Thales of Miletus

Born: about 624 BC in Miletus, Asia Minor (now Turkey)

Died: about 547 BC in Miletus, Asia Minor (now Turkey)

Thales of Miletus was the son of Examyes and Cleobuline. His parents are said by some to be
from Miletus but others report that they were Phoenicians. J Longrigg writes in [1]:-

But the majority opinion considered him a true Milesian by descent, and of a distinguished
family.

Thales seems to be the first known Greek philosopher, scientist and mathematician although
his occupation was that of an engineer. He is believed to have been the teacher
of Anaximander (611 BC - 545 BC) and he was the first natural philosopher in the Milesian
School. However, none of his writing survives so it is difficult to determine his views or to be
certain about his mathematical discoveries. Indeed it is unclear whether he wrote any works at
all and if he did they were certainly lost by the time of Aristotle who did not have access to any
writings of Thales. On the other hand there are claims that he wrote a book on navigation but
these are based on little evidence. In the book on navigation it is suggested that he used the
constellation Ursa Minor, which he defined, as an important feature in his navigation
techniques. Even if the book is fictitious, it is quite probable that Thales did indeed define the
constellation Ursa Minor.

Proclus, the last major Greek philosopher, who lived around 450 AD, wrote:-

[Thales] first went to Egypt and thence introduced this study [geometry] into Greece. He

discovered many propositions himself, and instructed his successors in the principles underlying
many others, his method of attacking problems had greater generality in some cases and was
more in the nature of simple inspection and observation in other cases.
There is a difficulty in writing about Thales and others from a similar period. Although there are
numerous references to Thales which would enable us to reconstruct quite a number of details,
the sources must be treated with care since it was the habit of the time to credit famous men
with discoveries they did not make. Partly this was as a result of the legendary status that men
like Thales achieved, and partly it was the result of scientists with relatively little history behind
their subjects trying to increase the status of their topic with giving it an historical background.

Certainly Thales was a figure of enormous prestige, being the only philosopher
before Socrates to be among the Seven Sages. Plutarch, writing of these Seven Sages, says that
(see [8]):-

[Thales] was apparently the only one of these whose wisdom stepped, in speculation, beyond
the limits of practical utility, the rest acquired the reputation of wisdom in politics.

This comment by Plutarch should not be seen as saying that Thales did not function as a
politician. Indeed he did. He persuaded the separate states of Ionia to form a federation with a
capital at Teos. He dissuaded his compatriots from accepting an alliance with Croesus and, as a
result, saved the city.

It is reported that Thales predicted an eclipse of the Sun in 585 BC. The cycle of about 19 years
for eclipses of the Moon was well known at this time but the cycle for eclipses of the Sun was
harder to spot since eclipses were visible at different places on Earth. Thales's prediction of the
585 BC eclipse was probably a guess based on the knowledge that an eclipse around that time
was possible. The claims that Thales used the Babylonian saros, a cycle of length 18 years 10
days 8 hours, to predict the eclipse has been shown by Neugebauer to be highly unlikely
since Neugebauer shows in [11] that the saros was an invention of Halley. Neugebauer wrote
[11]:-

... there exists no cycle for solar eclipses visible at a given place: all modern cycles concern the
earth as a whole. No Babylonian theory for predicting a solar eclipse existed at 600 BC, as one
can see from the very unsatisfactory situation 400 years later, nor did the Babylonians ever
develop any theory which took the influence of geographical latitude into account.

After the eclipse on 28 May, 585 BC Herodotus wrote:-

... day was all of a sudden changed into night. This event had been foretold by Thales, the
Milesian, who forewarned the Ionians of it, fixing for it the very year in which it took place. The
Medes and Lydians, when they observed the change, ceased fighting, and were alike anxious to
have terms of peace agreed on.

Longrigg in [1] even doubts that Thales predicted the eclipse by guessing, writing:-
... a more likely explanation seems to be simply that Thales happened to be the savant around
at the time when this striking astronomical phenomenon occurred and the assumption was
made that as a savant he must have been able to predict it.

There are several accounts of how Thales measured the height of pyramids. Diogenes
Laertius writing in the second century AD quotes Hieronymus, a pupil of Aristotle [6] (or see
[8]):-

Hieronymus says that [Thales] even succeeded in measuring the pyramids by observation of the

length of their shadow at the moment when our shadows are equal to our own height.

This appears to contain no subtle geometrical knowledge, merely an empirical observation that
at the instant when the length of the shadow of one object coincides with its height, then the
same will be true for all other objects. A similar statement is made by Pliny (see [8]):-

Thales discovered how to obtain the height of pyramids and all other similar objects, namely, by
measuring the shadow of the object at the time when a body and its shadow are equal in
length.

Plutarch however recounts the story in a form which, if accurate, would mean that Thales was
getting close to the idea of similar triangles:-

... without trouble or the assistance of any instrument [he] merely set up a stick at the
extremity of the shadow cast by the pyramid and, having thus made two triangles by the impact
of the sun's rays, ... showed that the pyramid has to the stick the same ratio which the
shadow [of the pyramid] has to the shadow [of the stick]

Of course Thales could have used these geometrical methods for solving practical problems,
having merely observed the properties and having no appreciation of what it means to prove a
geometrical theorem. This is in line with the views of Russell who writes of Thales contributions
to mathematics in [12]:-

Thales is said to have travelled in Egypt, and to have thence brought to the Greeks the science
of geometry. What Egyptians knew of geometry was mainly rules of thumb, and there is no
reason to believe that Thales arrived at deductive proofs, such as later Greeks discovered.

