ANCIENT GREEK PHILOSOPHICAL DOCTRINES
 
Logic and Epistemology
 
Logic
       The foundations of ancient logic are associated with the Eleatics (Parmenides and Zeno), Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. The Eleatics developed both a "positive logic" i.e. theory of basic logical principles and employment of logical demonstrations or proofs to establish philosophical claims, such as Parmenides claim that "what is" cannot be generated, and a "negative logic," or dialectic, i.e. arguments intended to expose contradictions in their opponents positions (Zeno). Parmenides is credited with identifyng the principle of non-contradiction, i.e. that one cannot say of something that it has and does not have the same property in the same respect and at the same time. He asserts this principle against Heraclitus, who seems to claim that sensible things can possess opposites in the same respect and same time, e.g. that the river is and is not the same. Later it will be used by Plato against Protagoras doctrine of the relativity of perception, insofar as Protagoras said that e.g. the wind is hot and the wind is cold are both true (but to different observors).
       A systematic theory of the rules of logic is not developed until Aristotle, but employment of logic, particularly negative logic is characteristic of Socrates in the Platonic dialogues, who shows his interlocutors to hold contradictory beliefs and thereby refutes their claims to knowledge or wisdom. In the middle "constructive" dialogues Plato's Socrates develops positive arguments to establish important claims (such as the arguments or proofs of the immortality of the soul in the Phaedo).
       Ancient theories of logic included theories of definition, inference, and modality (what can be, is, and must be the case). The notion that there are objective or "real definitions" of particular things or qualities is critical to the Socratic philosophical enterprise, insofar as Socrates seeks to know what the virtues are and the real meaning of other moral terms. The distinction between "essences" or "essential properties" that determine what a thing is and "incidental properties" that a thing can have or not have and still retain its identity is also a characteristic distinction found in ancient logic, though this distinction is rejected by Protagorean relativists.
 
Epistemology
       There are only hints at a theory of knowledge in the Presocratic philosophers, though of course the Milesians distinguish between what they have or are aiming for-- scientific, universal knowledge-- and what most people have -- mere belief or "myth" regarding nature and the universe. By the 5th century two basic trends emerge: (1) an empiricist/skeptical trend, which tends to view all knowledge as deriving from individual perceptions and memory that are confirmed by others, and thus leading to contingent, limited but genuine, empirical knowledge, in contrast to religious and political hearsay or dogmas; and (2) a rationalist/realist trend, which asserts there are forms of objective or absolute knowledge concerning the world which can be known by universal reason, and which express necessary or normative laws concerning reality, not just human perceptions of things.
       The chief support for the rationalist approach to knowledge in the ancient world comes from mathematics, and the chief exemplars of mathematical knowledge are Euclidean geometry and theoretical arithmetic, which offer systems of laws based on proofs deduced from ultimate principles and definitions. Geometry then forms the basis for scientific astronomy, which worked off a geocentric model of the cosmos with the orbits of all planets, the moon sun and stars being circular, while arithmetic ratios formed the basis for harmonics.
       In the natural sciences, the Milesians and Atomists were "realists," insofar as they believed it was possible to come to objective, scientific truth about the world. The Atomists contrasted the misleading evidence of the senses to the theoretical structure they thought was discerned by reason, of atomic particles that underlay the manifest events and large compounds or "things" of the world.
       There was only a rudimentary development of the empiricist theory of knowledge in the ancient world, where this was limited chiefly to the medical tradition. Extensive use of the experimental method did not arise until modern science. A "radical empiricist" theory of knowledge, however, was associated with Protagoras, who denied the existence of any knowledge--mathematics and logics included--which did not derive from individual sense perceptions plus memory and communal confirmation. Against the rationalists, Protagoras denied that there was knowledge of any universal, objective, or necessary truths.
       The one other area in which disputes over knowledge was important was ethics and politics. Paradoxically, the Sophists claimed to teach an "art" or "science" of politics, while at the same time rejecting the idea that there was a "universal morality" or an "ideal society" based on e.g. an essentialist notion of human nature. Socrates, on the other hand, seems to have believed there was a universal morality and an ideal form of society, though he, as opposed to Plato, does not claim to have absolute knowledge concerning it. In any case, it is hard to see how one could ever attain epistemic closure with Socrates' dialectical method, which worked dialectically from opinions through contradiction to consistent sets of beliefs.
 
