The gods are completely wise and good ( Apology 28a; Euthyphro 6a, 15a; Meno

99b100b);
Ever since his childhood (see Apology 31d) Socrates has experienced a certain
"divine something" ( Apology 31c-d; 40a; Euthyphro 3b; see also Phaedrus 242b),
which consists in a "voice" ( Apology 31d; see also Phaedrus 242c), or "sign"
( Apology 40c, 41d; Euthydemus 272e; see also Republic VI.496c; Phaedrus 242b)
that opposes him when he is about to do something wrong ( Apology 40a, 40c);
Various forms of divination can allow human beings to come to recognize the will
of the gods ( Apology 21a-23b, 33c);
Poets and rhapsodes are able to write and do the wonderful things they write and
do, not from knowledge or expertise, but from some kind of divine inspiration. The
same canbe said of diviners and seers, although they do seem to have some kind of
expertiseperhaps only some technique by which to put them in a state of
appropriate receptivity to the divine ( Apology 22b-c; Laches 198e-199a; Ion 533d536a, 538de; Meno 99c);
No one really knows what happens after death, but it is reasonable to think that
death is not an evil; there may be an afterlife, in which the souls of the good are
rewarded, and the souls of the wicked are punished ( Apology 40c-41c; Crito 54b-c;
Gorgias 523a-527a).
Methodological and Epistemological Positions in the Early Dialogues In addition,
Plato's Socrates in the early dialogues may plausibly be regarded as having certain
methodological or epistemological convictions, including:
Definitional knowledge of ethical terms is at least a necessary condition of reliable
judging of specific instances of the values they name ( Euthyphro 4e-5d, 6e; Laches
189e190b; Lysis 223b; Greater Hippias 304d-e; Meno 71a-b, 100b; Republic I.354bc);
A mere list of examples of some ethical valueeven if all are authentic cases of
that valuewould never provide an adequate analysis of what the value is, nor
would it provide an adequate definition of the value term that refers to the value.
Proper definitions must state what is common to all examples of the value
( Euthyphro 6de; Meno 72c-d);
Those with expert knowledge or wisdom on a given subject do not err in their
judgments on that subject ( Euthyphro 4e-5a; Euthydemus 279d-280b), go about
their business in their area of expertise in a rational and regular way ( Gorgias 503e504b), and can teach and explain their subject ( Gorgias 465a, 500e-501b, 514a-b;
Laches 185b, 185e, 1889e190b); Protagoras 319b-c).
In the early transitional dialogue, the Meno, Plato has Socrates introduce the Orphic
and Pythagorean idea that souls are immortal and existed before our births. All

knowledge, he explains, is actually recollected from this prior existence. In perhaps