On the other hand B L van der Waerden [16] claims that Thales put geometry on a logical
footing and was well aware of the notion of proving a geometrical theorem. However, although
there is much evidence to suggest that Thales made some fundamental contributions to
geometry, it is easy to interpret his contributions in the light of our own knowledge, thereby
believing that Thales had a fuller appreciation of geometry than he could possibly have
achieved. In many textbooks on the history of mathematics Thales is credited with five
theorems of elementary geometry:-
 i. A circle is bisected by any diameter.
ii. The base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal.
iii. The angles between two intersecting straight lines are equal.
iv. Two triangles are congruent if they have two angles and one side equal.
v. An angle in a semicircle is a right angle.

What is the basis for these claims? Proclus, writing around 450 AD, is the basis for the first four
of these claims, in the third and fourth cases quoting the work History of Geometry by Eudemus
of Rhodes, who was a pupil of Aristotle, as his source. The History of Geometry by Eudemus is
now lost but there is no reason to doubt Proclus. The fifth theorem is believed to be due to
Thales because of a passage from Diogenes Laertius bookLives of eminent philosophers written
in the second century AD [6]:-

Pamphile says that Thales, who learnt geometry from the Egyptians, was the first to describe on
a circle a triangle which shall be right-angled, and that he sacrificed an ox (on the strength of
the discovery). Others, however, including Apollodorus the calculator, say that it
was Pythagoras.

A deeper examination of the sources, however, shows that, even if they are accurate, we may
be crediting Thales with too much. For example Proclus uses a word meaning something closer
to 'similar' rather than 'equal- in describing (ii). It is quite likely that Thales did not even have a
way of measuring angles so 'equal- angles would have not been a concept he would have
understood precisely. He may have claimed no more than "The base angles of an isosceles
triangle look similar". The theorem (iv) was attributed to Thales by Eudemus for less than
completely convincing reasons. Proclus writes (see [8]):-

[Eudemus] says that the method by which Thales showed how to find the distances of ships
from the shore necessarily involves the use of this theorem.

Heath in [8] gives three different methods which Thales might have used to calculate the
distance to a ship at sea. The method which he thinks it most likely that Thales used was to
have an instrument consisting of two sticks nailed into a cross so that they could be rotated
about the nail. An observer then went to the top of a tower, positioned one stick vertically
(using say a plumb line) and then rotating the second stick about the nail until it point at the
ship. Then the observer rotates the instrument, keeping it fixed and vertical, until the movable
stick points at a suitable point on the land. The distance of this point from the base of the tower
is equal to the distance to the ship.

Although theorem (iv) underlies this application, it would have been quite possible for Thales to
devise such a method without appreciating anything of 'congruent triangles'.

As a final comment on these five theorems, there are conflicting stories regarding theorem (iv)
as Diogenes Laertius himself is aware. Also even Pamphile cannot be taken as an authority since
she lived in the first century AD, long after the time of Thales. Others have attributed the story
about the sacrifice of an ox to Pythagoras on discovering Pythagoras's theorem. Certainly there
is much confusion, and little certainty.

Our knowledge of the philosophy of Thales is due to Aristotle who wrote in his Metaphysics :-

Thales of Miletus taught that 'all things are water'.

This, as Brumbaugh writes [5]:-

...may seem an unpromising beginning for science and philosophy as we know them today; but,
against the background of mythology from which it arose, it was revolutionary.

Sambursky writes in [15]:-

It was Thales who first conceived the principle of explaining the multitude of phenomena by a
small number of hypotheses for all the various manifestations of matter.

Thales believed that the Earth floats on water and all things come to be from water. For him the
Earth was a flat disc floating on an infinite ocean. It has also been claimed that Thales explained
earthquakes from the fact that the Earth floats on water. Again the importance of Thales' idea
is that he is the first recorded person who tried to explain such phenomena by rational rather
than by supernatural means.

It is interesting that Thales has both stories told about his great practical skills and also about
him being an unworldly dreamer. Aristotle, for example, relates a story of how Thales used his
skills to deduce that the next season's olive crop would be a very large one. He therefore
bought all the olive presses and then was able to make a fortune when the bumper olive crop
did indeed arrive. On the other hand Plato tells a story of how one night Thales was gazing at
the sky as he walked and fell into a ditch. A pretty servant girl lifted him out and said to him
"How do you expect to understand what is going on up in the sky if you do not even see what is
at your feet". As Brumbaugh says, perhaps this is the first absent-minded professor joke in the
West!

The bust of Thales shown above is in the Capitoline Museum in Rome, but is not contemporary
with Thales and is unlikely to bear any resemblance to him.

HIS PHILOSOPHY

Western philosophy begins in the antiquity roughly at the same time when Western
historiographers began to record history more or less systematically. This is of course no
surprise. We may believe that earlier philosophers have existed, but their works would have
been invariably lost. Historiography was supposedly invented by the Babylonians, before the
Greeks, but we shall leave this question to the historians and continue with philosophy.
Try to picture the early Greek civilization around 600 BC. Imagine yourself in a flourishing
commercial town at the sunny coast of Ionia. The Greeks traded intensively with each other and
with surrounding nations, thus many Greek city states accumulated considerable wealth and
with it came art, science, and philosophy. However, there was trouble.

The political climate was afflicting as a consequence of slavery and mercantilism. Greek cities
were often ruled by ruthless tyrants - landowning aristocrats and superrich merchants who
gave little importance to ethical considerations. Around 585 BC there lived a man in Miletus
whose name was Thales, one of the Seven Wise men of Greece.

Thales had traveled to Egypt to study the science of geometry. Somehow he must have refined
the Egyptian methods, because when he came back to Miletus he surprised his contemporaries
with his unusual mathematical abilities. Thales calculated the distance of a ship at sea from
observations taken on two points on land and he knew how to determine the height of a
pyramid from the length of its shadow. He became famous for predicting an eclipse in 585 BC.

