans bad horsemen.

(5) In fact opposites cannot create their opposite: heat cannot produce cold; dryness cannot create
moisture; nor can goodness create harm.

(6) The just is the good. (7) Thus only unjust persons can harm or injure other humans and it is logically impossible for
truly just persons to harm anyone.

(8) Thus the definition, that justice is doing good to friends and harm to enemies is self contradictory and breaks down and thus is false.

f.

Thrasymachus Definition #2a: Justice is the interest of the stronger (p. 12)

(1) Socrates answers with a counter-example: its absurd to say that we should do whatever the
physically strongest do, say eating meat as do the wrestler-boxers (pancratiasts).

(2) Thrasymachus Accuses Socrates of violating the principle of charity and then clarifies his
definition:

g.

Thrasymachus Definition #2b: Justice is the interest of the stronger when it comes to governing.

(1) Implication of g: It is just for subjects to obey their rulers. (2) SEP: Rulers of states sometimes make mistakes (3) THUS: Sometimes rulers make laws rightly and sometimes wrongly. When they make good
laws the laws support the interests of the rulers and when they make bad laws they work against the interests of the rulers.

(4) THUS: Justice is obedience to the interest of the stronger and the opposite at the same time.
(thus violating NC). Thus the weaker are told to do (sometimes)(p. 14)

h.

Thrasymachus Definition #2c: Justice is the interest of the stronger ruler but only when the ruler is truly a ruler, that is when the ruler makes no mistakes . (this is the result of Thrasymachus Objecting to Socrates and pointing out that he was using language in its common, not exact mode. So now Thrasymachus Clarifies the definition of ruler.)

(1) SEP: The physician is a healer of the sick. (2) SEP: The pilot is a captain of sailors. (3) THUS: Every art has an interest for which the art must consider, provide for, and try to
perfect (So medicine does not consider the interest of itself (medicine) but its subject, the body and tries to give the body perfect health, etc.) and each art is, ideally, perfect and unto itself.

(4) Implication: that arts are superior to, and rulers over, their subjects. (5) THUS: All science or art is only concerned with the interest of the weaker subject. (6) THUS: physicians, horsetrainers, pilots, etc. are not simply concerned with making money but
in perfecting their weaker subjects (the body, new horseriders/horses, sailors, etc).

(7) THUS the same with rulers they dont rule for their own interests but for the interests of
their weaker subjects. (thus Def. #2c is false)

i.

Thrasymachus reaffirms Def #2c above and denies (7) above.

(1) Justice and the just are anothers good the interest of the rulers and stronger, not the weaker. (2) Injustice/unjust is ruler over the just.; The unjust is stronger than the just and the unjust makes
the subjects do what is in his/her interests and minister to his happiness. (a) The just always lose in comparison to the unjust (i) Private contracts when the partnership is ended, the unjust always has more than the just.

(ii) State: with taxes, the just pay more and the unjust less ont eh same amount of income. (iii) Political office: the just man neglects his private affairs, wor4ks for the public, suffers losses and is hated by friends for refusing to give them kickbacks.

(iv) Unjust office holders are happiest especially on a large scale tyranny via fraud and force the tyrant takes all from others then the tyrant is seen as happy. (v) Yes small time thieves will be punished but only because they are not unjust enough. (vi) People only fear injustice because they dont want to be a victim and because they dont have the power to be unjust themselves.

j.

Socrates again attempts to prove that Thrasymachus Definition #2c is self-contradictory and thus false.

(1) SEP: The separate arts are different because they each have different functions. (2) SEP: Each art gives specific, not general goods (medicine/health; navigation/safety of seas)
except for the art of pay this applies to all arts since all the arts use money.

(3) SEP: If the artist works but is not paid money then the artist receives no benefit but
still gives benefit.

(4) THUS: Thus the art of governing and all other true arts do not, by themselves, provide for
their own interest but only for their weaker subjects.

(5) SEP: Since no one will provide for anothers benefit/interest without receiving a benefit in
return, all artists, including rulers, must be paid to care for their weaker subjects: paid in money, honor, or penalty for refusal of service.

(6) DEF: Good rulers do not care for money or honor and rule under threat of penalty: of
someone worse ruling and messing everything up.

(7) THUS Definition #2c is self-contradictory. k. But perhaps Thrasymachus is still correct in that Definition #3: The unjust life is superior
and brings more happiness than the life of the just. (p. 21) Injustice has wisdom and virtue and Justice has ignorance and vice.