 
Metaphysics and Theology
 
Metaphysics
       Whereas the first Greek natural philosophers (the Milesians) seem to have limited their thought to developing the foundations of a proto-scientific view of the cosmos and life within it (including a theory of evolution), genuinely metaphysical speculation concerning the "ultimate reality" of things and their relations began shortly afterward with Heraclitus and Parmenides, the former asserting a doctrine of "dynamic change" at the heart of all things, the latter a doctrine of "oneness" and "sameness." For Heracliteans, the material-perceptual world was continually changing, and this principle of change might extend to the words and categories we used to understand the world, even to the laws of nature itself. These Heraclitean ideas were embraced by Protagoras and the Sophists, who rejected the idea of one unitary metaphysical doctrine. The Protagoreans, true to their epistemological relativism, were also ontological or metaphysical relativists or anti-realists, arguing that all claims to "knowledge" regarding reality were mind-dependent and community-dependent interpretations, which could be argued for or against, without there ever being a conclusive answer.
       The Atomists, Pythagoreans, Plato and Aristotle were on the Eleatic side. The Atomists famously argued "real: atoms and the void; unreal: opinions and perceptions," i.e. science tells us the truth about reality, the rest is all opinion/imagination.* For the Pythagoreans, the universe was mathematically unified; Plato would argue for the ultimate reality of "the Forms" and especially the "Form of the Good;" Aristotle would also assert that the "being" of the world consisted of "individual substances" (roughly, persons and material objects governed by natural laws). But all of these thinkers asserted an objective, mind-independent reality, an "essential structure" to the universe, in contrast to its changing appearance.
       While most ancient Greek philosophers were metaphysical realists, they were divided into "metaphysical materialists" (e.g. Atomists), who argued that ideally all phenomena could be reduced to physical entities, and "metaphysical idealists" (e.g. Pythagoreans and Platonists), who argued that the ultimate realities were not physical entities, the Platonists arguing that Forms or Universal Ideals and Souls/Minds are real, and indeed, "more real" than material entities. Aristotle adopted a modified idealist view, asserting e.g. that Souls are real, but function as organizing principles of bodies. For these thinkers, the "apparent world" is the changing material world which only seems to be the ultimate reality; the "real world" consists in the ideals, substances and laws that unify and organize the world and the moral relations among human souls or persons.
 
*This scientific-metaphysical theory could not become all that influential until the development of modern science, with its ability to deliver powerful, technological "demonstrations" of its claim to knowledge; many modern philosophers, however, reject the view that science gives us a clue to metaphysical truth.
 
Theology
       To a modern thinker, philosophy, which rests on perceptual evidence and reasoning, would seem utterly opposed to theology, which rests on sacred texts and traditional beliefs (i.e. hearsay), and this is true of ancient Greek philosophy also, at least in relation to the conventional and traditional religious beliefs about the gods, which are interpreted from fairly early on in the philosophical tradition as anthropomorphic projections of the human imagination. By the 5th century, Protagoras proclaimed himself an "agnostic" concerning the gods, as "the subject is obscure and life is too short," while Critias was the first atheist, explaining that the gods were invented by statesmen who wanted people to be afraid of punishment in the afterlife for misdeeds that went unseen by men.
       Beginning already with the Presocratics Xenophanes and Anaxagoras, however, a Greek tradition of philosophical theology emerged, which connected with a doctrine of teleological order in the universe, on the one hand, and with a theory of mind on the other. In both Plato and Aristotle we find a theory of a "Prime Mover" and "Divine Mind" who designs or sets the world in motion and thereby instills unity and value in all things. In Plato this God sometimes appears as "Divine Artisan" (Timaeus), sometimes as "The Good" (Republic), where it is a kind of Idea of Perfection that draws all things toward it. (The Design Argument for the existence of God is shaken by Hume's arguments in the 18th century, more or less repudiated by Darwin in the 19th.)
       In a sense, the Pythagorean-Platonic doctrine of the immortal soul also introduces a theological notion, in that the ancient Greeks, who viewed the human being as irreducibly mortal, had to think of this concept as implying the presence of a "divine principle" or "god" within the human being--if indeed the soul or mind was eternal and could exist separate from the body (as Plato argues and Aristotle denies). Whether the soul is or is not divine and could or could not exist separate from its body, however, Platonists and Aristotelians still agreed there was a "divine order" to the universe which could be discerned by human reason, and cognitive participation in this order was a kind of "immortalizing" experience.
 
