Nor was Pythagoras the inventor only of the name, but he enlarged also the thing itself, and, when he came into Italy after this conversation at Phlius, he adorned that Greece, which is called Great Greece, both privately and publicly, with the most excellent institutions and arts; but of his school and system I shall, perhaps, find another opportunity to speak.
But numbers and motions, and the beginning and end of all things, were the subjects of the ancient philosophy down to Socrates, who was a pupil of Archelaus, who had been the disciple of Anaxagoras. These made diligent inquiry into the magnitude of the stars, their distances, courses, and all that relates to the heavens.
But Socrates was the first who brought down philosophy from the heavens, placed it in cities, introduced it into families, and obliged it to examine into life and morals, and good and evil.
And his different methods of discussing questions, together with the variety of his topics, and the greatness of his abilities, being immortalized by the memory and writings of Plato, gave rise to many sects of philosophers of different sentiments, of all which I have principally adhered to that one which, in my opinion, Socrates himself followed; and argue so as to conceal my own opinion, while I deliver others from their errors, and so discover what has the greatest appearance of probability in every question.
And this custom Carneades adopted with great copiousness and acuteness, and I myself have often given in to it on many occasions elsewhere, and in this manner, too, I disputed lately, in my Tusculan villa; indeed, I have sent you a book of the four former days’ discussions; but the fifth day, when we had seated ourselves as before, what we were to dispute on was proposed thus. . . .
But numbers and motions, and the beginning and end of all things, were the subjects of the ancient philosophy down to Socrates, who was a pupil of Archelaus, who had been the disciple of Anaxagoras. These made diligent inquiry into the magnitude of the stars, their distances, courses, and all that relates to the heavens.
But Socrates was the first who brought down philosophy from the heavens, placed it in cities, introduced it into families, and obliged it to examine into life and morals, and good and evil.
And his different methods of discussing questions, together with the variety of his topics, and the greatness of his abilities, being immortalized by the memory and writings of Plato, gave rise to many sects of philosophers of different sentiments, of all which I have principally adhered to that one which, in my opinion, Socrates himself followed; and argue so as to conceal my own opinion, while I deliver others from their errors, and so discover what has the greatest appearance of probability in every question.
And this custom Carneades adopted with great copiousness and acuteness, and I myself have often given in to it on many occasions elsewhere, and in this manner, too, I disputed lately, in my Tusculan villa; indeed, I have sent you a book of the four former days’ discussions; but the fifth day, when we had seated ourselves as before, what we were to dispute on was proposed thus. . . .
—from Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 5.4
Philosophers may not have always gone by the same name, and they may have approached their understanding from very different angles, but what they all shared in common was a calling to explain, not merely to describe.
They always dug down deep, and that sometimes had a way of shaking things up. Listening to them probably didn’t make you any richer or more popular, though it always left you just a little bit better and wiser, if only from looking at the world in a totally unfamiliar manner.
I doubt that Socrates was literally the first to “do” philosophy on the streets, or that he invented the method, equally enlightening and annoying, of stimulating awareness by debating inconvenient questions. He was, however, the first to so notably draw attention to himself for being a gadfly, and our cultural tradition would never be the same without him.
To be honest, I was initially offended by Socrates, failing to distinguish him from your garden-variety intellectual bully. It took me some time to recognize what he was really up to, and as a result I would also never be the same without him. If I recall correctly, it was actually Xenophon who finally allowed me to see Socrates as more than just a mouthpiece for Plato.
Cicero here highlights the very same Socratic qualities that have been so influential for me: an unwavering insistence on critical thinking, and an absolute commitment to an informed conscience. We are all, each and every one of us, adrift in this life without the knowledge to judge right from wrong, and any philosophy that fails to address this vital need doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.
When I grow tired of the endless bickering among the ideological tribes, it helps me to remember how all of their efforts are ultimately attempts at fulfilling the noble mission of Socrates, which points to the unity behind so much fracturing. Yes, there comes a point when two principles can no longer coexist, but far more of our disagreements are about matters of stress, concerning distinctions where we are sadly talking past one another.
I can respect why Cicero, for example, was guided by the Academic Skepticism of Carneades, just as I am pleased to see him further open his mind to the teachings of the Stoics. Take what you need and leave the rest. The end results in practice do not justify the quarrelling about the theory; what at first looks like a contradiction can well turn out to be a complement.
How can I blame Cicero for questioning the dogmatism of the Stoics? I imagine that some of them were insufferable in their elitism. Perhaps it is more prudent to settle for what is likely than to idly speculate about what is beyond our grasp.
At the same time, I am drawn to the formulations of Stoicism for three reasons: the quest for a certainty in knowledge, the immanence of Divine Providence, and the primacy of virtue in human affairs. I think it no accident that these themes correspond to the three branches of inquiry in Stoicism: logic, physics, and ethics.
It is a good sign when one follower of Socrates finds something of value from another follower of Socrates, regardless of the attached “-isms”. This final book of the Tusculan Disputations, on the sufficiency of virtue, is a step in the right direction.
Philosophers may not have always gone by the same name, and they may have approached their understanding from very different angles, but what they all shared in common was a calling to explain, not merely to describe.
They always dug down deep, and that sometimes had a way of shaking things up. Listening to them probably didn’t make you any richer or more popular, though it always left you just a little bit better and wiser, if only from looking at the world in a totally unfamiliar manner.
I doubt that Socrates was literally the first to “do” philosophy on the streets, or that he invented the method, equally enlightening and annoying, of stimulating awareness by debating inconvenient questions. He was, however, the first to so notably draw attention to himself for being a gadfly, and our cultural tradition would never be the same without him.
To be honest, I was initially offended by Socrates, failing to distinguish him from your garden-variety intellectual bully. It took me some time to recognize what he was really up to, and as a result I would also never be the same without him. If I recall correctly, it was actually Xenophon who finally allowed me to see Socrates as more than just a mouthpiece for Plato.
Cicero here highlights the very same Socratic qualities that have been so influential for me: an unwavering insistence on critical thinking, and an absolute commitment to an informed conscience. We are all, each and every one of us, adrift in this life without the knowledge to judge right from wrong, and any philosophy that fails to address this vital need doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.
When I grow tired of the endless bickering among the ideological tribes, it helps me to remember how all of their efforts are ultimately attempts at fulfilling the noble mission of Socrates, which points to the unity behind so much fracturing. Yes, there comes a point when two principles can no longer coexist, but far more of our disagreements are about matters of stress, concerning distinctions where we are sadly talking past one another.
I can respect why Cicero, for example, was guided by the Academic Skepticism of Carneades, just as I am pleased to see him further open his mind to the teachings of the Stoics. Take what you need and leave the rest. The end results in practice do not justify the quarrelling about the theory; what at first looks like a contradiction can well turn out to be a complement.
How can I blame Cicero for questioning the dogmatism of the Stoics? I imagine that some of them were insufferable in their elitism. Perhaps it is more prudent to settle for what is likely than to idly speculate about what is beyond our grasp.
At the same time, I am drawn to the formulations of Stoicism for three reasons: the quest for a certainty in knowledge, the immanence of Divine Providence, and the primacy of virtue in human affairs. I think it no accident that these themes correspond to the three branches of inquiry in Stoicism: logic, physics, and ethics.
It is a good sign when one follower of Socrates finds something of value from another follower of Socrates, regardless of the attached “-isms”. This final book of the Tusculan Disputations, on the sufficiency of virtue, is a step in the right direction.
—Reflection written in 2/1999
IMAGE: William Blake, Socrates, A Visionary Head (c. 1820)
No comments:
Post a Comment