In spite of his wisdom, Thales was a poor man. The inhabitants of Miletus ridiculed Thales for
his philosophy and asked him what his wisdom is good for if it can't pay the rent.

"He was reproached for his poverty, which was supposed to show that philosophy is of no use.
According to the story, he knew by his skills in the stars while it was yet winter that there would
be a great harvest of olives in the coming year; so, having a little money, he gave deposits for
the use of all olive-presses in Chios and Miletus, which he hired at a low price because no one
bid against him.

When the harvest time came, and many were wanted all at once and of a sudden, he let them
out at any rate which he pleased, and made a quantity of money. Thus he showed the world
that philosophers can be rich if they like, but that their ambition is of another sort." [from
"Politics", Aristotle]

Thales was a mathematician rather than a philosopher, but in antiquity there was no
differentiation between the natural sciences and philosophy; instead, mathematics, philosophy
and science were closely related in the works of the early Greek philosophers.

Most people remember Thales for his famous theorem about right angles that says: A triangle
inscribed in a semicircle has a right angle (see figure on the left). Although this might seem a
simple observation, Thales was the first one who stated it and thus started what is now
generally known as "deductive science", the process of deriving suppositions and mathematical
statements from observation by means of logic. Circles and angles were not the only objects
Thales was concerned with. Purportedly he also studied magnetism and electrostatic effects,
however, since none of his own works has survived, we don't know what he may have found
out about them.
Thales was surely an exceptional man, but he was not the only thinker in ancient Greece whose
thoughts were ahead of his time. For instance, the idea that all forms of substances can be
reduced to a few elements and that every form of matter are made of these elements, is
essentially Greek, and was conceived around the time of Thales.

Thales stated that the origin of all matter is water. Although this sounds a bit odd, there may be
some truth in it. As we know today, the largest constituent of the universe is hydrogen, which
makes two of the three atoms in water (H2O). The missing oxygen atom was added later when
our planet formed. Scientists believe that liquid water is prerequisite to life, and we know with
certainty that the first life forms flourished in the oceans, so water is indeed a primordial
substance.

The Greeks also anticipated a crude version of the concept of modern thermodynamics.
Anaximander (546 BC), a Milesian citizen who lived after Thales, expressed the following
thought: The elements (air, water earth and fire) are in opposition to each other, each
perpetually seeking to increase itself in quantity. Due to the resulting struggle for dominance,
all forms of matter are subject to continual change. Thus, the elements are constantly
transformed into one another, however, without one element ever gaining preponderance over
the others because of a natural balance.

Anaximenses (494 BC), the third philosopher of Miletus, refined the theory of the elements
later with his original theory of the aggregates: The fundamental substance, he said, is air. The
soul is air, fire is rarefied air, when condensed, air becomes first water, then if further
condensed, earth, and finally stone. Consequently all differences between different substances
are quantitative, depending entirely upon the degree of condensation.

You may find these ideas strange, but it has to be considered that the early Greek philosophers
lived in an environment where indigenous beliefs and superstitions prevailed in the spiritual
world and the rule of thumb was accepted authority. Thales was the first who made a
difference by introducing deductive, scientific thought.

I would like to end this Thales portrait with a peculiar quote, which shows the spiritual Thales.
He said: "All things are full of Gods," and left it unexplained.
 SOCRATES

Born: c. 469 B.C.E. 
Died: c. 399 B.C.E. 
Athens, Greece 
The Greek philosopher and logician (one who studies logic or reason)
Socrates was an important influence on Plato (427–347 B.C.E. ) and
had a major effect on ancient philosophy.

Early life

Socrates was the son of Sophroniscus, an Athenian stone mason and

sculptor. He learned his father's craft and apparently practiced it for many years. He
participated in the Peloponnesian War (431–04 B.C.E. ) when Athens was crushed by the
Spartans, and he distinguished himself for his courage. Details of his early life are scarce,
although he appears to have had no more than an ordinary Greek education before devoting
his time almost completely to intellectual interests. He did, however, take a keen interest in the
works of the natural philosophers, and Plato records the fact that Socrates met Zeno of Elea (c.
495–430 B.C.E. ) and Parmenides (born c. 515 B.C.E. ) on their trip to Athens, which probably
took place about 450 B.C.E.

Socrates himself wrote nothing, therefore evidence of his life and activities must come from the
writings of Plato and Xenophon (c. 431–352 B.C.E. ). It is likely that neither of these presents a
completely accurate picture of him, but Plato's Apology, Crito, Phaedo, and Symposium contain
details which must be close to fact.

From the Apology we learn that Socrates was well known around Athens; uncritical thinkers
linked him with the rest of the Sophists (a philosophical school); he fought in at least three
military campaigns for the city; and he attracted to his circle large numbers of young men who
delighted in seeing their elders proved false by Socrates. His courage in military campaigns is
described by Alcibiades (c. 450–404 B.C.E. ) in the Symposium.

In addition to stories about Socrates's strange character, the Symposium provides details

regarding his physical appearance. He was short, quite the opposite of what was considered
graceful and beautiful in the Athens of his time. He was also poor and had only the barest
necessities of life. Socrates's physical ugliness did not stop his appeal.