(1) SEP: The just person would not try to conquer the just person (or have more than the just.) (2) SEP: The just person would however try to conquer the unjust but, being weaker, would not
be able to do it.

(3) SEP: The unjust person tries to conquer both the just and the unjust. (4) THUS: The definition of the just is: The just desires to only have more than his unlike but not
his like. And the definition of the unjust is: The unjust desires to have more than his like and unlike.

(5) SEP: All unjust persons share in the same quality of likeness in this case, wisdom and
virtue; and the same with just persons ignorance and vice.

(6) SEP: With respect to the arts: the specific artist, say a musician, has wisdom (knowledge)
whereas those who lack the art, the unmusical, do not have wisdom (of music) and the artists practices the art like a true artist not a fool lacking in wisdom of the art.

(7) Same with the wise and ignorant. The wise will all seek the same standard that they agree on
for knowledge and will ignore the ignorant.

(8) SEP: Those who have knowledge are wise and the wise are good. (9) THUS the wise and good will not want to have more than their like types but certainly they
will want to have more than their unlike and opposite types, the ignorant.

(10) The bad and ignorant of course will want to have more than both to have more than what
other like types have and to have more than what unlike types have (the wise).

(11) Socrates then reminds Thrasymachus of (4) above the unjust wants more than his like and
unlike.

(12) THUS the just is like the wise and good and the unjust is like the evil and ignorant which is
the opposite of Def. #3 above! (p. 25)

l.

Is it possible for the unjust to be wholly unjust?

(1) An unjust state may unjustly try to enslave other states. (2) If Socrates is correct, the unjust state can only successfully rule with justice. (3) If Thrasymachus is correct the unjust state can only rule without justice. (4) SEP: A group of evildoers, an unjust gang or state or army, could not successfully act nor rule
if they harmed one another but if they didnt harm one another theyd do better.

(5) SEP: The reason for (4) is because justice imparts harmony and friendship and injustice
creates divisions and hatreds and fights.

(6) THUS: Wherever injustice is found, even within a single person, there will be fighting and
division thus making the unjust person unable to act.

(7) THUS: the only way that the unjust can successfully rule is if there is indeed some remnant or
part remaining in them that is just.

m. But perhaps the unjust still have a happier life than the just (1) SEP: The end or purpose of a horse is that which only the horse, and nothing else, can do. Or
the eye, the ear, etc.

(2) SEP: Whatever has an end or innate purpose also is excellent in this respect. The eye, for
example, is excellent in seeing.

(3) THUS: The soul has an end too that nothing else can do: to govern and command and
deliberate and life itself is one of the ends or goals of the soul.

(4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

THUS: The soul cannot achieve its ends if it is lacking in excellence. SEP: The evil ruler must be an evil soul; the good ruler a good soul. THUS: The just soul and the just man will live well and the unjust badly. THUS: To live well is to be happy and to live badly is to be unhappy. Thus injustice can never be better than justice. But what is justice???

Lecture notes from Ancient Phil Heter, Fall 2006 Plato's Republic Aristotle's Physics, DeAnima and Metaphysics

Plato's, Republic, Book I Main topic: What is Justice? I. Intro --characters: --Socrates. Not this historical Soc, Stand in for Ps own views. --Thrasymachus: challenges Soc, competing view of justic e; Sophist. After BI, drops out. --Glaucon, Adeimantus: yes-men II. Elenchus (Socratic Method) --explicit challenges to method: --337e Soc offers no positive account, never offers own view, only refutes others. --338b Soc wont teach, learns from others, ungrateful --336b, 12. Easier to ask questions than answer; Soc motivated by competitiveness & honor (vices) III. Preview: General Themes AUtopia or Dystopia? --justice --individual justice and a just city --polis (GKcity) political Kallipolis. (imaginary city, perfectly just) --answer: justice = harmony --three elements/classes --Classical criticism of Plato: fascist, closed society, undemocratic, no choice, no freedom, censorship B. Ethics vs. Politics --Plato is a paternalist about govt. [pater = latin for father] --President = your father (metaphorically) --no distinction b/w private and public --leaders direct life-style choices --(ex. alcohol, tobacco, etc. ; USAbedroom) Religion, voting, etc. --the state is a big family. C. Human Nature --soul is divided --reason v. passion --reason is superior --constant struggle D.Virtues --functional account of virtues --purpose of X = the good of X. --human virtue depends on human purpose --craft analogy: good musicianplays music well. --tension in Ps view: the good = Form vs. craft.

