Charlemagne (c. 747 - c.

814)
Charlemagne (Charles the Great) was king of the Franks and Christian
emperor of the West. He did much to defne the shape and character of
medieval Europe and presided over the Carolingian enaissance.
Charlemagne was !orn in the late "#$s near %i&ge in modern da' (elgium)
the son of the Frankish king *epin the +hort. When *epin died in ",-) his
kingdom was divided !etween his two sons and for three 'ears Charlemagne
ruled with his 'ounger !rother Carloman. When Carloman died suddenl' in
"".) Charlemagne !ecame sole ruler.
Charlemagne spent the earl' part of his reign on several militar' campaigns
to e/pand his kingdom. He invaded +a/on' in ""0 and eventuall' achieved
its total con1uest and conversion to Christianit'. He also e/tended his
dominance to the south) con1uering the kingdom of the %om!ards in northern
2tal'. 2n ""-) he invaded northern +pain) then controlled !' the 3oors.
(etween "-$ and -$$) Charlemagne added (ohemia to his empire and
su!dued the 4vars in the middle 5anu!e !asin to form a !u6er state for the
eastern !order of his empire.
2n -$$ a re!ellion against *ope %eo 222 !egan. Charlemagne went to his aid in
ome and defeated the re!ellion. 4s a token of thanks) %eo crowned
Charlemagne on Christmas 5a' that 'ear) declaring him emperor of the
omans. 4lthough this did not give Charlemagne an' new powers) it
legitimised his rule over his 2talian territories and attempted to revive the
imperial tradition of the western oman emperor.
7he immense territories which Charlemagne controlled !ecame known as the
Carolingian empire. Charlemagne introduced administrative reforms
throughout the lands he controlled) esta!lishing ke' representatives in each
region and holding a general assem!l' each 'ear at his court at 4achen. He
standardised weights) measures and customs dues) which helped improve
commerce and initiated important legal reforms. He also attempted to
consolidate Christianit' throughout his vast empire. He persuaded man'
eminent scholars to come to his court and esta!lished a new li!rar' of
Christian and classical works.
Charlemagne died in -.#. His successors lacked his vision and authorit') and
his empire did not long outlive him.
Charlemagne) also called Charles 2) !'name Charles the Great) French Charles
le Grand) %atin Carolus 3agnus) German 8arl der Grosse (!orn 4pril 0) "#"9
:died ;anuar' 0-) -.#) 4achen) 4ustrasia <now in German'=)) king of the
Franks (",->-.#)) king of the %om!ards (""#>-.#)) and emperor (-$$>-.#).
PLOTINUS - BIOGRAP!
*lotinus was !orn in %'copolis) Eg'pt) in the 'ear 0$# or 0$? CE. He died in
the 'ear 0"$ CE in Campania) 2tal'. *lotinus was a Greek philosopher.
(eing an adherent of *lato) *lotinus@ primar' aim was to provide a coherent
interpretation and defence of *lato@s philosoph'. For centuries most of *latoAs
works were predominantl' apprehended and understood through *lotinus@
reading and e/plication of the great philosopher. Bet while he is considered to
!e the most important commentator and interpreter of *lato) and
conse1uentl') the founder of Ceoplatonism) *lotinus was also a trul' original
thinker who was inDuenced not onl' !' *lato) !ut also !' the +toics and CeoE
*'thagoreans (and) of course) he was ver' familiar with 4ristotle as well).
7he earl' life of *lotinus is not well known. However) in his midEto late
twenties) *lotinus went to 4le/andria to undertake studies in philosoph'. 4fter
having attended various lectures from the most important philosophers of the
da') he fnall' found his teacher and mentor in 4mmonius +accas) with whom
he studied with until 0#0. *lotinus pursued further studies in *ersian and
2ndian philosoph') and conse1uentl' accompanied Emperor Gordian 222 on a
militar' e/pedition. 4fter the latter@s assassination in 0##) the e/pedition was
thus cancelled in 3esopotamia. Fia 4ntioch) *lotinus then went to ome to
esta!lish a school of philosoph') where he remained as teacher for the ne/t
twent' 'ears.
*lotinus spawned man' studentsEcumEfollowersG among them were the
philosophers 4melius and Eustochius) the emperor Gallienus and his wife)
+alonina) and the important *orph'r'. 2t was *orph'r' who trul' documented
*lotinus and not onl' urged *lotinus to collect his lectures !ut also edited
them into the Enneads (Gr. HenneaIJ nine)) which *orph'r' pu!lished roughl'
thirt' 'ears after the philosopher@s death.
2t is due to *orph'r' that we owe most of our knowledge a!out *lotinus@ life)
and it is !ecause of him that most all of *lotinus@ work has survived) unlike
the works of most other ancient philosophers. *orph'r' divided *lotinus@
collected lectures into si/ !ooks of nine treatises each. 7he' do not follow the
order in which the' were actuall' written and tend also to var' greatl' in
length.
4fter their initial pu!lication) the Enneads were frst pu!lished and translated
into %atin !' 3arsilio Ficino in .#K0 and su!se1uentl') soon gained great
importance for generations of thinkers) especiall' those of the si/teenth and
seventeenth centuries.
2n the frst Ennead *lotinus writes a!out ethics and virtue) !eaut' and
happiness) the second and third are mostl' concerned with cosmolog')
covering topics such as matter) time) !ut also love. 7he fourth concentrates
on the soul while the ffth focuses on the intellect and knowing or knowE
a!ilit'. 7he si/th and fnal te/t) addresses !eing) num!ers) and the HoneI.
*lotinus@ metaph'sics is !ased on three h'postases that together form realit'J
the Lne (or *lato@s HGoodI)) the 2ntellect) and the +oul. 4ccording to him) all
e/istence is created from the unit' of these three h'postases. 2t is through
dialectics that this hierarch' is maintained and thus realit') as the eternal
return to the origin) the Lne) is understood.
7he Lne) of which it is said to have had a great impact on the Christian
conception of God) is the frst (and last) principle) wherefrom all (eing is
emanated. 7ranscendent) indivisi!le) unchangea!le) selfEsuMcient) and
perfect) the Lne is ever'thing and can therefore !e defned onl' as what it is
not. (e'ond description) it is also !e'ond !eing. 2t creates the world) !ut it is
itself not created.
7he 2ntellect (also named H+piritI or HnousI) is emanated from the Lne and
represents Htrue (eing.I For *lotinus) there is no di6erence !etween (eing
and 2ntellectG !oth are one and the same. 7he 2ntellect) outside of time and
space) is an e/planator' principle within which Forms or 2deas are actualiNed.
2t contemplates the Lne and the Forms or 2deas !' which the union of all
three h'postases is achieved. Bet) the 2ntellect is itself a Form) containing the
2deas or Forms of all things. 7here is no di6erence whatsoever !etween Form
and 2ntellect. 7he 2ntellect communicates with things through the +oul) the
principle governing desire.
7he World +oul) emerging from nous) is situated !etween Htrue (eingI and
matter) and forms the connection !etween the 2ntellect and the material
world. *lotinus divides this World +oul into a higher level) which is !oth
intelligi!le and unchangea!le as well as the source of all souls) and a lower)
fragmented level) which represents nature. Bet all souls are one and Oust as
the Lne nurtures the 2ntellect) the 2ntellect nurtures the +oul.
Following the *latonist tradition) *lotinus regards HmaterialI as !eing inferior.
4s a result) 3atter) represents the fourth and lowest level of *lotinus@
emanationEEit lacks actual actualit' or intelligi!ilit'. 2n sum) matter em!odies
ever'thing the Lne is notJ changea!ilit') imperfection) and pluralit'. Pnlike
the intelligi!le) which lacks time and space) matter (or the sensi!le in
general) is spatial. %acking the HGood)I matter is thus HevilI and this evil is
e/perienced onl' in the realm of the lower souls that are in contact with
matter.