His thought

There was a strong religious side to Socrates's character and thought which constantly revealed
itself in spite of his criticism of Greek myths. His words and actions in the Apology, Crito,
Phaedo, and Symposium reveal a deep respect for Athenian religious customs and a sincere
regard for divinity (gods). Indeed, it was a divine voice which Socrates claimed to hear within
himself on important occasions in his life. It was not a voice which gave him positive
instructions, but instead warned him when he was about to go off course. He recounts, in his
defense before the Athenian court, the story of his friend Chaerephon, who was told by the
Delphic Oracle (a person regarded as wise counsel) that Socrates was the wisest of men. That
statement puzzled Socrates, he says, for no one was more aware of the extent of his own
ignorance than he himself, but he determined to see the truth of the god's words. After
questioning those who had a reputation for wisdom and who considered themselves, wise, he
concluded that he was wiser than they because he could recognize his ignorance while they,
who were equally ignorant, thought themselves wise.

Socrates was famous for his method of argumentation (a system or process used for arguing or
debate) and his works often made as many enemies as admirers within Athens. An example
comes from the Apology. Meletus had accused Socrates of corrupting the youth, or ruining the
youth's morality. Socrates begins by asking if Meletus considers the improvement of youth
important. He replies that he does, whereupon Socrates asks who is capable of improving the
young. The laws, says Meletus, and Socrates asks him to name a person who knows the laws.
Meletus responds that the judges there present know the laws, whereupon Socrates asks if all
who are present are able to instruct and improve youth or whether only a few can. Meletus
replies that all of them are capable of such a task, which forces Meletus to confess that other
groups of Athenians, such as the Senate and the Assembly, and indeed all Athenians are
capable of instructing and improving the youth. All except Socrates, that is. Socrates then starts
a similar set of questions regarding the instruction and improvement of horses and other
animals. Is it true that all men are capable of training horses, or only those men with special
qualifications and experience? Meletus, realizing the absurdity of his position, does not answer,
but Socrates answers for him and says that if he does not care enough about the youth of
Athens to have given adequate thought to who might instruct and improve them, he has no
right to accuse Socrates of corrupting them.

Thus the Socratic method of argumentation begins with commonplace questions which lead the
opponent to believe that the questioner is simple, but ends in a complete reversal. Thus his
chief contributions lie not in the construction of an elaborate system but in clearing away the
false common beliefs and in leading men to an awareness of their own ignorance, from which
position they may begin to discover the truth. It was his unique combination of dialectical
(having to do with using logic and reasoning in an argument or discussion) skill and magnetic
attractiveness to the youth of Athens which gave his opponents their opportunity to bring him
to trial in 399 B.C.E.

His death

Meletus, Lycon, and Anytus charged Socrates with impiety (being unreligious) and with
corrupting the youth of the city. Since defense speeches were made by the principals in
Athenian legal practice, Socrates spoke in his own behalf and his defense speech was a sure
sign that he was not going to give in. After taking up the charges and showing how they were
false, he proposed that the city should honor him as it did Olympic victors. He was convicted
and sentenced to death. Plato's Crito tells of Crito's attempts to persuade Socrates to flee the
prison (Crito had bribed [exchanged money for favors] the jailer, as was customary), but
Socrates, in a dialogue between himself and the Laws of Athens, reveals his devotion to the city
and his obligation to obey its laws even if they lead to his death. In the Phaedo, Plato recounts
Socrates's discussion of the immortality of the soul; and at the end of that dialogue, one of the
most moving and dramatic scenes in ancient literature, Socrates takes the hemlock (poison)
prepared for him while his friends sit helplessly by. He died reminding Crito that he owes a
rooster to Aesculapius.

Socrates was the most colorful figure in the history of ancient philosophy. His fame was
widespread in his own time, and his name soon became a household word although he
professed no extraordinary wisdom, constructed no philosophical system, established no
school, and founded no sect (following). His influence on the course of ancient philosophy,
through Plato, the Cynics, and less directly, Aristotle, is immeasurable.
HIS PHILOSOPHY

Socrates's contributions to philosophy were a new method of approaching knowledge, a

conception of the soul as the seat both of normal waking consciousness and of moral
character, and a sense of the universe as purposively mind-ordered. His method,
called dialectic, consisted in examining statements by pursuing their implications, on the
assumption that if a statement were true it could not lead to false consequences. The method
may have been suggested by Zeno of Elea, but Socrates refined it and applied it to ethical
problems.

His doctrine of the soul led him to the belief that all virtues converge into one, which is the
good, or knowledge of one's true self and purposes through the course of a lifetime.
Knowledge in turn depends on the nature or essence of things as they really are, for the
underlying forms of things are more real than their experienced exemplifications. This
conception leads to a teleological view of the world that all the forms participate in and lead to
the highest form, the form of the good. Plato later elaborated this doctrine as central to his
own philosophy. Socrates's view is often described as holding virtue and knowledge to be
identical, so that no man knowingly does wrong. Since virtue is identical with knowledge, it can
be taught, but not as a professional specialty as the Sophists had pretended to teach it.
However, Socrates himself gave no final answer to how virtue can be learned.
 PLATO
Plato's Life

Plato, born in Athens around 427 BC, was considered to be

one of the earliest philosophers. He lived during the Age of
Synthesis. After his father's death his mother married a friend of
Pericles so he was politically connected to both the oligarchy and
democracy. After the Peloponnesian War, his mother's brother
and uncle tried to persuade him to join in the oligarchical rules of
Athens. Instead, Plato joined his two older brothers in becoming a
student of Socrates. Socrates forced them to challenge then to
examine their ideas and beliefs critically, which was annoying and
antagonizing many in the process. Socrates seems to have adopted
as his own the motto of the Delphic Oracle, "Know thyself"; and, while trying to dissociate
himself from the sophists' brand of instruction for hire, he taught his students that, "it is the
greatest good for a man to discuss virtue every day and those other things about which you
hear me conversing and testing myself and others, for the unexamined life is not worth living."