--main virtues: 1justice 2moderation 3wisdom 4courage

Republic, Book I, continued Three definitions of Justice: I. First: Cephalus --justice is telling the truth and paying dues. --Counter-example: instance/case/scenario reveals a problem with the definition; Case where you tell the truth, but it isnt just. --mil secrets as POW --lie to protect someone --protect others feelings (children) --experiment --pay your dues, but theyre disproportionate. --insane friend asks for his gun back; not just to give it to him. --Conclusions? --can salvage the definition & refine. (Soc rejects it totally) II. Second: Simonides --justice is giving each what they deserve; treating friends well and enemies badly. --Counter-example --ex. rape shouldnt be punished with rape. Only harms, doesnt help. --wanting others to suffer is vicious (Soc.) --punishment should improve not deteriorate the punished (Soc) --Alternative view of punishment (Simonides) deserving the punishment. --what is nature of punishment? --Soc says: to improve the punished --vs. harm the punished. --children being disciplined. --Justice is a techne (craft); cultivate some sense of morality; making the person better not worse. Analogy to horsetraining, medicine, etc. III. Third def (Thrasymachus) --Justice is advantage of the stronger. --Rulers make rules/laws for themselves not for the average citizens. (ex. Tax cuts for rich; pay raises for senators) --concept of justice is corrupt, illusion, scam [--Nietzsche on morality]

--Socs reply: --335d Justice is a techne (craft); crafts always aim to improve their product or student or outcome. Ex. medicine (do no harm) Justice is a techne (craft). Crafts are all similar. Analogy: music, ship building, medicince. --a craft (techne) is: --skill --purpose is to improve [--tools] --product or process --training --can teach it --you must like performing it. --practical, an art *--sense of morality [needs this to answer objections. Ex. craft thats evilrape? Murder? Terrorism? Torture?] --Soc says: being a political leader is a craft. So, pol leaders practice justice; justice must aim at benefit of people not the leader. Not democracy. Leaders are paternalistic (leaders know best; make decisions for you). --Socs replies to Thrasymachus: (1) Leaders make errors; accidentally make laws that dont benefit the rulers. [Notice: Thrasym who now voices the view that Soc voiced in Apology. Namely, ignorance causes evil.] (2) crafts never seek self-advantage. (3) craftspeople are paid wages. Comments/Criticisms: (1)Some crafts that aim at self benefit. Ex. working out; music; --replies: craft of music implies playing for others. Athletics as war or glory for county? (2)No clear definition of craft (arbitrary) --reply: medicine as exemplary; law (3)No ethical/moral guidelines (4) Laws shouldnt mix with morality. --add: do technical norms = morality? 9-23-06 [For Wed: read BII] IV. Conclusions about Justice as techne --Justice is a techne (craft) 1Justice must benefit its subject, not its practitioner. Ts view of justice fails (J is advantage of strong). Political leaders must be paid to practice their craft. --worry: contradictory

2Craftspeople make mistakes, yet theyre still craftspeople. Broken hammer vs. not a hammer. --Soc of Apology: if you have craft of justice then error is impossible. Would always act justly. --Soc of Republic: can have the craft of justice, and yet do the wrong thing. Ex. m.d. 3Morality isnt just power. Ts view. Authority vs. powerex police. Power + the right reasons (ex presidential power) 4Retributive justice: Punishment must improve the punished. Craft. V. Does justice profit? --p.19, 343b T offers a modified view: virtuous people (the just) are unhappy, they suffer; while the unjust are happy. Ex. taxes. --[intuitions: just person is happier b/cknow in their heart; blow off society. Just person isnt happy, b/c of corrupt society.] --Question: Virtue requires recognition. VI.Virtue as Function --352d, p.29 --F(x)what we can do only or best with something (people or crafts). --p.30-1 --Soul = psyche = mind, reason. F(x) is to take care of things, deliberate and rule. Reflection + will (historical Socrates). Separate reflection and will (Plato). --f(x) of soul is to direct **--goodness is inherent in function. --Ex. good musician produces good music. --goodness for humans = deliberating well, reasoning well. --Good = virtue. Grk = Arete functional excellence. Or Virtue. --virtue springs from the essence of the thing. --Justice = virtue of the soul --living well --happiness --So, just person is happy (contra T.) --Happiness = Eudaimonia (Grk) fully flourishing human life.