*lotinus conceives of Hliving !eingsI as !eing composed of a lower part (the
!od') and a higher) rational part. Human !eings) though somewhere in
!etween the sensi!le and the intelligi!le) !etween thought and emotions) are
frst and foremost souls) their !odies !eing inferior tools. Conse1uentl')
rationalit'EEthat is) the focus on the HLneI or the HGood)I which also leads to
a lack of desireEEis not onl' the ultimate goal of life) !ut also provides the onl'
ke' to happiness) for it is onl' outside of the !od' that su6ering can !e
avoided and a perfect life !e lived. Lnl' the lower part of the soul is su!Oect
to su6ering) and accordingl') is not of too much importance to his philosoph'.
+triving to leave the material world) the human soul reaches the world of
pure spirit:nous:a state of selfEknowledge. Hence) the Lne can ultimatel'
!e reached !' means of an ecstatic union) which is also *lotinus@ conception
of !eaut'. (eaut' is nothing !ut unit' and resides in the nous) and its source
lies in the Good. (eaut' is a Form of the 2ntellectQ+pirit. 2t can onl' e/ist as a
wholeEEall parts must !e !eautiful:parts or fragments themselves cannot
attain !eaut' on their own. (eaut') !eing unchangea!le) can onl' !e
perceived through rationalit' and for *lotinus) love is the love of !eaut'.
Cot surprisingl') *lotinus@ ethics are less oriented towards practical life and
are rather designated to lead the wa' towards the Good in which a likeness to
the Lne is of course the highest end possi!le. 7his possi!ilit' takes place
through means of contemplation. +ince it is alwa's possi!le for the lower soul
to reach towards a higher end) *lotinus does not need to provide an ethics in)
what is understood as) the more traditional andQor practical sense.
However) humans have to undergo a catharsis in order to reach the Lne. 7his
consists of three levelsJ the practical or ethical virtues) which governing the
sensi!le world) remain attached to the worldl' sphere and are therefore
prone to evilG the dianoetic or theoreticalQintellectual virtues) which possess
contemplative traits and are further divided into aesthetic virtues within
which man is united with the world soul and rational virtues) and where man
is thus united with the 2ntellectQ+pirit. 7he highest level) and hardl' attaina!le
state) is that of the ecstatic virtues) which) if attaina!le) leads to an ultimate
union with the Lne.
4rgua!l' the last great Greek philosopher) *lotinus did not onl' have great
inDuence on *orph'r') *roclus and +aint 4ugustine (as well as earl' medieval
philosoph' in general)) !ut also on Erasmus of otterdam) Georg Wilhelm
Friedrich Hegel) and HenriE%ouis (ergson) among others. He continued to
teach in ome until appro/imatel' 0,-. *lotinus then retired to an estate in
Campania) where he died in 0"$. His famous last words are said to read as
followsJ H7r' to !ring !ack the God in 'ourself to the God in the 4llI.
Th"ma# A$%&na#
7homas 41uinas) L* (QRSkwaTnRsQG .00? > " 3arch .0"#)) also 7homas of
41uin or 41uino) was an 2talian<U=<#= 5ominican friar and priest and an
immensel' inDuential philosopher and theologian in the tradition of
scholasticism) within which he is also known as the V5octor 4ngelicusV and
V5octor CommunisV.<?= V41uinasV is from the count' of 41uino) an area his
famil' held land in until ..U". He was !orn in occasecca) 2tal'.
He was the foremost classical proponent of natural theolog') and the father
of 7homism. His inDuence on Western thought is considera!le) and much of
modern philosoph' was conceived in development or opposition of his ideas)
particularl' in the areas of ethics) natural law) metaph'sics) and political
theor'. Pnlike man' currents in the Church of the time)<,= 7homas em!raced
several ideas put forward !' 4ristotle : whom he referred to as Vthe
*hilosopherV : and attempted to s'nthethise 4ristotelian philosoph' with the
principles of Christianit'.<"= 7he works for which he is !est known are the
+umma 7heologica and the +umma contra Gentiles. His commentaries on
+acred +cripture and on 4ristotle are an important part of his !od' of work.
Furthermore) 7homas is distinguished for his eucharistic h'mns) which form a
part of the ChurchWs liturg'.<-=
7homas is honored as a saint !' the Catholic Church and is held to !e the
model teacher for those stud'ing for the priesthood) and indeed the highest
e/pression of !oth natural reason and speculative theolog'. 2n modern times)
under papal directives) the stud' of his works was long used as a core of the
re1uired program of stud' for those seeking ordination as priests or deacons)
as well as for those in religious formation and for other students of the sacred
disciplines (philosoph') Catholic theolog') church histor') liturg') canon law).
<K=
4lso honored as a 5octor of the Church) 7homas is considered the ChurchWs
greatest theologian and philosopher. *ope (enedict XF declaredJ V7his
(5ominican) Lrder ... ac1uired new luster when the Church declared the
teaching of 7homas to !e her own and that 5octor) honored with the special
praises of the *onti6s) the master and patron of Catholic schools.V
A%g%#'&ne "( &))"
+t. 4ugustine was !orn at 7agaste (modern 4lgeria) in 4frica. His father was
a pagan who converted on his death !edG his mother was +aint 3onica) a
devout Christian. He received a Christian up!ringing and in U"$ went to the
Pniversit' at Carthage to stud' rhetoric with a view to !ecoming a law'er.
He gave up law to devote himself to literar' pursuits and graduall'
a!andoned his Christian faith) taking a mistress with whom he lived ffteen
'ears and who !ore him a son) 4deodatus) in U"0. 4fter investigating and
e/perimenting with several philosophies) he !ecame a 3anichaean for
several 'earsG it taught of a great struggle !etween good and evil) and
featured a la/ moral code. 4 summation of his thinking at the time comes
from his ConfessionsJ VGod) give me chastit' and continence E !ut not Oust
now.V 2n U-#) he accepted the chair of rhetoric at 3ilan) and of his tutor)
+implicianus) he returned to his Christian faith and was !aptiNed on Easter
Eve U-". Ln the death of his mother he returned to 4frica) sold his propert')
gave the proceeds to the poor) and founded a sort of monaster' at 7agaste.
He was ordained in UK$ and moved to Hippo where he esta!lished a
communit' with several of his friends who had followed him. Five 'ears later
he was consecrated (ishop and made coadOutor to Falerius) (ishop of Hippo)
whom he succeeded in the following 'ear. 4ugustine !ecame the dominant
fgure in 4frican Church a6airs and was the leader in the !itter fghts against
3anichaeism) 5onatism) *elagianism and other heresies. 4ugustineWs
towering intellect molded the thought of Western Christianit' to such an
e/tent that his 'ears after his death. He wrote profusel') e/positing and
defending the faith) and to this da' man' of his two hundred treatises) some
three hundred sermons are of maOor import in theolog' and philosoph'.
4mong his !est !estEknown works are his ConfessionsG Cit' of God) a
magnifcent e/position of a Christian philosoph' of histor'G 5e 7rinitateG 5e
5octrina ChristianaG EnchiridionG and his treatises against the 3anichaeans
and the *elagians. His later thinking can !e summed up in a line from his
writingsJ VLur hearts were made for Bou) L %ord) and the' are restless until
the' rest in 'ou.V Called 5octor of Grace) he is one of the greatest of the
Fathers and 5octors of the Church) and with the possi!le e/ception of 7homas
41uinas) the greatest single intellect the Catholic Church has ever produced.
