34Ibid. p. 1009, a. 8-20. ἀνάγκη πάντα ἅμα ἀληθῆ καὶ ψευδῆ εἶναι. — p. 1011, a. 30.
34Ibid. p. 1009, a. 8-20. ἀνάγκη πάντα ἅμα ἀληθῆ καὶ ψευδῆ εἶναι. — p. 1011, a. 30.
I have already in another work,35while analysing the Platonic dialogues Theætêtus and Kratylus, criticized at some length the doctrine here laid down by Plato and Aristotle. I have endeavoured to show that the capital tenet of Protagoras is essentially distinct from the other tenets with which these two philosophers would identify it: distinct both from the dogma of Herakleitus, That everything is in unceasing flux and process, each particular moment thereof being an implication of contradictions both alike true; and distinct also from the other dogma held by others, That all cognition is sensible perception. The Protagorean tenet “Homo Mensura� is something essentially distinct from either of these two; though possibly Protagoras himself may have held the second of the two, besides his own. His tenet is nothing more than a clear and general declaration of the principle of universal Relativity. True belief and affirmation have no meaning except in relation to some believer, real or supposed; true disbelief and negation have no meaning except in relation to some disbeliever, real or supposed. When a man affirms any proposition as true, he affirms only what he (perhaps with some other persons also) believes to be true, while others may perhaps disbelieve it as falsehood. Object and Subject are inseparably implicated: we may separate them by abstraction, and reason about each apart from the other; but, as reality, they exist only locked up one with the other.
35‘Plato and the Other Companions of Sokrates,’ Vol. II.c. xxvi.pp. 325-363: “The Protagorean doctrine — Man is the measure of all things — is simply the presentation in complete view of a common fact; uncovering an aspect of it which the received phraseology hides. Truth and Falsehood have reference to some believing subject — and the words have no meaning except in that relation. Protagoras brings to view this subjective side of the same complex fact, of which Truth and Falsehood denote the objective side. He refuses to admit the object absolute — the pretendedthing in itself— Truth without a believer. His doctrine maintains the indefeasible and necessary involution of the percipient mind in every perception — of the concipient mind in every conception — of the cognizant mind in every cognition. Farther, Protagoras acknowledges many distinct believing or knowing Subjects: and affirms that every object known must be relative to (or in his language,measured by) the knowing Subject: that everycognitummust have itscognoscens, and everycognoscibileitscognitionis capax; that the words have no meaning unless this be supposed; that these two names designate two opposite poles or aspects of the indivisible fact of cognition — actual or potential — not two factors, which are in themselves separate or separable, and which come together to make a compound product. A man cannot in any case get clear of or discard his own mind as a Subject. Self is necessarily omnipresent, concerned in every moment of consciousness, &c.� Compare alsoc. xxiv. p. 261.
35‘Plato and the Other Companions of Sokrates,’ Vol. II.c. xxvi.pp. 325-363: “The Protagorean doctrine — Man is the measure of all things — is simply the presentation in complete view of a common fact; uncovering an aspect of it which the received phraseology hides. Truth and Falsehood have reference to some believing subject — and the words have no meaning except in that relation. Protagoras brings to view this subjective side of the same complex fact, of which Truth and Falsehood denote the objective side. He refuses to admit the object absolute — the pretendedthing in itself— Truth without a believer. His doctrine maintains the indefeasible and necessary involution of the percipient mind in every perception — of the concipient mind in every conception — of the cognizant mind in every cognition. Farther, Protagoras acknowledges many distinct believing or knowing Subjects: and affirms that every object known must be relative to (or in his language,measured by) the knowing Subject: that everycognitummust have itscognoscens, and everycognoscibileitscognitionis capax; that the words have no meaning unless this be supposed; that these two names designate two opposite poles or aspects of the indivisible fact of cognition — actual or potential — not two factors, which are in themselves separate or separable, and which come together to make a compound product. A man cannot in any case get clear of or discard his own mind as a Subject. Self is necessarily omnipresent, concerned in every moment of consciousness, &c.� Compare alsoc. xxiv. p. 261.