Republic, Book II I. Types of Goods Three kinds: (1) Intrinsic: valued for own sake Ex. Joy. (2) Instrumental: valued as means to something further; onerous but beneficial. Ex. medicine. (3) Both: valued for itself and as a means. Ex. health. --Education. Try: instrumentaljob. Intrinsic: ? fun, interest, makes you a better person; assume no job, no rewards; Both: education is both for a good job and to learn.

--Soc says: Justice is both instrumental and intrinsic; highest type of good. Comments: (1) Objective goods. Value is not dependent upon people. Mind-independent Ex. diamondsno intrinsic value = subjective. Justice would be around even if we werent. Realism (metaphysical thesis). --Objection: (1) No value w/o humans. Ex. tree; fruit exists; but isnt valuable w/o using it for our purposes. (2) Relativism about justicedefined by culture (ex. US Slavery.) II. Thrasymachus view (Glaucon) --Three theses: (1)J is mean b/w extremes. Best case: steal, cheat, lie and not get caught (do injustice to others). Worst case: victim side. Compromise: set of moral rules (dont kill) (2) Justice is practiced unwillingly. Gyges. (P.35) Vice of outdoing others or (Gk.) Pleonexia. Naturally evil; but weak. [True? Yes. Genocides FalseHigher justice, heaven; inner conscience.] (3)Just person is unhappy; Unjust person is happy. Happy: friends, wealth, power, good job, good mate, social privileges; also buy off the gods. Just person: whipped, stretched on a rack, chained, blinded by fireimpaled [True? This isnt Happiness (love, beauty; subjective view) ] III. Justice --Justice in the city (polis) mirrors justice in soul (virtue). --threefold: balance b/w: --Social principles: (1) div of labor: divide up jobs (2) specialization: perform one craft well, not many poorly. (370b) we arent all born alike (natural talents; anti-democratic) [contrast: career open to talent]

IV. Guardians. --special class. Intellectual, guided by spirit (anger, passion), Soldiers. Guards. Philosophical. Main virtue: courage. Dog breeding (375a). Mutts are bad; breeding is goodbest results; best of the best. --comments: (1) small gene pool; (2) morally offensive (racist) (3) limits freedom. V. Education of Guardians: --Physical: from birth; normal military. --Mental: philosophy, music, math, morality. --communal life, no connection to genetic mothers/fathers, myth of metals; no private property; identify with the whole/state. --Testing? Challenge democratic education. --ex. Germany. --Comments: (1) More egalitarian: state $; (2) loss of freedom of choice. (3) efficient. (4) Tracking can be motivating. --Conclusions: for Plato, Freedom isnt primary; virtue is; state/community is first.

Republic, Book IV. I. Opening Remark: (420c) Individual happiness isnt important. Balance b/w groups. Harmony. Different type of H for each class. II.Four Main Virtues in Polis: (A) Wisdom: knowledge; judgment; Not mere skill knowledge. Craftspeople arent wise. Phil kings. Theoretical knowledge (Forms). --tension: Knowledge: techne vs. episteme. Analogy to medicine (moral K is skill). Counteracted by the theory of Forms (sun analogy). Requires universal K, not particular K. the good (B) Courage: preservation of the belief about what things are to be feared (429d) Appropriate fear. --education and virtue. Forming a character trait. Habit. Reinforcement. Social custom (esp laws) --Courage and non-human animals. Motive and intellectual component. --suicide bomber, brave nazi, etc (C)Moderation: self-control keeping desires in check. Allowing reason to control passion and appetite. (D) Justice: doing ones work and not meddling (433b) Diffuse virtue. Justice entails the other virtues. --objection: J doesnt add anything. III. Division of Soul --Three parts: --Reason: (BI) deliberates, plans, controls, thinks. --Spirit: emotional, anger, passionate. --Appetite: physical desire, hunger. --prescriptive (tells how we ought to be) comes from description (how we are). Derive moral rules from psychology. --(A) Appetite --437e hunger, thirst, sexual appetite. Base physical needs. NO intellectual component. Non-human animals. not rational. --Example: can forbid ourselves from acting on desires. Pit reason against desire. --desires to drink water and desires not to drink water. --ex. salt water . Reason tells us not to drink. --Objection: [French Materialism] desire vs. desire. Strongest desire always wins. --Two cases: (1)diet: want to eat, but you dont. Materialist: competing desire, not reason, caused you to act. (2)sexual desire: deemed inappropriate. --Conclusions: (a) not all motives are desires (b) reason distinguishes humans from non-humans. (B) Spirit --part by which we get angry --associated with virtue of courage.