Plato was an opponent of the relativism and scepticism of the Sophists; but, like them
he focused on values rather than on physical science. Aristotle credits Socrates with
emphasizing moral questions and precise definitions; and Plato surely absorbed these lessons.

Plato was no friend of the Thirty Tyrants, who's reign (404-403 BC) lasted only 8 months,
but he also was not a friend of the Athenian democracy when it was restored. He alienated
them by him method of critical interrogation. In 399 BC he was brought to trial with the capital
crimes of religious impiety and corruption of youth, convicted, and sentenced to death. Hid
friends offered to pay a fine instead of the death penalty. As Plato tells us in the Seventh Letter
after Socrates' death, he became disenchanted with all existing political regimes, and felt that
the only salvation of politics would require that "either true and genuine philosophers attain
political power or the rulers of states by some dispensation of providence become genuine
philosophers."

About 387 BC, Plato founded a school in Athens, in a grove sacred to the demigod
Academus, called the Academy (which is where we get the word academics from today). It was,
in effect, a university of higher learning, which included physical science, astronomy, and
mathematics, as well as philosophy. In addition to presiding over the Academy, Plato delivered
lectures, which were never published.

In 367 BC Dionysius died and was succeeded by his teenage son, Dionysius II, whose
uncle, Dion, was a close friend to Plato. Dion invited Plato to come a school Dionysius for his
future kingship. Plato, seeing that this was a way for him to complete his goal for a philosopher
king decided to travel to Sicily and take control of the boy's studies. Dionysius II later had a fight
with Dion, and exiled him, Plato was unable to convert the boy to philosophy and returned the
Athens, where Dion had established residence. Plato continued correspondence with Dionysius
II, and tried to have him reconcile with Dion. Dionysius II lured Plato into a trap, by telling him
that he wanted to become a philosopher. Plato was trapped in Syracuse until 360. Where he
traveled back to Athens and continued to function as president of the Academy. He died in 347
BC, at about the age of eighty.

HIS PHILOSOPHY

I. THE THEORY OF THE IDEAS AND PLATO’S ONTOLOGY   

I. 1. The ontological dualism
       The theory of the Ideas is the base of Plato’s philosophy: the Ideas are not only the real
objects ontologically speaking, but they are the authentically objects of knowledge
epistemologically speaking. From  the point of view  of ethics and  politics,  they are the
foundation of  the right behaviour,  andanthropologically speaking they are  the base  of Plato’s
dualism and they even allow him demonstrate  the immortality of  the soul.
      Plato defends a clear ontological dualism in which there are two types of realities or
worlds:  the sensible world and the intelligible world or, as he calls it, the world of the
Ideas. The Sensible World is the world of individual realities, and so is multiple and constantly
changing, is the world of generation and destruction; is the realm of the sensible, material,
temporal and space things. On the contrary, the Intelligible World is the world of the universal,
eternal and invisible realities called Ideas (or "Forms"), which are immutable and do not change
because they are not material, temporal or space. Ideas can be understood and known; they
are the authentic reality. The Ideas or Forms are not just concepts or psychic events of our
minds; they do exist as objective and independent beings out of our consciences. They are also
the origin of sensible things, but although they are the authentic beings, Plato, unlike
Parmenides of Elea, do not completely deny the reality of the sensible things; the sensible
world, although ontologically inferior, have also certain kind of being which comes from
its participation or imitation of the world of Forms.  The task of Demiurge is to give the shape
of the Forms to that shapeless sensible material that has always existed making it thus similar
to the Ideas.
        The Ideas are hierarchically ordered; there are different types and they do not have all the
same value. The coherency of the arguments Plato uses for defending the existence of the Ideas
would have lead him to claim there are Ideas of all those general words of which we can find an
example in the sensible world, that is to say, of all the universal terms such as "justice",
"rightness" or "man", but also terms as "table", "hair" or "mud". In spite of it, the population of
Ideas postulated by Plato is limited enough by value considerations. Sorts of Ideas that are
included in the intelligible world: the Idea of Rightness and other moral Ideas (Justice, Virtue,
etc.); Aesthetic Ideas (specially the Idea of Beauty), Ideas of Multiplicity, Unity, Identity,
Difference, Being, Not being, mathematical Ideas and other Ideas (the Idea of Man, etc.).  Plato
locates the Idea of Rightness on the highest position of that intelligible world; sometimes he
identifies it with the Idea of Beauty and even with the idea of God. The Idea of Rightness is the
origin of the existence of everything because human behaviour depends on it and everything
tends to it (intrinsic purpose in the nature).   
     
I. 2. Plato’s arguments in favour of the Theory of the Ideas
       In essence, this theory defends there are certain independent, universal, immutable and
absolute beings which are different from the sensible world.

a)  Critic of the sensible knowledge in the dialogue "Theaetetus": Plato shows

evidence does not rise from sensible knowledge. This kind of knowledge leads
to relativism, which is, in essence, absurd (critic of sophist philosophy). Besides, we
have knowledge not based on the senses. Conclusion: science (knowledge strictly
talking) based on sensation as criterion for truth is not possible, because we cannot
have science of changeable things (of the sensible world) which just appears to our
senses. Science has to be based on reason, which studies the nature or essence of
things ("Ideas").             