 
Ethics and Politics
 
Ethics

       Ancient philosophical ethics tends to be agent-centered, and concerned with questions about what kind of person we ought to strive to be, theories of virtue and “the good life.” Modern philosophical ethics tends to be act-centered, and concerned with questions about the norms of moral action and theories of value, what makes experience good or bad (or evil). Both the ancients and the moderns are concerned with questions of normative ethics, what we ought to do or be, and with questions of meta-ethics, how we may justify or motivate ethics.

       Ancient normative ethics included “deontological” approaches that focused on duties and the rightness or wrongness of actions, based on conventional or universal religious law (nomos), as well as “teleological” approaches oriented to the consequences of actions and their long-run benefit or harm to the society or the individual. But the chief focus of ancient ethics was teleological, having to do with what kind of life one should live to attain fulfillment or happiness (eudaimonia), and on this issue there were sharply different opinions, particularly relating to the roles of the cooperative or self-restraining virtues within the good life.

       Most sophists approved of a conventional set of goods--wealth, health, political power--attained by practical wisdom or prudence within the boundaries of legal justice. Other sophists argued that since these things were good by nature, and since moral laws were the creations of society, the truly wise and prudent man would secretly ignore morality and pursue a "princely" or "tyrannical life" of action, power and pleasure (bios tyrannos). The Pythagoreans, by contrast, preached the eternal good of a "spiritual way of life" (hodos tou biou) devoted to virtue, science and the Pythagorean community. The Atomists approved of hedonism, the doctrine that the good by nature consists in pleasure or enjoyment, but argued that maximum pleasure was to found in a private life of study and friendship, as opposed to the conventional ancient ideal of the politically engaged life, oriented to the polis and its well-being. Aristotle distinguishes the “life of action” (bios praktikos) and the “life of contemplation” (bios theoretikos) and prefers the latter, though he regards each as laudable in contrast to the deficient lives of pleasure-seeking and money-making. Socrates extolled the "care of the soul" and the “examined life” of reason and virtue; but made no claim to knowledge of a "divine good." His argument was that human happiness was found in rationality, expressed in the philosophical life.

       Clearly, the ancient ethicists disagreed concerning (i) the “real meaning” of terms they might agree were human virtues, e.g. courage, prudence or wisdom, (ii) which qualities were genuine virtues, e.g. piety, temperance, justice, and (iii) the rank and relationships among the virtues, e.g. justice vs. wisdom, or whether they were independent of one another (the Unity of Virtue problem).

       Ancient meta-ethics involved epistemological, metaphysical and psychological issues: whether there was such a thing as ethical knowledge and how ethical claims could be justified; whether morality and ethical ideals exist independently of human invention or are human constructs; and what the motivation is for ethical conduct. The Socratic tradition including Plato and Aristotle argues for ethical cognitivism against the Sophists and Atomists, each of whom takes a skeptical view of claims to ethical knowledge, though there is a tension between Socrates’ professed ability to disprove opposing/justify his own normative ethics (Socratic rationalism), and his stance of epistemological openness (Socratic ignorance). Plato and Aristotle also defend versions of ethical realism: in Plato, ethics is grounded metaphysically in the Forms (which can be known by dialectic and intuitive reason), whereas in Aristotle it is grounded metaphysically in the inner goal-directedness of human nature, which he argues cannot be fulfilled except in a life of virtue and reason. The Sophists, who are relativists and metaphysical anti-realists, and the Atomists, who are scientific realists, both reject the idea that human ethics are anything but ideas or constructs of human societies or individuals.

       Finally, the ancient ethicists also differed concerning ethical motivation and its relation to "human nature." Most Sophists assume human beings are basically egoistic, but also naturally social, though some argued (a) social conditioning and "art" are more important than nature in determining what kind of people we are, whereas others argued (b) all humans are deeply egoistic, but whereas most submit to the internalized “conscience” society instills in them, a few are able to overthrow it and seek the (truly) good life of pleasure and power. Plato and Aristotle develop complex theories of ethical motivation which argue that the natural human interest in society and rationality promote non-egoistic ends. Plato's “Theory of the Tripartite Soul” divides human beings into three different ethical natures, according to the relative weight each gives in his life to reason, honor, and materialistic pleasure; Aristotle holds a somewhat analogous view which presents human beings as internally motivated toward lives in which the goods of the soul (knowledge and the virtues), the goods of the city (government and mutual regard), and external goods (physical and material safety and comfort) are all desired “by nature," albeit in different degrees. 