--isnt appetite. --Leontius ex. Angry at self for acting on passion/appetite, not reason. --Objections: (1) emotion vs. appetite. Joy is physical state (ex drugs). Emotions are just dressed up appetites. [reply: lust vs. love] (2) Anger at self for acting inappropriately on reason, not appetite? Eating disorder. (3) emotional virtues other than courage? (sympathy, emotion of generosity, )

--Concl: division looks good. Maybe reason and spirit are more bodily. Virtue is reason in control. IV. Virtue in Soul --virtue: (functional excellence) = balance in the soul. Ex. musical balance. Each person plays own part; no one person stands out. --injustice = meddling --ex. hedonism (pleasure is the good) appetites rule. ?Happiness? --ex. spirit tries to rule. Manic. No balance. Unhappy. --ex. Reason w/o knowledge [?] --So: does justice pay? Is the just person (virtuous person) happy? --445 Platos view: just person is happy b/c theyre moderate (everything in its place; some appetites are necessary), think and act reflectively (wisdom), healthy emotional life (courage +); life thats complete and balanced. Package deal = justice. Nature of the soul defines happiness.

Republic, Book V I. Justice is a Form. (Gk: Eidos, Idea) --absolute definition; perfect concept; exemplar. Mind-independent. Non-material. Abstract. Not an object, but it is thing-like. --analogy to beauty. (476b) --compare a beautiful thing vs. beauty itself. II. Plato is a realist: forms exist without humans. Just like materials objects exist, even if humans dont. Vs. anti-realist: ideas are human creations; mind-dependent. desks dont exist if humans arent around to call them desks. Republic, Book VI I.Ship Analogy (488-9) Ship: --each sailor tries to steer --no sailor knows navigation --deny the art (techne) of navigation --gain access to rudder though force, trickery, sophism --captain = a person who can force others to allow him to steer --deny astronomy as relevant

Analogue: --sailors = average people --ship = polis --steering = (a) political rule; holding office; voting; forming laws; (b) controlling own life. --art of navigation = political rule & self-rule; and astronomy is to navigation as philosophy is to politics. --av. people dont und connection b/w phil and politics/self-rule. --av people also dont know how to run own lives --av people think that pol leadership = art of good speaking, likeability, etc. --Objections: --(1) Navigation v. Destination. Cab analogy: just b/c you know how to drive the cab, not entitled to say where it goes. --Reply: techne of driving or navigation is wide and inclusive; tour guide. --still unsatisfying: I know what I want to see; dont know how to get there. --techne of political leadershipinclude private decisions about diet, worship, work, education, finances, etc. Ex. ban smoking. (2) dis-analogy b/w navigation and pol leadership. (3)Av people are rational and wise; know whats best for them. Ex. we wouldnt try to fly the plane --replies: taxes, smoking, alcohol; violent crime. (4)Dont have to be a cobbler to know if the shoe fits. (Aristotle) Can know a good shoe, even if I lack the techne of cobbling. --reply: the architect knows if the plan you drew will work.

Aristotles Physics I. Knowledge Aristotle = scientific method, 4th BCE, 17th C. Departed from most of Platos major claims, esp Forms. Gk word episteme = scientific knowledge. Not craft K. Define sci K: Causal K. (gk aitiareason or explanation) K is of things that could not be otherwise. Necessary (non-contingent). [? Platonic def] K requires demonstration; deductive argument. Induction is said to be deduction. Induction: observe and generalize; but you have to observe all members of a class. Comments: Platonic or non-Platonic? How does account for K is the empirical sciences? Induction? Cant assert iv. Is knowledge of universals or particulars? A says: yes, both simultaneously. compounds ex. human. Anti-Platonic. concrete universalindividual that fully captures the essence of something.