(ornJ Covem!er .U) U?# at 7agaste) Cumidia) Corth 4frica (+oukE4hras)
4lgeria) as 4urelisu 4ugustinus
5iedJ 4ugust 0-) #U$ at Hippo (Feast 5a')
*atron +aint ofJ !rewers) theologians) printers) sore e'es) 5iocese of
(ridgeport) ConnecticutG 5iocese of 8alamaNoo) 3ichigan) 5iocese of
+uperior) WisconsinG 5iocese of 7ucson) 4riNon
+'m!ols in 4rtJ child) dove) pen) shell
S'. Bene*&c' "( N%r#&a
+t. (enedict) the Father of Western monasticism and !rother of +cholastica) is
considered the patron of speliologists (cave e/plorers). He was !orn in Cursia)
2tal' and educated in ome. He was repelled !' the vices of the cit' and in
a!out the 'ear ?$$) Ded to Enfde) thirt' miles awa'. He decided to live the
life of a hermit and settled at the mountainous +u!iaco) where he lived in a
cave for three 'ears) fed !' a monk named omanus. 5espite (enedictWs
desire for solitude) his holiness and austerities !ecame known and he was
asked to !e their a!!ot !' a communit' of monks at Ficovaro. He accepted)
!ut when the monks resisted his strict rule and tried to poison him) he
returned to +u!iaco and !ecame a center of spiritualit' and learning. He left
suddenl') reportedl' !ecause of the e6orts of a neigh!oring priest) Florentius)
to undermine his work) and in a!out ?0?) settled at 3onte Cassino. He
destro'ed a pagan temple to 4pollo on its crest) !rought the people of the
neigh!oring area !ack to Christianit') and in a!out ?U$ !egan to !uild the
monaster' that was to !e the !irthplace of Western monasticism. +oon
disciples again Docked to him as his reputation for holiness) wisdom) and
miracles spread far and wide. He organiNed the monks into a single monastic
communit' and wrote his famous ule prescri!ing common sense) a life of
moderate asceticism) pra'er) stud') and work) and communit' life under one
superior. 2t stressed o!edience) sta!ilit') Neal) and had the 5ivine LMce as
the center of monastic lifeG it was to a6ect spiritual and monastic life in the
West for centuries to come. While ruling his monks (most of whom) including
(enedict) were not ordained)) he counseled rulers and *opes) ministered to
the poor and destitute a!out him) and tried to repair the ravages of the
%om!ard 7otilaWs invasion. He died at 3onte Cassino on 3arch 0. and was
named patron protector of Europe !' *ope *aul F2 in .K,#. His feast da' is
;ul' ...
P")e Sa&n' Greg"r+ 'he Grea'
+t. Gregor') !orn at ome a!out the 'ear ?#$) was the son of Gordianus) a
wealth' senator) who later renounced the world and !ecame one of the
seven deacons of ome. 4fter he had ac1uired the usual thorough education)
Emperor ;ustin the Bounger appointed him) in ?"#) Chief 3agistrate of ome)
though he was onl' thirt'Efour 'ears of age.
4fter the death of his father) he !uilt si/ monasteries in +icil' and founded a
seventh in his own house in ome) which !ecame the (enedictine 3onaster'
of +t. 4ndrew. Here) he himself assumed the monastic ha!it in ?"?) at the
age of thirt'Efve.
4fter the death of *elagius) +t. Gregor' was chosen *ope !' the unanimous
consent of priests and people. Cow !egan those la!ors which merited for him
the title of Great. His Neal e/tended over the entire known world) he was in
contact with all the Churches of Christendom and) in spite of his !odil'
su6erings) and innumera!le la!ors) he found time to compose a great
num!er of works. He is known a!ove all for his magnifcent contri!utions to
the %iturg' of the 3ass and LMce. He is one of the four great 5octors of the
%atin Church. He died 3arch .0) ,$#. He is the patron of teachers.
Pr"'ag"ra#
*rotagoras of 4!dera (c.#-?E#.? (CE) is considered the greatest of the
+ophists of ancient Greece. 4 +ophist was a teacher of rhetoric) politics) and
logic who served as a private tutor to the 'outh of the upper classes. 4s
Greece) particularl' 4thens) was e/tremel' litigious) a knowledge of the art of
pu!lic speaking was highl' valued as a means of defending oneself in court
or prosecuting someone else. 7here were no professional law'ers in ancient
Greece and) therefore) it was up to the individual involved in a case of law to
hire a professional speech writer and then !e a!le to deliver that speech
elo1uentl'. 4ccording to ancient writers) *rotagoras chieD' made his living !'
coaching wealth' 'outh in the art of rhetoric for use in the courtroom. 4 great
deal of what we know of *rotagorasW life and teachings comes from two of
*latoWs dialogues) the *rotagoras and the 7heaetetus. He is !est known for his
claim that) VLf all things the measure is 3an) of the things that are) that the'
are) and of the things that are not) that the' are notV or) in other words) that
ever'thing is relative to individual e/perience) Oudgement) and interpretation.
7his claim) it is thought) was of particular use in court where a prosecutor or
defendant could emplo' relativistic reasoning to win a case.
2n philosoph') YrelativismW is the !elief that there is no fnal) o!Oective truth)
and *rotagoras ma' !e regarded as the frst known relativist in Western
culture. *lato) of course) !elieved in an o!Oective standard of truth which
ever'one needs to apprehend and acknowledge in order to live a full life. He
was) therefore) at great odds with the philosoph' of *rotagoras. *rofessor
Forrest E. (aird writes) V*lato takes *rotagoras to mean that each person) not
humanit' as a whole) is the measure of all things and so attacks *rotagorasWs
relativismV (#U). 2t ma' !e) however) that *rotagoras was simpl' making use
of ideas frst espoused !' the earlier Greek philosopher Xenophanes (c. ?"$E
#"- (CE) who emphasiNed the limitations of human knowledge. Xenophanes
writes) VCo man knows or ever will know the truth a!out the gods and a!out
ever'thing 2 speak ofG for even if one chanced to sa' the complete truth) 'et
oneself knows it not !ut seeming is wrought over all thingsV (580.(U-).
Xenophanes is here sa'ing that) owing to the su!Oective nature of human
interpretation and understanding) even if an individual were to uncover the
truth a!out the gods) one would not !e a!le to realiNe that truth !ecause
YseemingW) our su!Oective understanding) clouds and distorts such a
possi!ilit'. *rotagoras seems to !e sa'ing something much along the same
lines when he writes) V4!out the gods) 2 am not a!le to know whether the'
e/ist or do not e/ist) nor what the' are like in formG for the factors preventing
knowledge are man'J the o!scurit' of the su!Oect and the shortness of human
lifeV ((aird) ##). 7his line also mirrors another of XenophanesW thoughts
concerning knowledge of the gods in which the elder philosopher claimed
that one could onl' approach such knowledge through seeking after it and)
even then) would onl' !e a!le to apprehend a shadow. *rotagorasW famous
relativism) then) could have originall' !een a simple empirical o!servation
concerning the human condition and not YrelativismW at all in that he ma'
never have claimed YtruthW or the YgodsW did not e/ist) merel' that there is no
wa' of o!Oectivel' defning what those things might !e. Ever'one) according
to *rotagoras) will interpret the truth individuall') and this has !een
understood to mean that if someone claims there is no God) then there is no
God for that person. While *lato asserts that this is what *rotagoras !elieved
and taught) it cannot !e stated with certaint' as onl' fragments of
*rotagorasW work have survived.