 

Politics

       Ancient political philosophy began in the 5th century BCE, influenced by several historical factors: (i) the beginning of historical-political awareness of the differences between Greek and Asiatic societies, and between the Spartan and Athenian city-states; (ii) the practice of devising political constitutions for colony states; (iii) the establishment of Pythagorean utopian-religious communities, which were organized with the goal of instilling virtue in the citizens; (iv) the widespread institution of slavery, generally regarded as necessary to the ancient economy; (v) the prevalence of warfare between Greeks and Persians, and among the Greeks, particularly Sparta and Athens; (vi) the sharp distinction between the social roles of men and women, women being denied both higher education and political rights; (vii) the beginning of political ideologies in Athens, especially between “radical democrats” who sought to expand and “conservatives” who sought to restrict democratic institutions and the political influence of the working class.

       Modern scholars tend to identify Atomists and the Sophists with ancient democratic, Plato and Aristotle with ancient aristocratic political theory, though all of these thinkers rejected the claims of conventional aristocrats to political legitimacy (with the possible exception of ethical relativists). But insofar as both Atomists and Sophists rejected the idea of an objective ethics that might guide the formation of political order—the goal of the polis being then to protect and promote human virtue and fulfillment—they also rejected the idea that politics was anything more than the product of social agreements, which might have arisen in some way naturally, but certainly were also due to violence, and in any case now were subject to debate and re-organization based on choice and persuasion (logos), rather than tradition or force. For the Atomists and some Sophists, this led to the formation of a proto-Hobbesian social contract model of justice, which conferred political legitimacy insofar as the laws protected people against each other’s predations. The Atomists went further than most Sophists by rejecting the legitimacy of slavery, and insisting on egalitarian political arrangements, though as we have seen they did not think a wise person would devote their energies to public life or matters of justice. Sophists also identified with democratic, “open” societies, which would allow space for political debate and persuasion, their claim to expertise, to “the political craft” (techne politike). Some Sophists, however, influenced by the ideal of the “tyrannical life,” argued that the natural political order was one in which an aristocratic few or tyrannical one ruled over and exploited the democratic many, i.e. that hierarchy and competition, not equality and cooperation, was more "natural" to human society.

       The Socratic tradition, embracing the idea of an objective, teleological ethics, rejected both democratic and conventional aristocratic political theories, in favor of what might be called a “virtue-oriented” or utopian politics, which included a strong element of “critical theory.” Plato, in particular, criticizes the potentially harmful effect on both thought/false beliefs and character/bad values of growing up in morally defective societies—the instilling of dogmatism and aggression in military societies, of greed in money-loving societies, of narcissism and lack of discipline in anarchistic democratic societies, of fear and violence in tyrannical societies, and of “political mythologies” that distort political and self-knowledge in each. In his Republic, Plato envisions a “high utopian” society governed by male and female philosophers, who live communistically in service to the state and the pursuit of knowledge, and who impose a strict moral and religious discipline on the other citizens. In his Laws, he envisions a “low utopian” society, governed by property-owning aristocrats, though even in this model there is a role for philosophical wisdom. Aristotle likewise distinguishes between a “utopian” virtuous society, governed by a cultured aristocracy, and a sound “republican” society, a democracy of the middle (i.e. propertied) class. But insofar as both Plato and Aristotle rejected the idea of value-pluralism, represented in ancient thought by the Atomists and Sophistic relativists, they both support the idea that the state has as its goal not only protecting and advancing the material well-being of the citizens, but even more their moral and intellectual improvement. For Plato, this can only be achieved within an authoritarian, aristocratic form of government, which allows and promotes freedom of thought only within the ruling philosophical elite; for Aristotle, this can be achieved to some degree within a moderate democracy, which allows freedom of discussion and lifestyles, though Aristotle accepts, as Plato does not, the conventional ancient institutions of slavery and male/female social roles.