II. Natural Science Physics = wider than our def. For Aristot. physics is natural objects with internal principles of motion Anti-Platonic impulse: natural sci, not pure geometry. Requires senses. Induction. Observation and repetition. Scientific method. As biology: 1/5 of his corpus. General principle = teleology (Grk. Purpose). Everything in nature has a purpose. Biology = center of ethics. Contrast Plato. (ex. sexual preference)

III Elements Cosmology: origin & nature of universe. Greeks astronomy. Fundamental stuff of the universe. Aristotles four elements: (1) earth (down) (2) air (up) (3) water (down, wet) (4) fire (up, hot, dry) Problem: explain circular motion (the stars) the fifth essence aether

IV. Change Important for Greeks. Is change real or illusory? --pre-Socratics: Change is illusory. Zenos paradox. --Motion does not take place. --Move from A to B, requires an infinity of mean points; Im finite. --Cant step in to the same river twice Heraclitus. Flux. Aristotle: change is real, but there are underlying first principle which dont change. Substance fundamental, unchanging, can be passed on (cats, etc.) V. Four causes (aitia) (1) Materialthe matter, (ex. book = paper) (2) Formalshape or nature (ex book-ness) (3) Efficientcreator (ex. author of the book) (4) Final causepurpose (ex. to read)

11/2/06 Aristotles On The Soul (de Anima) Greek title: psuche (soul). Psychologystudy of the mind. Fr esprit = mind or spirit or soul. Grm geist mind or spirit. I. Overview Human Nature. What defines us. Rational soul nous vs. nutritive soul, perceptive soul. Epistemology [knowledge] Biological account. Knowledge is a f(x) of our biology. Metaphysics: is the soul real? Material? Dualism? Soul is the animating principle of the body. Rejects dualism. Biological explanation. Soul = life. Plants & non-human animals have souls. Desire. Phil of Mind: fits w/ topics in de Anima. Main topic: can we give a physical explanation of thinking? EEGs, etc. Brain vs. mind?

II. Body and Soul hylo-morphism Matter and form. Anti-Platonic. Cannot separate matter and form. Def of soul first principle of animal life (I:1) Life. BII:1 (165) soul is the actuality of the body if the eye were an animal, sight would be its soul. Or the soul of an axe, is the what-ness of the axe. Function. Actuality. Soul is the actuality of the matter (body). Analogy: clay is the matter (body), and giving a shape (mug) is the actuality. Soul is our shape or form. My creator = my parents, the Form is passed on. (Note: Prime mover = original source of motion.) Aristotles view is middle position b/w reductive materialism and dualism. Soul emerges from the body; animates the body. Implication: no life after death. Wax ex. (p. 166) that the soul cannot be separated from the body is quite clear (167) W/o the body in motion, no soul. Soul isnt a thing, its an activity. Activity = motion. Internal motion (not inert).

Possible objection: (1) No explanation of the origin of the soul. Individual or species. Reply: how we got life, parents (DNA). But: only pushes it back to the first life; where did the single cell orgs come from? Try: spontaneous generation. [19th Century: Arist view heretical] Conclusion: Naturalistic, scientific understanding of the soul. Soul = life. So: no religious implications of psuche. Historically: St. Thomas Aquinas uses Aristotle to defend Catholic notion of the soul. P. 168

III. Nutritive soul Def: the f(x) of living things to take in nutrients, to grow and reproduce. Common to all living things. Ex plant. Worries: (1) viruses, fire (Arist). Reply: no proportionality; growth with purpose. (2) People who are reduced to vegetative states still have souls; yet on As view, they dont. Reply: not alive. But: moral, religious groundsa soul doesnt require life in As sense, ex. vegetative human ought to be treated like a person, full rights. (3) Plants dont have souls. Voting? Heaven? Marry a plant IV. Perceptive Soul Def: active faculty of sensation (five senses), shared by all animals, inlc. non-human animals. Active not passive. Excludes plants. (sunflowers?) Maybe plants have primate feeling of touch. Ex. red paint, spills. Perceive red = transfer of red-ness. Contrast Locke (17th C empiricism) Objections: (1) Animal dont have souls. Reply: animal rights.

IV. Perception Unique to animals. Active, not passive. Plants might have touch, primitive. Dont share other important sensations: smell, sight, hearing, taste. Add: pain & pleasure. Cows have pain: (1) physiological; (2) intuition of their consciousness. Counter-examples: worms? Comments: (1) perception as active, not passive; [language] Kind of organism you are partially determines your perceptive and rational abilities. (2) Perception is the model for intelligence. (3) Particular counter-examples: Koko, Rico (Dog language? Learns through process of elimination.). Replies: communication, not language. Not genuine thinking, rote association. Quick, largely passive. **Tied to individual. V. Reason (Nous) Humans only. Thinking. Reason. Grasping universals (not just particulars), ex. humans = logical category, color, number. The understanding. Deliberation. Concepts. Language. Selfawareness. Reflection. Humans are rational animals or political animals (zoon politikon). Our nature is sociality. Implication: human DNA isnt enough for personhood or humanity. [Heter adds: not necessary either] (1) Wolf baby. Lacks nous. Objection: biologically determined. (2) Koko. Has nous Worry: (1) wouldnt respect life = Hitler. (2) Implausible b/c implies mentally handicapped arent fully human.

