Western philosophy is typically thought of as beinning around the 6^th century BC in Greece.

The Pre-Socratics

- preoccupied with what today we'd call a scientific question: what is the world made of?

- tried to explain the world in natural terms (for the most part).

Some Pre-Socratic philosophers:

Thales (~625-547 BC) - 'all is water'.

Anaximander (~612-545 BC) - everything is made of to aperion (the boundless), an indeterminate stuff which somehow took on determinate properties.

Democritus (~460-370 BC) - everything is made of atoms

With Socrates (and also the Sophists), there was a change from cosmological matters to ethical and political matters, i.e., from the universe to humans.

Socrates (469-399BC)

- an Athenian, reportedly a stonemason, although Plato represents him as always involved in philosophizing

- wrote nothing down

- most of what we know of his philosophy comes from Plato

- Socratic Method: question & answer

- Socratic Irony: Does S mean what he says?

- Socratic Ignorance: 'The only thing I know is that I know nothing'

- an Athenian nobleman and 'student' of Socrates

- founded the Academy

- wrote many Socratic dialogues (The Republic)

- the later the dialogue, the more the view is Plato's?

- Plato's student

- taught Alexander the Great

- rejected many of Plato's teachings (particularly, the Theory of Forms)

- developed philosophy in all areas

****************************************
 

Generally thought to have been written in the decade after S's death, i.e., between 399 and 389 BC.

The Formal Charge: corrupting the youth of the city and worshipping false Gods.

The 'Plot':

- S defends himself,

- found guilty by the jury of 501 citizens

- S proposes a small fine and free meals for the rest of his life.

- the prosecution asks for death

- the jury votes for death.

The Real Reason He's On Trial: He has angered too many powerful Athenians

- S is the wisest man because he knows that he knows nothing

- He is really on trial because he has made a life of showing others that they know nothing

The Sophists

- paid teachers of rhetoric

- S (ironically) praises them as wise in a superhuman way (while S is wise in a human way)

The Formal Charge: "corrupting the young and … not believing in the gods in whom the city believes" (29)

Socrates' Response:

S gets Meletus to agree:

(1) The wicked harm those closest to them while good people benefit those closest to them.

(2) No one wants to be harmed.

(3) S corrupts the young deliberately.

So then S deliberately arranges for his own harm.

But we've already said no one does that.

What kind of argument is this?

So, either S doesn't corrupt the young or he does so unwillingly. Either way, he shouldn't be charged.

What about the charge that he doesn't believe in the gods of the city?

S gets M to say that he means S believes in no gods at all. (31)

But anyone who believes in spiritual things must also believe in gods (since they all "believe spirits to be either gods or the children of gods"). (32)

S concludes by explaining his commitment to truth and philosophy even at risk to life and limb.