Whatever motivation or inspiration *rotagoras ma' have !een working from)
his ideas were antithetical to *latoWs) and the latter has done much to make
him appear foolish. 2n his dialogue of the 7heaetetus) *lato has the character
of +ocrates sa')
<*rotagoras= sa's) doesnWt he) that what is !elieved !' each person is so for
him who !elieves it9...Well) gratif'ing as it is to !e told that what each of us
!elieves is true) 2 am surprised that he does not !egin his 7ruth !' sa'ing that
of all things the measure is the pig) or the dogEfaced !a!oon...2f what each
man !elieves to !e true through sensation is true for him E then how) m'
friend) was *rotagoras so wise that he should consider himself worth' to
teach others and for huge fees9 4nd how are we so ignorant that we should
go to school to him if each of us is the measure of his own wisdom9(.,.().
While it seems clear that *rotagoras did hold to this relativistic philosoph') it
is not known whether he made his mone' teaching these concepts as
philosophical truths. 2t is likel') again) that he used his paradigm of an
individual alone !eing a!le to apprehend separate truths and realities to
teach his students how to win court cases !' Ymaking the worse appear to !e
the !etter causeW (as *lato phrases it in his 4polog').
*rotagoras was considered at least an agnostic and) perhaps) an atheist
!ased upon his teachings and his claim concerning the e/istence of the gods.
He was charged and convicted of impiet' !' the court of 4thens and drowned
while Deeing to +icil' in #.? (CE. His W3an is the 3easureW claim has !een
cited !' man' through the ages as the frst and !est statement of human
relativism) and he has also !een hailed as an earl' WhumanistW and Wfree
thinkerW. His relativism so !othered *lato that the latter devoted an enormous
amount of time and e6ort in his writings to refuting the idea that an'thing
can !e true as long as it is !elieved to !e true !' the individual. *latoWs theor'
of Forms (that what we see and call WtrueW is !ut a reDection of a higher 7ruth)
is a direct response to *rotagorasW earlier relativistic claim) in that *lato was
tr'ing to prove there had to !e some standard of truth !' which one could
o!Oectivel' recogniNe what was right and what was wrong. *latoWs !od' of
work ma') in fact) !e read as one long refutation of *rotagorasW famous
assertion.
G"rg&a# (48,-,7. B.C./.)
Gorgias was a +icilian philosopher) orator) and rhetorician. He is considered
!' man' scholars to !e one of the founders of sophism) a movement
traditionall' associated with philosoph') that emphasiNes the practical
application of rhetoric toward civic and political life. 7he sophists were
itinerant teachers who accepted fees in return for instruction in orator' and
rhetoric) and man' claimed the' could teach an'thing and its opposite (thesis
and antithesis). 4nother aspect of their method was the a!ilit' to make the
weaker argument the stronger. 7he term sophist in classical Greek was a
general appellation denoting a Hwise man.I 7he' were important fgures in
Greece in the #th and ?th centuries) and their social success was great. *lato
was the frst to use the term rhZtorikZ) while the sophists termed their HartI
logos . Cevertheless) Gorgias is commonl' associated with the development
of rhetoric in classical Greece. 7he democratic process in 4thens supplied the
need for instruction in !oth rhetoric and philosoph'.
.. %ife and Works
Gorgias (#-UEU"? (.C.E.) came to Greece from %eontini in +icil'. %ittle is
known of his life !efore he arrived in 4thens in #0" (.C.E. as a political
am!assador seeking militar' assistance against +'racuse) a cit'Estate in
+icil'. He delivered a series of speeches that daNNled the 4thenian audiences
and won him fame and admiration. Ppon completion of his mission) he
traveled throughout Greece as a teacher of rhetoric and as an orator) and
according to 4ristotle) spoke at the *anhellenic festivals (4rt of hetoric
.#.#!0K). He was a student of Empedocles) and according to [uintilian and
others) was the teacher of 2socrates. *lato identifes 3eno (3eno ",46)
among the students of Gorgias) and he ma' have !een one of 4spasia@s
instructors as well. 3an' of the sophists set up schools and charged fees in
return for instruction in rhetoric) and Gorgias was no e/ception. *hilostratus
(%ives of the +ophists 2 K) 2) tells us that Gorgias !egan the practice of
e/temporaneous orator') and that he had the !oldness to sa' H\suggest a
su!Oect@ ]he was the frst to proclaim himself willing to take the chance)
showing apparentl' that he knew ever'thing and would trust the moment to
speak on an' su!Oect.I He died at the age of .$- at %arissa in 7hessal'.
Four works are attri!uted to GorgiasJ Ln the Cone/istent or Ln Cature) the
4polog' of *alamedes) the Encomium on Helen) and the Epitaphios or
4thenian Funeral Lration. 7he original te/t of Ln Cature has !een lost) and
survives onl' in two di6erent paraphrases) one in +e/tus Empiricus@ 4gainst
the *rofessors and another in an anon'mous work entitled 3elissus)
Xenophanes) Gorgias. 7here are two di6erent manuscripts of *alamedes and
Helen (the Cripps and *alatine versions)) one slightl' di6erent than the other.
%egal historians consider the 5efense of *alamedes to !e an important
contri!ution to dicanic <e/planator'= argumentation) and some cultural
historians !elieve the Epitaphios was used as a st'listic and genre source for
*lato@s 3ene/enus (Cosign' 0). Gorgias@ rh'ming st'le is highl' poetic) and
he viewed the orator as an individual leading a kind of group incantation. He
emplo's metaphor and fgurative e/pressions to illustrate his assertions) and
even uses humor as one instrument of refutation. 7he term macrologia (using
more words than necessar' in an e6ort to appear elo1uent) is sometimes
used to descri!e his oratorical techni1ue (8enned' ,U).
0. *hilosoph'
4n' student of Gorgias must immediatel' mark the distinction !etween his
philosoph' as e/pressed !' *lato in the dialogue Gorgias (see !elow) and his
philosoph' found within the three worksJ Ln the Cone/istent) the 4polog' of
*alamedes) and the Encomium on Helen.
a. Lntolog' ^ Epistemolog'
Cowhere is Gorgias@ sophistical love of parado/ more evident than in the
short treatise Ln the Cone/istent or Ln Cature. 7he su!Oect of this work is
ontological (concerning nature of !eing)) !ut it also deals with language and
epistemolog' (the stud' of the nature and limitations of knowledge). 2n
addition to this) it can !e understood as an e/ercise in sophistical rhetoricG
Gorgias tackles an argument that is seemingl' impossi!le to refute) namel'
that) after considering our world) we must come to the conclusion that
Hthings e/ist.I His powerful argument to the contrar' proves his a!ilities as a
master of orator') and some !elieve the te/t was used as an advertisement
of his credentials.
Gorgias !egins his argument !' presenting a logical contradiction) Hif the
none/istent e/ists) it will !oth e/ist and not e/ist at the same timeI ((U.,")
(a violation of the principle of nonEcontradiction). He then denies that
e/istence (to on) itself e/ists) for if it e/ists) it is either eternal or generated. 2f
it is eternal) it has no !eginning) and is therefore without limit. 2f it is without
limit) it is HnowhereI ((U.,K)) and hence does not e/ist. 4nd if e/istence is
generated) it must come from something) and that something is e/istence)
which is another contradiction. %ikewise) none/istence (to mZ on) cannot
produce an'thing ((U.".). 7he sophist then e/plains that e/istence can
neither !e HoneI (hen) or Hman'I (polla)) since if it were one) it would !e
divisi!le) and therefore not one. 2f it were man') it would !e a Hcomposite of
separate entitiesI ((U."#) and no longer the thing known as e/istence.
Gorgias then turns his attention to what is knowa!le and comprehensi!le. He
remarks) Hif things considered <imagined or thought= in the mind are not
e/istent) the e/istent is not consideredI ((U."")) that is to sa') e/istence is
incomprehensi!le. 7his supposition is !acked up !' the fact that one can
imagine chariots racing in the sea) !ut that does not make such a thing
happen. 7he operation of the mind (intellection) is fundamentall' distinct
from what happens in the real worldG Hthe e/istent is not an o!Oect of
consideration and is not apprehendedI ((U.-0). 2t is helpful to think of
apprehension here in 4ristotelian terms) as simple apprehension) the frst
operation of reasoning (logic) in which the intellect HgraspsI or HapprehendsI
something. +imple apprehension happens when the mind frst forms a
concept of something in the world) and is anterior to Oudgment.