11/9/06 Aristotles Metaphysics Book I (Alpha)

I. Intro Def: Science of being first philosophy Not knowledge of natural world (observation), nat world isnt prior logically. Main topic: Substance (fundamental stuff of universe) Different views: Early Aristotle: Categories: individual is substance (ex. this person; a given person). Physics: substance is form + matter (compound) Metaphysics: four possibilities for what is substance: Essence Universal Genus Subject Whats the attraction of Platonism? Allows us to say human about a category of individual people. (one and many) But, forms dont have independent existence. II. Ch. 1 Human knowledge? Not narrowly for survival. Theoretical. Relation of theory and practice. Understanding (nous/reason) isnt mere experience (perception). Grasping universals. Necessary for both art and science. Text: P.256

11/13/06 Metaphysics, Book Alpha (I) II. Ch.1 III. Ch. 2

II. Chapter 1 Medical practice is clue to substance. Techne involves a situated application of universals. Ex. anatomy (universal), but to apply = particular. Also, true scientist doesnt just cure or practice, she understands why. Ex. hack drgets the right result, but not for the right reason. Lacks understanding (blood chem.) Test of a master craftsperson or scientist = teaching. Not necessary that you be a better performer. Rather, theory = higher grade of knowledge. Conclusions: 1Science and techne are better than mere experience. Objection: 20 yr experience vs. fresh from college. 2Arts and Sciences require situated universal knowledge. 3Natural human tendency to explain why (unique to humans) 4First philosophy is required for everything.

III. Chapter 2 Who has the virtue of Sophia (wisdom)? Those who can explain why (aitia, cause). Understand science (episteme). p. 257, 2nd para. Universals = episteme; not based on senses. Philosophy is not productive, not utilitarian, not biologically needed for survival. Philosophy requires leisure, escape from mere survival and work. Philosophy is a pure pursuit (intrinsically valuable). Objection: (1) metaphysics is useless [American Pragmatists: Dewey, Rorty] Are no answers, doesnt get us anywhere. Ex. Ethical goalhow can we treat each other better? Pass a law (Human Rights). Compare physicssmall revisions, common assumptions, progress. Replies: Socratic reply: phil is in the question asking, not the answer. Reply: to not ask why is to fail to be human Reply: productive sciences (ex. medicine, pottery, auto) appeal to base values, material values. Not spiritual. Care for the soul (Socrates). Conclusion: --we become god like when we escape nature and its necessity. --p. 259 Reading: Book IV, B VII (Ch 1-4) Metaphysics Book IV

I. Chapter 1 Definition of Metaphysics: study of being-as-being. Clarify concept of existence. Distinct from physics (study of matter, energy, etc.). Objects as existing. Doesnt ask what does it mean to exist? II. Chapter 2 Concept Being is ambiguous. Is there a single science? Substance vs. attribute. Both have existence, but only one is fundamental. Ex V is white, is short, and is Using is in three different ways. Criticism of Platonic forms: Good food (culinary) Good sculpture (aesthetics) Good argument (logic, rhetoric) Good surgery (medicine) Conclusion: no single science of the good. Good isnt a substance. Forms arent substances. Reply: ethics is the discipline of the good. What about metaphysics? Single science? Try: family resemblance b/w sub-species of a given species. Ex. Medicine (species, single sci) includes cardiology, oncology, etc (sub-species). Ex. Existence Humans exist Plants exist Protons exist Numbers exist Try: existence is logical or linguistic relationship. We say X exists. Not Aristotle. Metaphysics tells us about the world, not just our language. P 265 (last para) Existence is the study of substances. Study objects completely generically, all objects are the same. Contrast physics: science of matter, have to answer what is matter?, which is a metaphysical question. Questions of definition. Ex. atomismbasic stuff of reality. Problem: what if we discover we can divide atoms? Redefine matter (doing metaphysics). Defining metaphysics is also doing metaphysics. Come up with basic concepts that reflect reality. [Further point: Within metaphysics, basic question is realism vs. anti-realism. Realism: language reflects reality (both Aristotle and Plato) Anti-realists: language constitutes reality ]

So: what is the real stuff of the universe? (For Aristotle?) Human is a substance (compound of form & matter). Vs. mind-body dualism (mind is substance & body is substance, 2 different substances) Two different humans are the same substance. With different attributes. Human is one type of substance; dogs, tables, and other natural kinds are substances. Conclusion: For Aristotle, substance = form & matter, not just form (Plato).