b)  The use of the language and the problem of the reference of the universal

terms.Linguistic terms as nouns ("table"), adjectives ("good") and abstract
nouns ("beauty") of which many examples can be shown lead to think about the
existence of beings different from the individual and sensible ones. The objects to which
names (such as "Socrates" or "Napoleon") refer are individuals; but we have certain
problems about the objects to which other terms (nouns, abstract adjectives and
abstract nouns) refer. We call them UNIVERSAL terms because they do refer to a
plurality of objects. For that reason Plato deduces there must be universal beings
matching up those universal concepts of which there are plenty of individuals or
examples; “The Green” would match the concept of "green", “The Kindness” would
match the concept of "kindness", “The Beauty” would match the concept of "beautiful",
“The Truth” would match the concept of "truth". Those beings which match universal
concepts are called Ideas or Forms.

c) The possibility of scientific knowledge: science strictly talking cannot deal with things
which are continuously changing; the sensible world is continuously changing, so
 science cannot study it; it has to study an immutable world. The second premise shows
a clear affinity with Parmenides of Elea and Heraclitus of Ephesus: what is given to our
senses is a world ruled by continuous change, by mutation. As far as the first premise,
we have to think about something permanent in those objects we want to have
knowledge about if we want this knowledge to be true. Is there any knowledge that
is always true and not just sometimes true?  If there is, then we have to think there are
things that don’t change and our knowledge will have to refer to them. Plato
thinks MATHEMATICS is immutable. The science he is looking for will have to be
universal and will have to be based on reason exactly as mathematics. Plato thinks that
kind of knowledge is possible referring to a realm of real things different from the
mathematician; and both disciplines (mathematics and that superior knowledge he calls
"dialectic") will be strict knowledge because they refer to immutable objects. These
immutable objects are the "Ideas".
 
II. THE MYTH OF THE CAVERN, COMPENDIUM OF PLATO’S PHILOSOPHY
        In the VII book of the "Republic" Plato displays his well-known myth of the cavern, the
most important one as it embraces the cardinal points of his philosophy. He wants it to be a
metaphor "of our nature regarding its education and its lack of education", that is, serves to
illustrate issues regarding the theory of knowledge. Nevertheless, he clearly knows this myth
has important consequences for other fields of philosophy as ontology, anthropology and even
policy and ethics; some philosophers have seen even religious implications.  The myth describes
our situation regarding knowledge: we are like the prisoners of a cavern who only see the
shades of the objects and so live in complete ignorance worrying about what is offered to our
senses. Only philosophy can release us and allow us come out of the cavern to the true world or
World of the Ideas.
          Plato requests us to imagine we are prisoners in an underground cavern. We are chained
and immobilized since childhood in such a way we can only see the far end wall of the cavern.
Behind us and elevated there is a fire that lights the cavern; between the fire and the prisoners
there is a path on which edge there is another wall. This second wall is like a screen used in a
puppet theatre; puppets are raised over it to be shown to the public. People walk along the
path speaking and carrying sculptures that represent different objects (animals, trees, artificial
objects...). Since there is this second wall between the prisoners and the people walking, we
only see the shades of the objects they carry projected on the far end wall of the cavern.
Naturally, the prisoners would think the shades and the echoes of the voices they hear are true
reality.
        Plato argues a liberated prisoner would slowly discover different levels of authentic reality:
first he would see the objects and the light inside the cavern, later he would come out of it and
see first the shades of the objects, then the reflections of those objects on the water and finally
the real objects. At last he would see the Sun and conclude it is the reason of the seasons, it
rules the realm of visible objects and is the reason of everything the prisoners see. And
remembering his life in the cavern, remembering what he thought he knew there and his
captivity comrades he would feel happy for being free and would feel sorry them; prisoner’s life
would seem unbearable for him. But in spite of it and in spite of the dangers, his clumsiness and
the prisoner’s laughs and scorns, he would return to the underground world to free them.
        These are the keys Plato gives us to read the myth: we should compare the shadows of the
cavern with the sensible world and the light of the fire with the power of the Sun. The escape to
the outer world to contemplate real beings (metaphor of the World of the Ideas) should be
compared with the path our souls take towards the intelligible world. Plato declares the most
difficult and the last object we reach is the Idea of Rightness (symbolized by the metaphor of
the Sun, the last object the released prisoner sees), which is the reason of all the good and
beautiful things of the world; it is also the reason of the light and the Sun in the sensible and
visible world and the reason of truth and understanding in the intelligible world; is the reality
we need see to live with wisdom.  
 

III. THE THEORY OF THE IDEAS AND PLATO’S EPISTEMOLOGY

      The theory of the Ideas answers the question about the possibility of knowledge strictly
talking.  This theory divides the world in two realms of reality completely different ontologically
speaking which will match two different wisdoms. Types of knowledge: SCIENCE; which take
care of the immutable Ideas and is divided in dialectic and discursive thought and OPINION;
which is the knowledge of the sensible and changeable world and is divided in belief (which
occupies on the "animals surrounding us, plants and the whole of artificial objects)
and conjectures (which occupies on "shades" and similar things).      
        Plato distinguishes between discursive thought and dialectic in what he calls SCIENCE. The
first one is mainly identified with mathematics (geometry and arithmetic), and in spite of its
extraordinary value, it has two important deficiencies: it uses sensible symbols and leans on
hypothesis (careful; "hypothesis" in Plato’s philosophy does not mean the same as for us):
mathematicians do not reflect on the being of the objects they deal with (the numbers, for
example) nor settle down any thesis ontologically speaking, and that’s why this science is
incomplete. Dialectic is a superior knowledge, studies the World of the Ideas, that is to say, the
immutable, universal and eternal being, and is identified with philosophy. Plato conceives it in
two ways: as a rational method which uses only the reason but not sensible symbols, nor rest
upon "hypothesis", trying to do without assumptions; philosophy (=dialectic) is the most
reflective knowledge, the most comprehensive as it does not leave any question without
examination; its purpose is to discover the relations between the Ideas and to find out the
ultimate foundation of them all in the Idea of Good. Authentic philosophy is "a way up to
being": the philosopher has to pass from the sensible world to the world of the Ideas and from
these to the Idea that rules knowledge and being, that is, the Idea of Rightness or Good
(remember the metaphor of the cavern and the liberated prisoner; his vital experience is
analogous to the philosopher’s: the prisoner comes up to the outer world and discovers the Sun
is the reason of the being and the intelligibility of things; the philosopher (the dialectic one)
passes from his experience in the Sensible World to the Intelligible World where he finds the
Idea of Good as the foundation of the being and the intelligibility of the Ideas and the sensible
reality). But Plato also understands dialectic as a yearning impulse: the philosopher ascends
from the sensible to the intelligible level; this ascent is not only intellectual, and it does not end
with the Idea of the Good, but with the Idea of Beauty. The motor of this ascent is the yearning
impulse and the object of this yearning (Eros) is beauty.
 