Finall') Gorgias proclaims that even if e/istence could !e apprehended) Hit
would !e incapa!le of !eing conve'ed to anotherI ((U.-U). 7his is !ecause
what we reveal to another is not an e/ternal su!stance) !ut is merel' logos
(from the Greek ver! lego) Hto sa'I>see !elow). %ogos is not Hsu!stances and
e/isting thingsI ((U.-#). E/ternal realit' !ecomes the revealer of logos
((U.-?)G while we can know logos) we cannot apprehend things directl'. 7he
color white) for instance) goes from a propert' of a thing) to a mental
representation) and the representation is di6erent than the thing itself. 2n its
summation) this nihilistic argument !ecomes a HtrilemmaIJ
i. Cothing e/ists
ii. Even if e/istence e/ists) it cannot !e known
iii. Even if it could !e known) it cannot !e communicated.
7his argument has led some to la!el Gorgias as either an ontological skeptic
or a nihilist (one who !elieves nothing e/ists) or that the world is
incomprehensi!le) and that the concept of truth is fctitious). (ut it can also
!e interpreted as an assertion that it is logos and logos alone which is the
proper o!Oect of our in1uiries) since it is the onl' thing we can reall' know. Ln
Cature is sometimes seen as a refutation of preE+ocratic essentialist
philosoph' (3cComiske' U").
!. hetorical 7heor'
3ost of what we know concerning Gorgias@ views on rhetoric comes from the
Encomium. 7his work can !e understood as a sophistical e6ort to reha!ilitate
the reputation of Helen of 7ro'. 2n it) Gorgias attempts to take the weaker
argument and make it the stronger one) !' arguing for a position contrar' to
wellEesta!lished opinionJ in this case) the opinion that Helen was to !lame for
the 7roOan War. Gorgias argues that Helen succum!ed either to (a) ph'sical
force (*aris@ a!duction)) (!) love (eros)) or (c) ver!al persuasion (logos)) and
in an' instance) she cannot !e !lamed for her actions. 4ccording to Gorgias)
logos is a powerful force that can !e used nefariousl' to convince people to
do things against their own interests. 2t can take the form of poetr' (metrical
language)) divine incantations) or orator'. %ogos is descri!ed as a Hpowerful
lordI ((...-) and H<t=he e6ect of speech upon the condition of the soul is
compara!le to the power of drugs over the nurture of !odiesI ((....#). 7his
should !e contrasted with the view of 2socrates that logos is a HchiefI or
HcommanderI (Cicoles ?EK). 7he di6erence here is su!tle) !ut Gorgias@
d'nastic concept of logos clearl' turns it into a despotic overlord) while
2socrates@ HcommanderI is a leader with delegated authorit') an individual
who fghts along side his troops.
E/amples of persuasive speech) according to Gorgias) are the HconDicts
among the philosophers@ arguments in which the swiftness of demonstration
and Oudgment make the !elief in an' opinion changea!leI ((....U). 7his is
similar to the assertion of +e/tus Empiricus that e1uall' convincing
arguments can !e formed against) or in favor of) an' su!Oect. Gorgias ma'
have !elieved in a relative notion of truth that was contingent upon a
particular kairos (an opportune moment or HopeningI)) that is to sa') truth
can onl' !e found within a given moment. He seems to reOect the idea of
truth as a philosophicall' universal principle) and thus comes into conDict
with *lato and 4ristotle. Cevertheless) the rhetor (orator) is ethicall'
o!ligated to avoid deception) and it is Hthe dut' of the same man !oth to
declare what he should rightl' and to refute what has !een spoken falsel'I
((...0). Pltimatel') Gorgias@ opinion concerning truth is diMcult to ascertain)
!ut from his writings) we can conclude that he was more concerned with
rhetorical argument than the truth of an' given proposition or assertion.
2n the epideictic speech 5efense of *alamedes) Gorgias uses a m'thical
narrator (*alamedes) to further illustrate his rhetorical techni1ue and
philosoph'. 2n the Ld'sse') *alamedes was responsi!le for revealing
Ld'sseus@ HmadnessI as a fction) an act for which the latter never forgave
him. Pltimatel') *alamedes was e/ecuted for treason) after Ld'sseus
accused him of conspiring with the 7roOans. Gorgias focuses on the invention
of arguments (topoi) necessar' to e/onerate *alamedes within the setting of
a fctional trial) all of which depend upon pro!a!ilit'. *alamedes could not
have committed treason with a foreign power since he speaks no language
other than Greek ((..a.,E")) and no Greek desires social power among
!ar!arians ((..a..U). 2n the second e/ample) we see that topoi Hem!od' the
values of the communit') in the sense that the' comprise what the
communit' considers importantI (Cosign' -#). 4 fundamental di6erence
!etween the topoi found within 4ristotle@s 4rt of hetoric and Gorgias@ topoi is
that 4ristotle@s are Haconte/tual) while Gorgias places his in the narrative
conte/t of the *alamedes m'thI (3cComiske' #K). 7herefore) there is a direct
relationship !etween kairos and invention.
Gorgias reOects the use of pathos (emotional appeal) in his 5efense) with the
assertion that Hamong 'ou) who are the foremost of the Greeks ]there is no
need to persuade such ones as 'ou with the aid of friends and sorrowful
pra'ers and lamentationsI ((..a.UU). He prefers to use ethos (ethical appeal)
or arguments from character) and logos) as his instruments of persuasion.
U. Critics
Gorgias@ most famous critic is *lato. 2n the dialogue Gorgias) *lato (through
his mentor +ocrates) e/presses his contempt for sophistical rhetoricG all
rhetoric is Ha phantom of a !ranch of statesmanship (#,Ud) ]a kind of
Datter' ]that is contempti!le)I !ecause its aim is simpl' pleasure rather
than the welfare of the pu!lic. Cor can rhetoric !e considered an art (technZ))
since it is irrational (#,?a). 7he end result of rhetoric is a cosmetic alteration
of language that conceals truth and falsit' (#,?!). Furthermore) rhetoric is
Hdesigned to produce conviction) !ut not educate people) a!out matters of
right or wrong (#??a). 7he character of Gorgias in the dialogue is forced to
admit that his HartI deals with opinion (do/a) rather than knowledge
(epistemZ)G that its intention is to persuade rather than to instruct) and that
rhetoric deals with language without regard to content. Gorgias is portra'ed
as a man with an am!ivalent attitude towards truth) a relativist) who !oldl'
asserts that it does not matter if one trul' has knowledge of an' given
su!Oect) onl' that he is perceived !' others to have knowledge) and that
H<r=hetoric is the onl' area of e/pertise 'ou need to learn. Bou can ignore all
the rest and still get the !etter of the professionals_I (#?Kc).
7here are a num!er of e/planations for *lato@s antipath' towards sophistic
rhetoric. 7he frst is simpl' philosophicalG *lato was not a relativist) nor did he
!elieve rhetoric had a pedagogical value. (ut there is also a political element
to !e considered. (ruce 3cComiske' points out that *lato !elieved in an
Holigarchic governmentI for 4thens) while man' of the sophists Hfavored the
4thenian 5emocrac' the wa' it wasI (0$). 2t is important to point out that
during Gorgias@ lifetime) !oth %eontini and 4thens were democratic cit' states
and a loose alliance e/isted !etween the two. Ln a more practical level) the
Greek cit' states also served as a market for those who would sell instruction
in rhetoric.