Read: Metaphysics VII (Ch. 1-4) Today: Metaphysics Book IV contd. III. Ch.3 IV. Ch. 4 Review: Metaphysics studies existence. Things in universality. Not productive. Whats removed from senses is god-like. Tempered with empiricism. III. Ch. 3 What are the axioms in metaphysics? Reply: law of non-contradiction. Whats relation of logic and metaphysics? Close. Logic is constrained by nature (being). Logic isnt a mere convention, tool. Language is. Logic is contained within metaphysics. Law of non-con. (p 267) for the same thing to hold good and not to hold good.in the same respect is impossible. Any proposition P and its opposite ~P form a contradiction. (P and ~P) is false. Counter-examples: Daoism (the way and not the way). Trinity (jesus is god and not god/man and not man). Reply: mysticism. Doesnt make intellectual sense. Im at the meeting and not at the meeting. Reply: same respect caveat. IV. Ch.4 Principle of non-con cannot be demonstrated. Is this a problem? For empirical claims: need to be able to falsify them to them to count as true. Arisot considers two objections: (1) theoretical: should accept claims only based on proof, not on sheer faith or supposition. Socratic def of knowledge is justified true belief.

Law of non-con has no justification So we shouldnt accept it. Reply: Not an empirical claim. **To be able to give a proof requires that we assume the truth of the law of non-contradiction. Second objection: practical. Many people dont follow the law of non-con. Reply: many people have false beliefs. **Nobody could explain why the law of non-con was false. Ex. talking to your friend a/b Wawa. Not rational. Cant talk or have a conversation. Implications: Logic is the basis of thought, empirical and non-empirical. Foundationalismwe have basic beliefs which are not themselves justified. Epistemology [study of knowledge]: What grounds our belief in law of non-con? Not senses. Rational intuition. Or inevitable appeal to principle in dialogue. Innate (Plato). Science: Aristotle commits to two notions of sci (1) Platonic, deductive, non-empirical (2) Empirical, inductive. Law of non-con is foundational for all sci. Holds for everything that is substance.

Metaphysics, Book VII Note: Essays due Nov 30th (Thurs) Read: Aristotles Ethics, Book I I. Chapter 1 Substance = what-ness (opposed to how many, what color, properties) Not quality or quantity. Substance underlies predication. Predication is a conceptual relationship that expresses reality. Logic reflects things themselves. Language reflects reality. Subject + (substance), predicate. (accident)

Ex. X is blue Y is blue and Z is blue, Platos arg for forms. Predicates are forms. Arists objection: predicates arent self-standing; they inhere in something. P. 284, l. 20 Test for substance is basic-ness, self-sufficiency.

Objection: if exists is a predicate, metaphysics is the study of existence, substance is existence. --As reply: existence isnt a predicate, is is contained in all predicates. --? Is existence a form? Summary of A: reality = X can exist on its own. Rules out properties. (ex. redness; existence) II. Ch. 2 Methodology: common opinion endoxa. Starting point. Reflect on it. Forms are said to be: (1) sensible objects (matter) (ex. trees, plants, people) (2) mathematical objects As view: substance = compounds of 1 & 2. III. Ch3 Matter is not substance. Problem: couldnt make distinctions (ex. b/w people and cows, or b/w cow1, cow2, cow3) IV. Ch4 Distinguish accident and essence. Essence: what, definition, what makes you yourself. Accident: not part of our nature, add-on, non-necessary part of us. Ex. gender is an accidental quality of a particular human. Substance is essence. Essences arent just definitions; not arbitrary; rooted in nature (material). Ex. Human as species (vs. dogs, cats) Ex. no natural reality to racial divisions. Arbitrary, conventional. Upshot: substance is essence, with the additional of underlying material bases (ex. species). General Conclusions (Arist & Substance) 1--Plato thinks Form are substances 2Aris says substance = compound of form and matter. 3Arist: substance is also Essence (whatness). Humans discover natural divisions. 4Arist: substance underlies predication (subs = subject, not verb) 5Arist: realist, substances are discovered, not arbitrary, not just names or conventions.