IV. ANTHROPOLOGICAL DIMENSION OF THE THEORY OF THE IDEAS
         The ontological dualism "sensible/intelligible world" matches
Plato’s anthropological conception of human being clearly divided in body and soul
(anthropological dualism).  Plato conceives man as a compound of two different substances:
the body, which ties us to the sensible world and the soul, which removes us from this material
sphere and relates us to a superior world. Human soul is understood asimmortal and it has a
superior destiny than the body. This superiority comes from the fact that the soul (contrary to
the body) is, in essence, a rightness and knowledge principle and moreover, the body is ruled
by corruption and death whereas the soul is immortal. Plato uses several arguments to
demonstrate the immortality of the soul, emphasizing the one that rests on the reminiscence
theory: in his dialogue titled "Meno", Plato defends the thesis that TO KNOW is TO
REMEMBER: we do not have a genuine knowledge experience (of the universal being): when
we say a mathematical proposition is true, it is not because we have just learned it, but rather
because we remember the relations between the Ideas our soul knew in  the world of  the
Ideas before incarnating in  our body. The perception of the sensible world cannot serve as
foundation for strict knowledge but, since we have such knowledge, it must come from a
previous experience. Therefore: to know is to update a knowledge already experienced, to
know is to remember (this thesis is called THEORY OF the REMINISCENCE).
       Like all ancient Greeks, Plato defends the soul is a principle of movement in itself and a
movement source. But the singularity of his conception is the soul distinguishes itself from the
body in a relevant feature: it makes us equal to Gods and allows us to know the Ideas. Plato
distinguishes three elements or functions in the human soul: the rational element, which is
represented in the myth of the winged carriage by the coachman, is the most dignified and
elevated; its functions are the intellectual knowledge and the direction and guide of the other
two; the irascible element (quick tempered), represented by the good and beautiful horse,
symbol of the strength and the Will, which is easily leaded; and the concupiscent
element (immoderate or hot-headed), represented by the bad horse, hard to guide, which
symbolizes the immoderate desire and sensible  passions. The soul seeks its freedom from the
body and practices philosophy as an intellectual approach to the world it authentically belongs
to. The rational element of the soul must try to purify the individual from his sensible desires
and that’s why it has got the ruling role of human behaviour.
           Plato’s anthropological dualism is characterized by a radical split in human being:
following theOrphic doctrine, Plato declares there are two principles in human being: the
immortal SOUL, our most divine part, principle of knowledge and morals; and the BODY, the
reason of our ignorance and our wrongness. Plato begins the Western traditional thought for
which the body and its   passions are the main responsible for all our pains, misfortunes and
sufferings; man is guilty simply because he has a body, idea particularly dear for Christianity.
Therefore, our most important tasks will be, on the first place, the practice of virtue, which
means basically to sacrifice body desires, and secondly the practice of philosophy. The purpose
ofmoral and intellectual purification is to let the souls be guided by rightness and straightness
and thus fulfil their fundamental destiny: those who practice philosophy and so know the world
of the Ideas will return to their original place (the divine dwelling), where they lived before; on
the contrary, the impure ones, those who let their uncontrolled passions rule their behaviour
will have to undergo a judgment and will be condemned to wander an mistake indefinitely,
paying thus their faults in life.
              
V. CONSEQUENCES OF THE THEORY OF THE IDEAS FOR ETICS AND POLITICS

a) The virtue.  The theory of the Ideas implies the overcoming of the sophistic moral
relativism: the Ideas of Justice and Rightness become the perfect criteria for distinguishing right
from wrong or fair from unfair. The Ideas are values themselves. Plato’s ethics tries to find out
what is the Highest Rightness for man, Rightness whose attainment implies happiness and
which is achieved by the practice of virtue. The Highest Rightness can be understood in two
ways: a good life cannot be achieved neither by the only means of moderate pleasures nor by
the only means of wisdom, but by a mixture of both, simply because man is a mixture of animal
and intelligence. (Of course, the pleasures we can indulge in are the purest ones). According
other philosophers, Plato’s Highest Rightness means contemplating the Ideas, contemplation
which is the supreme happiness. In this sense the virtue, as the method for achieving the
Highest Rightness, performs an analogous roll as dialectic, the method for achieving the
Intelligible World. By means of the practice of virtue we achieve the Highest Rightness
and, therefore, the supreme happiness; virtue is the natural disposition for rightness of our
souls, and as our souls have three elements, there will be three peculiar virtues, one for each
one of them: self-control for the concupiscent element: "certain order and moderation of the
pleasures"; strength or braveness for the irascible element: the strength allows man surpasses
suffering and sacrifices pleasures if necessary; and wisdom or prudence for the rational
element, which rules the whole human behaviour.  The virtue of the soul as a whole is justice,
which settles order and harmony between those three elements and is, obviously, the most
important virtue. Along with this practical explanation of virtue Plato defends a more
intellectual theory particularly related with the theory of the Ideas: virtue is the knowledge of
what is right for man or, better, the knowledge of the Idea of Rightness, and is mainly identified
with wisdom or prudence. We should remember the Ideas allow Plato surpasses the moral
relativism of the sophists as the Idea of Rightness implies there is an absolute point of view.