4ristotle dismisses Gorgias as a HfrigidI st'list who indulges in e/cessive use
of compound words such as H!eggingEpoetEDatterersI and Hforesworn and
wellEswornI (4rt of hetoric .#$?!U#). He also faults Gorgias for overl' poetic
language (.#$,!#)) and we can see e/amples of this in Gorgias@ description
of logos as a great d'nast or lord ((...-) and as a HdrugI ((....#). 7he
sophist compares orators to Hfrogs croaking in waterI((U.U$)) and
philosophers to the Hsuitors of *enelopeI ((U.0K).
5espite e6orts !' G.W.F Hegel and George Grote toward reha!ilitating the
reputations of Gorgias and the other sophists in the .Kth centur') the
sophists still had a foul reputation well into the 0$th centur' (as evidenced !'
the peOorative term Hsophistr'I). 2n .KU$) French philosopher ;ac1ues 3aritain
remarked H<s=ophistr' is not a s'stem of ideas) !ut a vicious attitude of the
mindGI the sophists Hcame to consider as the most desira!le form of
knowledge the art of refuting and disproving !' skillful argumentsI (U0EUU). 2n
recent 'ears) however) modernists and postEstructuralists have found great
value in the philosoph' of Gorgias) especiall' his theories on truth and
language.
PLATO - BIOGRAP!
*lato was !orn around the 'ear #0- (CE in 4thens. His father died while *lato
was 'oung) and his mother remarried to *'rilampes) in whose house *lato
would grow up. *latoWs !irth name was 4ristocles) and he gained the
nickname *laton) meaning !road) !ecause of his !road !uild. His famil' had a
histor' in politics) and *lato was destined to a life in keeping with this histor'.
He studied at a g'mnasium owned !' 5ion'sios) and at the palaistra of
4riston of 4rgos. When he was 'oung he studied music and poetr'. 4ccording
to 4ristotle) *lato developed the foundations of his metaph'sics and
epistemolog' !' stud'ing the doctrines of Crat'lus) and the work of
*'thagoras and *armenides. When *lato met +ocrates) however) he had met
his defnitive teacher. 4s +ocratesW disciple) *lato adopted his philosoph' and
st'le of de!ate) and directed his studies toward the 1uestion of virtue and the
formation of a no!le character.
*lato was in militar' service from #$K (C to #$# (C. When the *eloponnesian
War ended in #$# (C he Ooined the 4thenian oligarch' of the 7hirt' 7'rants)
one of whose leaders was his uncle Charmides. 7he violence of this group
1uickl' prompted *lato to leave it. 2n #$U (C) when democrac' was restored
in 4thens) he had hopes of pursuing his original goal of a political career.
+ocratesW e/ecution in UKK (C had a profound e6ect on *lato) and was
perhaps the fnal event that would convince him to leave 4thenian politics
forever.
*lato left 4ttica along with other friends of +ocrates and traveled for the ne/t
twelve 'ears. 7o all accounts it appears that he left 4thens with Euclides for
3egara) then went to visit 7heodorus in C'rene) moved on to stud' with the
*'thagoreans in 2tal') and fnall' to Eg'pt. 5uring this period he studied the
philosoph' of his contemporaries) geometr') geolog') astronom' and
religion.
4fter UKK (C *lato !egan to write e/tensivel'. 2t is still up for de!ate whether
he was writing !efore +ocratesW death) and the order in which he wrote his
maOor te/ts is also uncertain. However) most scholars agree to divide *latoWs
maOor work into three distinct groups. 7he frst of these is known as the
+ocratic 5ialogues !ecause of how close he sta's within the te/t to +ocratesW
teachings. 7he' were pro!a!l' written during the 'ears of his travels
!etween UKK and U-" (C. Lne of the te/ts in this group called the 4polog'
seems to have !een written shortl' after +ocratesW death. Lther te/ts
relegated to this group include the Crito) %aches) %'sis) Charmides)
Euth'phro) and Hippias 3inor and 3aOor.
*lato returned to 4thens in U-" (C and) on land that had once !elonged to
4cademos) he founded a school of learning which he called the 4cadem'.
*latoWs school is often descri!ed at the frst European universit'. 2ts
curriculum o6ered su!Oects including astronom') !iolog') mathematics)
political theor') and philosoph'. *lato hoped the 4cadem' would provide a
place where thinkers could work toward !etter government in the Grecian
cities. He would preside over the 4cadem' until his death.
7he period from U-" to U,. (C is often called *latoWs VmiddleV or transitional
period. 2t is thought that he ma' have written the 3eno) Euth'demus)
3ene/enus) Crat'lus) epuglic) *haedrus) +'posium and *haedo during this
time. 7he maOor di6erence !etween these te/ts and his earlier works is that
he tends toward grander metaph'sical themes and !egins to esta!lish his
own voice in philosoph'. +ocrates still has a presence) however) sometimes
as a fctional character. 2n the 3eno for e/ample *lato writes of the +ocratic
idea that no one knowingl' does wrong) and adds the new doctrine of
recollection 1uestioning whether virtue can !e taught. 2n the *haedo we are
introduced to the *latonic doctrine of the Forms) in which *lato makes claims
as to the immortalit' of the human soul. 7he middle dialogues also reveal
*latoWs method of h'pothesis.
*latoWs most inDuential work) 7he epu!lic) is also a part of his middle
dialogues. 2t is a discussion of the virtues of Oustice) courage) wisdom) and
moderation) of the individual and in societ'. 2t works with the central 1uestion
of how to live a good life) asking what an ideal +tate would !e like) and what
defnes a Oust individual. 7hese lead to more 1uestions regarding the
education of citiNens) how government should !e formed) the nature of the
soul) and the afterlife. 7he dialogue fnishes !' reviewing various forms of
government and descri!ing the ideal state) where onl' philosophers are ft to
rule. 7he epu!lic covers almost ever' aspect of *latoWs thought.
2n U," (C *lato was invited to !e the personal tutor to 5ion'sus 22) the new
ruler of +'racuse. *lato accepted the invitation) !ut found on his arrival that
the situation was not conducive for philosoph'. He continued to teach the
'oung ruler until U,? (C when +'racuse entered into war. *lato returned to
4thens) and it was around this time that *latoWs famous pupil 4ristotle !egan
to stud' at the 4cadem'. 2n U,. (C *lato returned to +'racuse in response to
a letter from 5ion) the uncle and guardian of 5ion'sus 22) !egging him to
come !ack. However) fnding the situation even more unpleasant than his
frst visit) he returned to 4thens almost as fast as he had come.
(ack at the 4cadem') *lato pro!a!l' spent the rest of his life writing and
conversing. 7he wa' he ran the 4cadem' and his ideas of what constitutes an
educated individual have !een a maOor inDuence to education theor'. His
work has also !een inDuential in the areas of logic and legal philosoph'. His
!eliefs on the importance of mathematics in education has had a lasting
inDuence on the su!Oect) and his insistence on accurate defnitions and clear
h'potheses formed the foundations for EuclidWs s'stem of mathematics.
His fnal 'ears at the 4cadem' ma' !e the 'ears when he wrote the V%aterV
dialogues) including the *armenides) 7heatetus)
+ophist)+tatesmas)7imaeus)Critias)*hile!us) and %aws. +ocrates has !een
delegated a minor role in these te/ts. *lato uses these dialogues to take a
closer look at his earlier metaph'sical speculations. He discusses art)
including dance) music) poetr') architecture and drama) and ethics in regards
to immortalit') the mind) and ealism. He also works with the philosoph' of
mathematics) politics and religion) covering such specifcs as censorship)
atheism) and pantheism. 2n the area of epistemolog' he discusses a priori
knowledge and ationalism. 2n his theor' of Forms) *lato suggests that the
world of ideas is constant and true) opposing it to the world we perceive
through our senses) which is deceptive and changea!le.