That such is and always has been the state of the fact, in regard to truth and falsehood, belief and disbelief, is matter of notoriety: Protagoras not only accepts it as a fact, but formulates it as a theory. Instead of declaring that what he (or the oracle which he consults and follows) believes to be true, isabsolute truth, while that which others believe, is truth relatively to them, — he lowers his own pretensions to a level with theirs. He professes to be a measure of truth only for himself, and for such as may be satisfied with the reasons that satisfy him. Aristotle complains that this theory discourages the search for truth as hopeless, not less than the chase after flying birds.36But, however serious such discouragement may be, we do not escape the real difficulty of the search by setting up an abstract idol and calling it Absolute Truth, without either relativity or referee; while, if we enter, as sincere andbonâ fideenquirers, on the search for reasoned truth or philosophy, we shall find ourselves not departing from the Protagorean canon, but involuntarily conforming to it. Aristotle, after having declared that the Maxim of Contradiction was true beyond the possibility of deception,37but yet that there were several eminent philosophers who disallowed it, is forced to produce the best reasons in his power to remove their doubts and bring them round to his opinion. His reasons must be such as to satisfy not his own mind only, but the minds of opponents and indifferent auditors as referees. This is an appeal to other men, as judges each for himself and in his own case: it is a tacit recognition of the autonomy of each individual enquirer as a measure of truth to himself. In other words, it is a recognition of the Protagorean canon.
36Aristot. Metaph.Γ.v. p. 1009, b. 38.
36Aristot. Metaph.Γ.v. p. 1009, b. 38.
37Ibid.Γ.iii. p. 1005, b. 11: βεβαιοτάτη δ’ ἀρχὴ πασῶν, περὶ ἣν διαψευσθῆναι ἀδύνατον.
37Ibid.Γ.iii. p. 1005, b. 11: βεβαιοτάτη δ’ ἀρχὴ πασῶν, περὶ ἣν διαψευσθῆναι ἀδύνατον.
We know little about the opinions of Protagoras; but there was nothing in this canon necessarily at variance either with the Maxim of Contradiction or with that of Excluded Middle. Both Aristotle and Plato would have us believe that Protagoras was bound by his canon to declare every opinion to be alike false and true, because every opinion was believed by some and disbelieved by others.38But herein they misstate his theory. He did not declare any thing to beabsolutelytrue, or to beabsolutelyfalse. Truth and Falsehood were considered by him as always relative to some referee, and he recognized no universal or infallible referee. In his theory the necessity ofsomereferee was distinctly enunciated, instead of being put out of sight under an ellipsis, as in the received theories and practice. And this is exactly what Plato and Aristotle omit, when they refute him. He proclaimed that each man was a measure for himself alone,and that every opinion was trueto the believer, falseto the disbeliever; while they criticize him as if he had said — Every opinion is alike true and false; thus leaving out the very qualification which forms the characteristic feature of his theory. They commit that fallacy which Plato shows up in the Euthydêmus, and which Aristotle39numbers in his list ofFallaciæ Extra Dictionem, imputing it as a vice to the Sophists: they slideà dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter. And it is remarkable that Aristotle, in one portion of his argument against “Homo Mensura,� expressly admonishes the Protagoreans that they must take care to adhere constantly to this qualified mode of enunciation;40that they must not talk of apparent truth generally, but of truth as it appearsto themselvesorto some other persons, now or at a different time. Protagoras hardly needed such an admonition to keep to what is the key-note and characteristic peculiarity of his own theory; since it is only by suppressing this peculiarity that his opponents make the theory seem absurd. He would by no means have disclaimed that consequence of his theory, which Aristotle urges against it as an irrefragable objection; viz., that it makes every thing relative, and recognizes nothing as absolute. This is perfectly true, and constitutes its merit in the eyes of its supporters.
38Plato, Theætêt. pp. 171-179. Aristot. Met.Γ.iv. p. 1007, b. 21: εἰ κατὰ παντός τι ἢ καταφῆσαι ἢ ἀποφῆσαι ἐνδέχεται, καθάπερ ἀνάγκη τοῖς τὸν Πρωταγόρου λέγουσι λόγον. Compare v. p. 1009, a. 6; viii. p. 1012, b. 15.
38Plato, Theætêt. pp. 171-179. Aristot. Met.Γ.iv. p. 1007, b. 21: εἰ κατὰ παντός τι ἢ καταφῆσαι ἢ ἀποφῆσαι ἐνδέχεται, καθάπερ ἀνάγκη τοῖς τὸν Πρωταγόρου λέγουσι λόγον. Compare v. p. 1009, a. 6; viii. p. 1012, b. 15.
39Aristot. Soph. El. p. 167, a. 3; Rhetoric. II. xxiv. p. 1402, a. 2-15. ὥσπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐριστικῶν τὸκατά τικαὶπρός τικαὶπῇοὐ προστιθέμενα ποιεῖ τὴν συκοφαντίαν.