b) The king-philosopher. As every Greek, Plato thinks man is naturally a social being; that’s
why there are States (Polis). The individual can reach his utmost accomplishment in the State,
but only in a perfect State. Plato divides the State or society in three classes following the three
elements of the soul; the State is a great organism with the same material and immaterial
requirements and ethical aims as man. The rational element of the soul is represented by the
class of the governors, who are philosophers; the irascible element is represented by the social
class of the soldiers; the concupiscent element by the craftsmen. The philosophers, whose
particular virtue is wisdom or prudence, are the only ones capable for government; the soldiers,
whose virtue is the strength, must defend and keep safe the polis; the craftsmen, whose virtue
is self-control, provide the commodities needed in the State. Thus, a total parallelism between
anthropology, ethics and policy is settled down. The three social classes are needed, but each
one enjoys different rank and dignity. The aim of the State is justice: the common welfare of
all the citizens, which would only be possible if every class fulfil its own roll. Plato distinguishes
the social class of the leaders: since the Idea of Rightness can be known, it’s only natural
philosophers guide society ruled by their superior knowledge; philosophers have to be
governors or governors have to be philosophers; of course, philosophers do not seek their own
interests but the community’s.
c) The "platonic Communism". Philosophers must seek the general welfare and so, trying to
avoid temptations and useless distractions, they neither have private property nor family; their
main purpose is wisdom which enables them to carry out their mission of government. Soldiers
also sacrifice family and private property, only the craftsmen are allowed to them (though
limited and controlled by the State).  Craftsmen do not need education, except the professional
for their own tasks, and they must obey political powers. In this ideal State only a very best
selected minority have power. Though the social classes are not closed up, social mobility is
controlled by rigorous criterion. Plato’s ideal State is clearly aristocratic. Finally, along with this
description of the ideal society, Plato describes and assesses the actual forms of government:
there are five, but they all come from the monarchy or aristocracy by progressive
decay: military dictatorship, oligarchy, democracy and, the worse of all, tyranny. Monarchy or
aristocracy is the most perfect form of government: is the government of the best individuals.
 Aristotle's

Aristotle, one of Plato's greatest students, was born in 384

BC. Aristotle's father was a physician to the king of Mecadonia, and
when Aristotle was seven years old, his father sent him to study at
the Academy. He was there at the beginning as a student, then
became a researcher and finally a teacher. He seemed to adopted
and developed Platonic ideas while there and to have expressed
them in dialogue form. When Plato died, Plato willed the Academy
not to Aristotle, but to his nephew Speusippus. Aristotle then left
Athens with Xenocrates to go to Assos, in Asia Minor, where he
opened a branch of the Academy. This Academy focused more on
biology than its predecessor that relied on mathematics.

There he met Hermias, another former student of Plato, who had become king of Assos.
Aristotle married Hermias niece, Pythias, who died ten years later. During these years in Assos,
Aristotle started to break away from Platonism and developed his own ideas.

King Philip of Macedonia invited Aristotle to the capitol around 343 BC to tutor his
thirteen-ear-old don, Alexander. Tutoring Alexander in the Academy in Assos, Aristotle still
remained the president of the Academy. In 359 BC, Alexander's father, King Philip decided to
set off to subdue the Greek city-states, and left Alexander in charge, thus stopping Aristotle's
tutoring of Alexander.

King Philip was then murdered, in 336 BC, and Alexander then became king. He
mobilized his father's great army and subdued some city-states, thus becoming "Alexander The
Great".

In 335 BC, Aristotle returned to Athens. Speusippus had died, but Aristotle was again
not given the presidency of the Academy in Athens, instead, it was given to one of his
colleagues Xenocrates. So, Aristotle founded his own school this time, it was named the
Lyceum, named after Apollo Lyceus. In 323 BC, twelve years after founding the Lyceum,
Alexander the Great died. In Greece resentment against the Macedonia hegemony seethed and
riots broke out. Aristotle was accused of impiety, and his life become in serious jeopardy. So he
left Athens, and went to his late mother's estate at Chalcis on the island of Euboea. He died
there in the next year, 322 BC.

HIS PHILOSOPHY

Two important parts of Aristotle's philosophy are provided here in hypertext. These are:
  The Organon - a collection of works on Logic, broadly conceived
 The Metaphysics - what Aristotle called "First Philosophy"

I did these because the available texts were lacking in structure, and not good for someone like
myself who is bad at reading and inclined to dip. In particular, the work is divided into volumes,
books, and parts (lots of them) but none have them have titles.

So the idea was to break the texts up with just one part to a file and to put in indexes with titles
for each volume, book and part (which I would probably have to invent myself). Its really just a
presentation of concise notes on what the various parts are about. I also put in indexes
containing the first line of each paragraph.

This might sound like hard work, which it would have been if I had not used PERL. However,
working out what all the titles should be is not something you can program, so that is more
time consuming and I have not got terribly far with it.

The original text files were all obtained from The Internet Classics Archive.

Jordana Wiener did a nice online presentation of Aristotle's Syllogism including hypertext of

the primary sources, unfortunately now messed up by changes to the Perseus project which
hosted it (link left pro-tem in case they sort it out).

A better place to look at present is wikipedia (and the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy,

which you can reach from the wiki page).