2n U#" *lato died) leaving the 4cadem' to his sisterWs son +peusippus. 7he
4cadem' remained a model for institutions of higher learning until it was
closed) in ?0K CE) !' the Emperor ;ustinian.
ARISTOTL/ O0 STAGIRUS - BIOGRAP!
4ristotle of +tagirus (U-# (CE > U00(CE) was !orn in U-# (CE in +tagirus) a
Greek colon' and seaport on the coast of 7hrase. His father) Cichomachus)
was court ph'sician to 8ing 4m'ntas of 3acedonia. 7he 3acedonian Court
would have a considera!le inDuence on his life. 4ristotleWs father died while
he was a child) and it was his guardian) *ro/enus) who sent him to 4thens at
age .". 4t the time) 4thens was considered the intellectual center of the
world) and here he Ooined the 4cadem' to stud' under *lato. 4ristotle
attended *latoWs lectures for twent' 'ears) eventuall' lecturing himself)
particularl' on the su!Oect of rhetoric. When *lato died in U#") 4ristotleWs
a!ilit' and position in the 4cadem' might have seen him take on leadership
there) !ut the di6erences in his teachings from *latoWs made this impossi!le)
and it was *latoWs nephew +eusippus who was chosen to take on leadership of
the academ'. 4ristotle moved to the court of his friend Hermeas) the ruler of
4tarneus and 4ssos in 3'sea. 2t was during his threeE'ear sta' here that he
married *'thias) HermeasW niece. 2n U#? Hermeas was taken over !' the
*ersians) and 4ristotle moved to the island of %es!os) at 3'tilene. 2t is here
that he met 7heophrastus) his colla!orator in scientifc endeavors) and later
his successor as head of the %'ceum in 4thens. 7he o!servations of Dora and
fauna made !' 4ristotle in his writings on !iolog' were made during his time
in 3'sea and %es!os.
2n U#U 4ristotle was invited !ack to 3acedonia !' the 8ing to tutor the 'oung
4le/ander. 7he di6ering am!itions of the two friends (teacher and student))
made for an intense scholarl' relationship. 4ristotle was working on
esta!lishing a new philosophical worldEview with Greece at its center)
however 4le/ander was preparing to con1uer an empire far e/ceeding the
!oundaries of the Greek world. 4ristotle supported a nationalistic strateg')
which would protect Greek culture from the V!ar!arians)V whereas 4le/ander
eventuall' supported the inclusion of nonEGreek culture into his policies to
ease his rule of the outer provinces.
When 4le/ander succeeded 8ing *hilip and launched his frst series of
campaigns) e/tending his rule to 2ndia and Eg'pt) 4ristotle returned to 4thens
for the frst time since *latoWs death. *latonism had !ecome the dominant
philosoph' of 4thens) and the *latonic school was running successfull' under
the leadership of Xenocrates. 4ristotle decided to esta!lish his own school at
the %'ceum. For the ne/t thirteen 'ears he concentrated on teaching and
writing the philosophical treatises) which would !ecome his pu!lished works.
2n the morning at the %'ceum 4ristotle would facilitate detailed discussions
for his more advanced students) and in the afternoon he would lecture on
popular topics of discourse for a general !od' of philosophers and students.
His followers !ecame known as Vperipatetics)V meaning Vto walk a!out)V
referring to 4ristotleWs ha!it of walking !ack and forth while relating his
lectures.
2n U0U 4le/ander the Great was killed while on campaign in the East) and
antiE3acedonian sentiment reigned in 4thens. 2n an attempt to free Greek
cit'Estates from 3acedonian rule) the 4thenian 4ssem!l' declared war
against 4ntiipon) 4le/anderWs successor. 2n a repetition of his e/perience in
U#") 4ristotle was considered proE3acedonian and therefore antiE4thenian)
and he was charged with Vimpiet'.V 7his is the same charge that had led to
+ocratesW e/ecution in UKK. 7o avoid +ocratesW end) 4ristotle went into
voluntar' e/ile to the cit' of Chalcis. Here he lived with his second wife)
Herp'llis) who was also the mother of his son) Cichomachus. 2n U00 (CE) at
age ,U) 4ristotle died of a digestive ailment.
4ristotle wrote treatises covering a vast range of philosophical thought) from
!iolog') ph'sics) logic) science) and metaph'sics to ethics) moralit')
aesthetics) and politics. He developed a nonE*latonic theor' of form)
produced a s'stem of deductive reasoning for !oth universal and e/istential
statements) and theoriNed on the cosmos) life) matter and mind) and the
Vgood life.V 7here are .?$ philosophical treatises thought to have !een
written !' 4ristotle) U$ of which survive toda'. 2t is not certain how man' of
these treatises are actuall' unpolished lecture notes) and it is thought that
some ma' !e the work of students from the %'ceum instead of written !' the
hand of 4ristotle.
7heophrastus) 4ristotleWs friend and colla!orator from %es!os who inherited
leadership of the school at %'ceum) is reported to have taken care of
4ristotleWs te/ts. 7his collection was in turn passed on to 7heophrastusW pupil
Celeus) and from him to his heirs) who protected the writings in a vault where
the' su6ered from dampness and pests. 7he vault was discovered in .$$ (CE
!' a !ook lover named 4pellicon) who !rought the rotting te/ts to 4thens.
7he' were moved to ome in -, (CE when 4thens was captured !' +ulla) and
in ome the' were pu!lished in a new edition due to growing interest of local
scholars. 4ristotleWs work and philosoph' in general enOo'ed a renaissance at
this time) and it is this collection of writings that forms the !asis of our
studies of 4ristotle toda'.
4ristotleWs work enOo'ed another rediscover' in the later 3iddle 4ges) when it
was studied !' medieval scholars. He was called V2lle *hilosophusV (the
philosopher) !' his medieval followers) and his work was discussed as the
eternal truth (!arring an' of his writings that ma' have contradicted the
(i!le). 8nown as +cholasticism) 4ristotelian philosoph' reconciled with
Christian doctrine !ecame the oMcial philosoph' of the oman Catholic
Church. +cientifc discoveries of the 3iddle 4ges and enaissance paid heed
to +cholasticism) or su6ered harsh criticism.
*lato theoriNed that ultimate realit' is onl' knowa!le through reason and
reDection) and he located it in ideas or eternal forms. 4ristotle di6ered from
his teacher) theoriNing that ultimate realit' is knowa!le through e/perience)
residing in ph'sical o!Oects) and his writings were often !ased on frstEhand
o!servation. 4ristotleWs o!Oects (which include organisms) are comprised of
form and matter) or their realit' and their potential. For e/ample) a !lock of
wood (matter) has the potential to assume whatever form a carpenter
chooses to give it) and a seed has the potential to grow into a living tree.
4ristotle identifes the form in living creatures with the soul) and descri!es a
hierarch' of souls where plants have the lowest kind) animals a higher kind
!ecause of their a!ilit' to feel) and humans the highest !ecause of their
a!ilit' to reason and rationaliNe.
Change was c'clical to 4ristotle) like the c'cle of water through evaporation)
rain) rivers) oceans and deserts. He imagined an eternal universe without
!eginning or end) and this is the most !asic di6erence !etween his work and
that of !oth medieval and modern thinkers. He !elieved that the overall
conditions of the world would never change.
1/2OCRITUS - BIOGRAP!
5emocritus (#,$ (CE U"$ (CE) was an ancient Greek philosopher. He is
known for his inDuence on modern science more than an' other preE+ocratic
philosopher. He was also known as the H%aughing *hilosopherV) for his
tendenc' to mock fellow citiNens for their follies. What 5emocritus left has
not survived in all of its ph'sicalit') !ut he has !een written a!out !'
