5 October
2001
Scribes: David
Dagenais and Lukasz
Felczak
These
minutes were spoken on 10 October.
Announcement of two talks by David
Sedley: Thursday 11 October, UC 179, 4-6, on “Democritus and the Origins
of Greek Atomism”. Friday 12
October, Ignatieff Theatre, Trinity College, 4-6, on “Platonist
commentators and the uniqueness of Socrates”.
After reporting on the School of
Philosophy (mentioned in the previous lecture) and clearing up some confusion
with respect to the scribes, Professor Hutchinson re-introduced Protagoras and
the new style of education that began to emerge in Ancient Greece. This was the
teaching of practical knowledge for money; introduced by the first sophists.
Protagoras contrasts fruitful and unfruitful perceptions and he believes that
there is no value in discussing the truth of one perception over another. We
shall come back to the issue of relativism in November when we examine
Plato’s Theaetetus.
Prodicus shared many of the
characteristics attributed to Protagoras.
He also charged money for his teaching, with the same practical focus of
convincing speech with the power of words. His main interests were the language
arts. Poets, philosophers,
intellectuals, and luminaries served as ambassadors and were sent to the councils
of neighbouring cities. Prodicus
was sent from Ceos to Athens.
After Prodicus’ presentation, the Athenian council was so
impressed, that word of his intellectual prowess quickly spread throughout
Athens. Thus, it established his
reputation in Athens and this allowed him later to procure young men for his
lecture series and allowed him, like Protagoras, to become quite wealthy.
Plato’s portrayal of Prodicus
was next discussed. In Plato’s testimony (T3), Professor Hutchinson
wanted to point out Plato’s sarcasm, when poking fun at Prodicus’
50-Drachma exposition and his obsession with the topic of how to correctly use
words. As we can see from his
showpiece “The Choice of Heracles” paraphrased by Xenophon in his Memoirs
of Socrates II.1, his writing is vivid with a mellifluous unity. Secondly, he
showed great interest with apparent synonyms and made it his mission to draw
distinctions between different words.
Professor Hutchinson then read from
Plato’s Protagoras starting at 335c. At 337a,
Prodicus is made out to be a pedant; he is excessively fussy in his view of
words. Although Prodicus’ belief is that in sharpening our use of words,
we can become better speakers, it is not accepted warmly by Plato. As a final
note attached to Prodicus, he belonged to the camp of philosophers that doubted
the true existence of gods.
(In reference to T12, preserved in
Pherc1428, we were told the story of the twin cities of Herculaneum and
Pompeii, which were buried in AD 79 by a volcanic eruption of Mount
Vesuvius. When workers were laying
the foundation of a new house in 1757, they came upon a villa which had been
buried in the eruption. Since the
villa contained several texts written on papyrus, it became known in the 18th
century as ‘the villa of the papyri’. Unfortunately, the texts of papyrus were barbecued in the
volcanic eruption. When
researchers tried to open the scrolls, the papyrus merely crumbled to
dust. They, therefore, stopped
doing that. In the last 5 to 6
years, chemists have discovered a technique (which took decades to develop)
whereby dipping the papyrus in chemical solutions it can become usable. Thanks to this breakthrough, the
researchers are proceeding to unroll and read new books from the ancient world. The scholar Dr. David Sedley, who is
lecturing this week, has worked on the Herculaneum papyri and is an expert on
the preserved scrolls. Sometimes
scholars even have to dig classical texts out of volcanoes.)
Professor Hutchinson went on to
explain why Prodicus said skeptical things of the gods. We worship them because of a feeling of
gratitude in life. For example,
when water quenches our thirst, we are grateful and therefore we pray to the
god of water. This, however,
undercuts the main reason for believing in God which is to talk to Him. Similarly, Democritus of Abdera proposed
physical explanations of our visions of the gods. These mechanical explanations undermined the conventional
religion.
In
his Hippias Minor,
Plato’s criticism of Hippias is nastier and less enjoyable than it is in
the dialogue Protagoras. Professor Hutchinson then
read from T1 on page 253 of The First Philosophers: “What a happy feeling,
Hippias, to enter the sacred precinct at every Olympic festival with such
confidence in your mental expertise.
