These minutes were not
spoken; for another version, go to the spoken minutes
In
today’s lecture, our guest speaker, Andrea Falcon, gave us an overview
of Antisthenes with respect to
today’s assigned readings, The Dinner Party[1]
and Antisthenes of Athens.[2] He began the lecture remarking on how
little has been preserved of Antisthenes’s writing and that this forces us
to rely mainly on ancient secondary sources when studying his work. Next, he
pointed out that while Plato had referred to Antisthenes only once in Platonic
writings, Aristotle had done so many times. As to why this was so, he would
explain later in the lecture.
Falcon
then directed our attention to a class handout that began with the statement,
“Antisthenes was a Socratic Philosopher.” He read the following
passage from the handout:
T1 He started out being a pupil of Gorgias the orator […] But
later
on he came into contact with Socrates, and derived so much
Benefit from him that he used to
advise his own students of Socrates along with him.[3]
He then remarked on what a “close and
devoted” follower of Socrates Antisthenes was. So much so that, as gathered
from the Phaedo,[4]
he was present at the death scene in, along with Crito, Critobulos, Hermogenes
and others. It seems that while Socrates was certainly known for having an
enormous impact on somewhat inexperienced and impressionable young men, Antisthenes,
was relatively older and already had expertise. Falcon emphasized however, that
Antisthenes was not merely a pupil (or more specifically, a
“companion,” since Socrates opposed the idea of being thought of as
a teacher.)
Going
back to the reason as to why Antisthenes was mentioned only once by Plato,
Falcon suggested that there was a struggle for interpretation of Socrates, and
that Antisthenes was among philosophers such as Xenophon and Plato himself to
do so.
Falcon again directed our attention to the class
handout. Reading aloud from it, he stated that Antisthenes promoted “a
certain interpretation” of Socrates centering itself on the moral
question of, “How should one live their life?” Falcon pointed out
that Antisthenes was subsequently primarily a moral philosopher. Similarly,
other philosophers had their own interpretation of Socrates; for instance,
Aristotle interpreted the main focus of Socrates being with ethical questions
“and not at all with nature as a whole.”[5]
Falcon then began a focused discussion on The
Dinner Party. He observed that this was a typical example of Socratic
literature, and that Plato also has a version, (thus, an example of struggle by
different philosophers for interpretation of Socrates.) He reminded the class
of the context of the dinner party itself: that it was organized and hosted by
Callias (one of the wealthiest members of Athens, who himself had an interest
in the Sophists) that Socrates and his companions were initially reluctant to
attend but went so as not to offend Callias. He went on to remind us of the
various topics discussed at the venue, such as “virtue,”
“love” and “expertise.” With regard to the topic of
“expertise,” more specifically, which expertise each member of the
dinner party felt they were most proud of, Antisthenes proclaimed that his was
wealth. Falcon remarked on the paradoxical nature of this claim since
Antisthenes himself admits that he hasn’t a penny! However, he then
referred to the following to explain what Antisthenes meant by this: “I
believe that it’s not in their estates that people have their wealth or
poverty, but in their mind.”[6]
At this point, Falcon then stated that the word
“mind” was not a proper translation of what was meant in the text,
and that it should instead be substituted with the word “soul,”
since this was a more accurate translation. Falcon’s interpretation of
this was that the disposition of the soul does not depend on what one has, but
in making what one has enough. In this way, one can attain eudaimonia. He points
out that, Antisthenes insists that self-control is very important in trying to
attain eudaimonia, since we may not gain any control over external things and
so we have to control ourselves in other ways. However, Falcon notes that
Antisthenes recognizes that we are indeed souls within a living body and
therefore have human survival needs such as those for shelter, warmth, sex, and
that these are nonetheless natural. On the other hand, however, Antisthenes
states that we need to self-control and not self-deny ourselves with regards to
such needs. It is seen that Antisthenes advocates a minimalist life in order to
attain eudaimonia. Furthermore, according to Antisthenes, in this way, one may
appreciate luxuries if they are available, while knowing what is truly
important. Falcon then linked this idea to a question asked by Socrates in Memoirs
of Socrates,[7] whereby
Socrates asks the question “What is happiness to be associated
with?” Antisthenes is indeed
taking up this question and seems to be suggesting that while we cannot be
self-sufficient, we can be self-controlled, and this is how to reach ultimate
eudaimonia.
A
student then asked, “If one is content with their surroundings, why then
should they indulge in luxuries?”
To this, Falcon replied that perhaps a better way to approach this
concern would be remember that Antisthenes was advocating self-control and not
self-denial, and that there is admittedly no threat in enjoying luxuries when
available.
Next,
a student asked, “How do you train for self-control?” Falcon
suggested that the way in which one would train for such a task would be to
indulge in only the simple things and to exercise in frugality of the body.
That is, to eat only when hungry, to drink only when thirsty and so on. Falcon
compared running with learning virtue: one must run regularly in order to stay
fit, whereas, virtue cannot be lost once learned.
Another question was raised, as to why self-denial is such a bad thing. To this, Falcon replied that, admittedly, we, as embodied beings have certain needs and emphasized Antisthenes’ claim that we should strive to achieve self-control rather than self-denial.
Lastly,
a student queried whether one truly knows when they are happy considering the
possibility that one can be in self-denial about this in itself. He added, that
it seemed as if a certain amount of excessiveness was necessary in order to
attain happiness, claiming that “we’re human after all!”
Falcon replied to this in saying that excessiveness can certainly be
destructive, more often than not. With regards to the connection between
happiness and our so-called “human nature,” Falcon stated that the
state of our soul is not a psychological state, in fact, he added, this was the
qualitative difference between the idea of happiness and eudaimonia.
Falcon
ended the lecture by restating Antisthenes’ emphasis of the relationship
between self-control and eudaimonia and gave us some “food for
thought” in asking whether we thought the self-control was a means to an
end or identical to eudaimonia. He
concluded by suggesting that it seemed from the readings as if they are in fact
identical.
[1] Xenophon, Conversations of Socrates, tr. Tredennick/Waterfield (Penguin 1990).
[2] Diogenes Laerrtius, Lives and Sayings of Famous Philosophers, book VI, chapter 1: Antisthenes.
[3] This hand-out was given in class.
[4] Plato, Complete Works, Hackett.
[5] see handout given in class.
[6] Supra note 1.
[7] Ibid.