the most famous passage in this dialogue, Socrates elicits recollection about
geometry from one of Meno's slaves ( Meno 81a-86b). Socrates' apparent interest
in, and fairly sophisticated knowledge of, mathematics appears wholly new in this
dialogue. It is an interest, however, that shows up plainly in the middle period
dialogues, especially in the middle books of the Republic.
Several arguments for the immortality of the soul, and the idea that souls are
reincarnated into different life forms, are also featured in Plato's Phaedo (which also
includes the famous scene in which Socrates drinks the hemlock and utters his last
words). Stylometry has tended to count the Phaedo among the early dialogues,
whereas analysis of philosophical content has tended to place it at the beginning of
the middle period. Similar accounts of the transmigration of souls may be found,
with somewhat different details, in Book X of the Republic and in the Phaedrus, as
well as in several dialogues of the late period, including the Timaeus and the Laws.
No traces of the doctrine of recollection, or the theory of reincarnation or
transmigration of souls, are to be found in the dialogues we listed above as those of
the early period.
The moral psychology of the middle period dialogues also seems to be quite
different from what we find in the early period. In the early dialogues, Plato's
Socrates is an intellectualist that is, he claims that people always act in the way
they believe is best for them (at the time of action, at any rate). Hence, all
wrongdoing reflects some cognitive error. But in the middle period, Plato conceives
of the soul as having (at least) three parts: 1. a rational part (the part that loves
truth, which should rule over the other parts of the soul through the use of reason),
2. a spirited part (which loves honor and victory), and 3. an appetitive part (which
desires food, drink, and sex), and justice will be that condition of the soul in which
each of these three parts "does its own work," and does not interfere in the
workings of the other parts (see esp. Republic IV.435b-445b). It seems clear from
the way Plato describes what can go wrong in a soul, however, that in this new
picture of moral psychology, the appetitive part of the soul can simply overrule
reason's judgments. One may suffer, in this account of psychology, from what is
called akrasia or "moral weakness"in which one finds oneself doing something
that one actually believes is not the right thing to do (see especially Republic
IV.439e-440b). In the early period, Socrates denied that akrasia was possible: One
might change one's mind at the last minute about what one ought to doand could
perhaps change one's mind again later to regret doing what one has donebut one
could never do what one actually believed was wrong, at the time of
The Timaeus is famous for its account of the creation of the universe by the
Demiurge. Unlike the creation by the God of medieval theologians, Plato's Demiurge
does not create ex nihilo (from or out of nothing) , but rather orders the cosmos out
of chaotic elemental matter, imitating the eternal Forms. Plato takes the four

elements, fire, air, water, and earth (which Plato proclaims to be composed of
various aggregates of triangles), making various compounds of these into what he
calls the Body of the Universe. Of all of Plato's works, the Timaeus provides the
most detailed conjectures in the areas we now regard as the natural sciences:
physics, astronomy, chemistry, and biology.
The study of ancient thinkers is restricted by a lack of primary sources. Their
original writings were lost and only fragments of their thoughts, words, and ideas
have been preserved in the works of other authors. The main secondary sources are
works by Aristotle, and his contemporary doxographers Theophrastus, Plato,
Diogenes, and Herodotus. These fragments have been gathered and indexed by H.
Diels and W. Kranz in their Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker , now the standard
source for the writings of the pre-Socratics. This book introduced the term "preSocratics" which has come to be widely used among scholars of philosophy.
Such an emphasis on physical explanations marked a break with more traditional
ways of thinking that indicated the gods as primary causes. The Presocratics, in
most cases, did not entirely abandon theistic or religious notions, but they
characteristically posed challenges to traditional ways of thinking. Xenophanes of
Colophon, for example, thought that most concepts of the gods were superficial,
since they often amount to mere anthropomorphizing. Heraclitus understood sets of
contraries, such as day-night, winter-summer, and war-peace to be gods (or God),
while Protagoras claimed not to be able to know whether or not the gods exist. The
foundation of Presocratic thought is the preference and esteem given to rational
thought and argumentation over mythologizing. This movement towards rationality
and argumentation would pave the way for the course Western thought.
CONCEPT OF OPPOSITES
Antiphon-disiline justice and nature
Plato challenged sophist ideas of replacing rhetorical skills to genuine knowledge,
moral relativism, epistemological skepticism, and their secularist concept of
happiness
The essential claim of sophistry is that the actual logical validity of an argument is
irrelevant (if not non-existent); it is only the ruling of the audience that ultimately
determines whether a conclusion is considered "true" or not. By appealing to the
prejudices and emotions of the judges, one can garner favorable treatment for one's
side of the argument and cause a factually false position to be ruled true.
Thrasymachus held a view that power determines and defines good and evil. Even
deceptive measures were justified as far as they serve for winning over opponents.
This power based value perspective entails a nihilistic view of life. One may also find
an incipient idea of Machiavellianism. Thrasymachus held a view that power
determines and defines good and evil. Even deceptive measures were justified as

far as they serve for winning over opponents. This power based value perspective
entails a nihilistic view of life. One may also find an incipient idea of
Machiavellianism.