I very much doubt that any athlete goes there to compete with such
sanguine confidence in his physical prowess as you claim you have in your
intelligence. Naturally
that’s how I feel, Socrates: ever since I began to compete at Olympia, I
have never been up against anyone who could beat me at anything.” (The
First Philosophers 253)
Evidently
Hippias is represented as an appallingly conceited man. Socrates mentions that
Hippias cobbles his own shoes, makes his own clothing, developed his own system
of memory, wrote his own poetry, etc.
Although he knows everything, Hippias has a complete lack of
self-understanding of the disagreeability of his self-praise to those around
him.
“Socrates. But what do the Spartans praise
you for, and enjoy hearing about?
I suppose it must be your special branch of knowledge, astronomy. Hippias. Not at all.
That’s a subject they don’t even tolerate. Socrates. But does geometry given them any pleasure? Hippias. No. It’s
barely an exaggeration to say that many of them can’t even count. Socrates. Then they won’t put up with you lecturing on
arithmetic. Hippias. Certainly not. Socrates. Then they must enjoy the subject in which your analytical
abilities are so exceptional, the significance of letters, syllables, rhythms,
and intonations. Hippias. My dear Socrates! Intonations and letters! Ha! Socrates. So which
lecture-subject of yours gives them pleasure and wins you their praise? You’ll have to tell me yourself,
because I’m stuck. Hippias. The genealogies of heroes and men, and how cities were
founded in the distant past: in short, antiquarianism in general is what they
most enjoy hearing about, and so I was obliged to make a thorough study of the
whole subject until I’d mastered it. Socrates. Well, Hippias, you’re certainly lucky that the
Spartans don’t enjoy the enumeration of Athenian arkhontes from Solon
onwards, otherwise you’d have had a job mastering it. Hippias. Why, Socrates? I can reel off fifty names after
hearing them only once. Socrates. You’re right.
I wasn’t taking your mnemonic technique into account. Now I understand the situation: the
Spartans treat you as children do old women, to tell them pleasant stories; so
naturally they enjoy you and your vast store of knowledge.” (Plato, Hippias
Major 285b-286b = T2 Waterfield, The First Philosophers ,
“Hippias of Elis”)
Hippias is
ridiculed by Plato for being appallingly conceited. He does not even realize that Socrates is insulting him by
comparing his lectures to the Spartans to the pleasant stories that old women
tell children. Hippias is
portrayed as having the ambition to know everything.
F1 gives a different impression of
Hippias: "Some of these things may perhaps have been said by Orpheus or,
in a brief and scattered fashion, by Musaeus; some may have been said by Hesiod
or Homer or other poets; some by Greek or foreign prose-writers. But from among all these sayings I will
make a collection of the most important and closely related passages, and I
will make out of them a new and multifaceted account." (The First
Philosophers
255) F1 shows that Hippias
undertook a campaign to go as far back as possible in the Greek speaking world
and to put these texts together in “a new multifaceted
account”. This fragment
reveals Hippias’ effort to go and collect writing. This is the first time someone has gone
out to do a systematic selection of philosophical writings. Aristotle had supposedly bought
Hippias' library. Aristotle, like
Hippias, had a love of books; he reputedly had a standing order that he would
compensate anyone who bought books in other cities which could add to his
collection. If Protagoras,
therefore, was the first professor, Hippias was the first scholar.
Antiphon was one of the thinkers
concerned with the subject of Nature vs. Convention. The evidence that we have, however, of Antiphon’s
writings is tricky given the fragmentary state of the material. Before Antiphon began examining the
subject of Nature vs. Convention, people were already beginning to argue over
Natural Laws versus Man's Laws.
People realized that the laws which were imposed on them were not
natural. How can people take laws
seriously when the same people who make the laws repeal them? The issue of where laws get their
authority when they are not natural is a perennial question. When do laws have authority when they
are not natural, not universal? To
this day, some philosophers are still debating this question. (Some of Antiphon’s fragments
were found at Oxyrhunchus in Egypt, in a papyrus-recycling depot of sorts,
which contained mostly bills, lawyers' documents, etc., but also several works
of philosophical and scientific interest.)
Clearly the
Sophists were asking important questions, they made money, and they used
sophisticated language arts. A
student then commented that Plato and his character Socrates make the Sophists
sound like tele-evangelists.
Professor Hutchinson explained that Plato did not invent the prejudice
against the Sophists. A dislike
for Sophists was already present before Plato wrote his dialogues. Sophists, with their mastery over
language, were not liked by those who lost to them in court. The people who did not like the
Sophists were mainly those who did not have their ideas; they, therefore,
resisted both the Sophists and their ideas.