4ristotle (4ristotle found him to !e his !iggest competitor in the natural
sciences)) 7heophrastus) 5iogenes) along with a few others. 7he e/act details
of his !irth are not known !ut estimated to !e sometime around #,$ (CE in
4!dera) 7hrace. His father was wealth' and received Xer/es as he traveled
through 4!dera. Xer/es in turn) left !ehind some of his magi and it is said
that 5emocritus had the good graces to have learned from them. 4fter his
fatherWs death 5emocritus took o6 traveling in search of e/perience and
wisdom. He traveled to (a!'lon) Eg'pt) Ethiopia and perhaps 2ndia as well
using up his inheritance. 5emocritus is said to not have an' care for wealth
and preferred to put ever'thing into his studies) investigations and
e/plorations. He is said to have remarked that he would rather discover a
new cause of nature than !e 8ing of *ersia. 2n his travels he ma' have met
4na/agoras) !een friends with Hippocrates) possi!l' visited 4thens where
+ocrates and *lato would have !een present if he had !een there. 5emocritus
was a disciple of littleEknown %eucippus and carried his atomist thought
further devoloping it rather e/tensivel'.
4tomist philosoph' !orders heavil' on what toda' is considered scientifc
although %eucippus and 5emocritus were not priv' to empirical reasoning
!ehind their theor' of atoms. *owerful microscopes aside) however)
5emocritus drew from watching deca' and mi/ing of the elements laid out !'
the Eleatics) for instance the mi/ture of water and earth in mud that is not
easil' separated once com!ined. 4lso !uilding upon such Eleatics as
*armenides) 5emocritus held that nothing could come from nothing) that
ever'thing is alread' in the world and it is merel' a matter of com!ination
and reEcom!ination of eternal !its of immuta!le stu6 called atoms that
remain indivisi!le in and of themselves) !ut are capa!le !' hooks and !ar!s
or !alls and Ooints to com!ine to other atoms to make up the materials of life.
He also supposed that the solidness of an' given material was dependent
upon the shapes of these atomic !its. 5i6erent from toda'Ws understanding of
atomic structure) 5emocritus and other WatomistsW thought that atoms were
indivisi!le (the Greek for WatomW was atomon or atomos) and infnite in siNe
and shape as well as frm and completel' solid. 7hese atoms) then) e/isted in
a void moving a!out com!ining and recom!ining. 7his necessitated the
e/istence of nothing) or a void with 5emocritus sa'ing when naming WnothingW
as a noEthing) that the one (nothing) no more e/ists than the other (thing).
7he void was considered a condition for the possi!ilit' of motion with its
essence as !eing one of 'ielding so that atoms ma' pass through and instead
of !eing a concept of a!solute space) it was pro!a!l' more thought of as
temporaril' unoccupied spaces !' atoms.
4toms did not make up Oust ever'da' o!Oects for 5emocritus) !ut inDuenced
his thoughts on sight) senses and souls. 4s for perception) 5emocritus held to
his strictl' materialist philosoph' maintaining that atoms) the hard !its of
realit') were the reasoning !ehind our senses. 2t is due to the movement of
the atoms through space or void that augur our e/perience of sight. 4n' large
o!Oect would slough o6 their atoms which then are carried to our e'es. 7his
would !e an e/planation for wh' o!Oects far awa' are less clear in detail since
their atoms would collide more with air atoms !' the time the' reached a pair
of e'es. 5emocritus !elieved that all of the senses were due to touch and the
ph'sical e/perience of atoms encountering each other. 4nother e/ample
would !e taste) where WOaggedW atoms would tear taste !uds) creating a
sensation of !itterness while rounder atoms would !e sweeter. 4s for the
e/planation of souls) atoms take center stage once again. 2nstead of the soul
!eing a sort of force or something immortal) 5emocritus felt that there were
smooth Wsoul atomsW and that when a human perished) these atoms would
disperse out into the world and !ecome parts of ever'thing andQor an'thing
else. 2t is this part of his investigations that perhaps led *lato and his !elief in
an immortal soul to allegedl' call for the !urning of all 5emocritusW te/ts.
7he 1uestion of epistemolog' !ecomes diMcult with 5emocritus in regards to
his ultraEmaterialist stance. 8nowledge is gained !' perception which
although he argued that the hard) unchanging atoms made up o!Oects and
provided the possi!ilit' for sight) was still unrelia!le !ased upon t'pical and
nont'pical o!servers as well as things that change) as in the sea. 4 wa' for
5emocritus to e/plain this was that Oust as the atoms had their own shape
and siNe) therefore di6ering propertiesG so too do the !eings that are
receptive to these atoms and therefore depending on a personWs reception an
atom could !e received m'riad of wa's. 2n this case) truth !ased on
o!servation is su!Oective. 5emocritus felt that truth resided at Wthe !ottom)W
and that !' interpretation of sense data) that the truth could !e arrived at. he
distinguished !etween two kinds of knowing or understandingJ gnesie and
skotie E or genuine and !astard. 7he !astard knowing is reliant onl' upon
perception and is insuMcient in and of itself since it is merel' !ased upon
stimulations. 7he genuine or legitimate knowledge can !e gained through
reasoning) inductive reasoning to !e e/act. 7he process is as followsG one is
stimulated !' atoms) !' sensations) !ut then uses intellect to draw
conclusions !' e/amining the appearance in conOunction with the laws that
govern the appearance and come to a realiNation a!out the cause of the
sensation. 2t is from this point) again) that we can see 5emocritusW radical
inDuence on what is considered a modern scientifc method.
4s for the moniker) the V%aughing *hilosopher)V there a few conDicting stories
and impressions of 5emocritus. 2t is most likel' due to his emphasis on
cheerfulness although +eneca wrote a darker interpretation sa'ing that he
would e/press his contempt for the follies of those around him !' laughing at
them. 5emocritus was also known as Vthe mocker.V 7his laughter could have
come as a result of his und'ing determinist and materialist composition. His
ethics were centered on personal integrit' and social responsi!ilit' with no
otherworldl' or supernatural inDuences. (7his was another point of contention
that *lato ma' have felt deepl'.) His emphasis on cheerfulness was an
emphasis on the WgoodW or an a!sence of fear. 2nstead of doing WgoodW !ecause
there e/ists a fear of the law) 5emocritus felt that people were a!le to !e
driven !' an interior motive to not shame themselves or others. 7he
goodness in people was not innate !ut onl' produced through practice and
discipline and that in the presence of the wicked) one has a propensit' to do
the same. 5emocritusW cheerfulness also took form in a kind of hedonism
al!eit moderated and can !e seen as !eing inDuential to Epicurus.
5emocritus lived over a centur' and while there are var'ing tales of his
death) the tale that pops up the most often is the one that recounts the
disappointment of his sister that he was nearing death !efore she was to
attend a festival. 2n compliance) 5emocritus took whi6s of freshl' !aked
!read for three da's !efore she returned and then perished. 7here are a few
other unconfrmed tales a!out 5emocritus in his later life including that he
!linded himself to improve his mental faculties (although there are accounts
that he dissected animals and wrote !ooks which conDict with !linding))
searched for the W*hilosopherWs +toneW or that he lived in caves. 2t is most
likel' true that he preferred the withdrawn) contemplative life although it is
not proved that he retired to caves. he had gained some fame throughout his
life giving pu!lic lectures. He did this to make a living and to not have
seemed that he s1uandered his inheritance on travelling) a crime that would
have denied his rite of !urial. 7hrough these he discussed his fndings and
actuall' !ecame rather popular !ased on his predictions of weather which led
people to think that he could predict an' future events and o6ered him to
direct pu!lic a6airs. He declined.