39Aristot. Soph. El. p. 167, a. 3; Rhetoric. II. xxiv. p. 1402, a. 2-15. ὥσπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐριστικῶν τὸκατά τικαὶπρός τικαὶπῇοὐ προστιθέμενα ποιεῖ τὴν συκοφαντίαν.
40Aristot. Metaph.Γ.vi. p. 1011, a. 21: διὸ καὶ φυλακτέον τοῖς τὴν βίαν ἐν τῷ λόγῳ ζητοῦσιν, ἅμα δὲ καὶ ὑπέχειν λόγον ἀξιοῦσιν, ὅτι οὐ τὸ φαινόμενον ἔστιν, ἀλλὰ τὸ φαινόμενον ᾧ φαίνεται καὶ ὅτε φαίνεται καὶ ᾗ καὶ ὥς. — b. 1: ἀλλ’ ἴσως διὰ τοῦτ’ ἀνάγκη λέγειν τοῖς μὴ δι’ ἀπορίαν ἀλλὰ λόγου χάριν λέγουσιν, ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἀληθὲς τοῦτο, ἀλλὰ τούτῳ ἀληθές.
40Aristot. Metaph.Γ.vi. p. 1011, a. 21: διὸ καὶ φυλακτέον τοῖς τὴν βίαν ἐν τῷ λόγῳ ζητοῦσιν, ἅμα δὲ καὶ ὑπέχειν λόγον ἀξιοῦσιν, ὅτι οὐ τὸ φαινόμενον ἔστιν, ἀλλὰ τὸ φαινόμενον ᾧ φαίνεται καὶ ὅτε φαίνεται καὶ ᾗ καὶ ὥς. — b. 1: ἀλλ’ ἴσως διὰ τοῦτ’ ἀνάγκη λέγειν τοῖς μὴ δι’ ἀπορίαν ἀλλὰ λόγου χάριν λέγουσιν, ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἀληθὲς τοῦτο, ἀλλὰ τούτῳ ἀληθές.
Another argument of Aristotle41against the Protagorean “Homo Mensura� — That it implies in every affirming Subject an equal authority and equal title to credence, as compared with every other affirming Subject — I have already endeavoured to combat in my review of the Platonic Theætêtus, where the same argument appears fully developed. The antithesis between Plato and Aristotle on one side, and Protagoras on the other, is indeed simply that between Absolute and Relative. The Protagorean doctrine is quite distinct from the other doctrines with which they jumble it together — from those of Herakleitus and Anaxagoras, and from the theory that Knowledge is sensible perception. The real opponents of the Maxim of Contradiction were Herakleitus, Anaxagoras, Parmenides, and Plato himself as represented in some of his dialogues, especially the Parmenides, Timæus, Republic, Sophistes. Each of these philosophersadopted a First Philosophy different from the others: but each also adopted one completely different from that of Aristotle, and not reconcileable with his logical canons. None of them admitted determinate and definable attributes belonging to determinate particular subjects, each with a certain measure of durability.
41Ibid. v. p. 1010, b. 11.
41Ibid. v. p. 1010, b. 11.
Now the common speech of mankind throughout the Hellenic world was founded on the assumption of such fixed subjects and predicates. Those who wanted information for practical guidance or security, asked for it in this form; those who desired to be understood by others, and to determine the actions of others, adopted the like mode of speech. Information was given through significant propositions, which the questioner sought to obtain, and which the answer, if cognizant, enunciated:e.g., Theætêtusissitting down42— to repeat the minimum or skeleton of a proposition as given by Plato, requiring both subject and predicate in proper combination, to convey the meaning. Now the logical analysis, and the syllogistic precepts of Aristotle, — as well as his rhetorical and dialectical suggestions for persuading, for refuting, or for avoiding refutation — are all based upon the practice of common speech. In conversing (he says) it is impossible to produce and exhibit the actual objects signified; the speaker must be content with enunciating, instead thereof, the name significant of each.43The first beginning of rhetorical diction is, to speak good Greek;44the rhetor and the dialectician must dwell upon words, propositions, and opinions, not peculiar to such as have received special teaching, but common to the many and employed in familiar conversation; the auditors, to whom they address themselves, are assumed to be commonplace men, of fair average intelligence, but nothing beyond.45Thus much of acquirement is imbibed by almost every one as he grows up, from the ordinary intercourse of society. The men of special instruction begin with it, as othersdo; but they also superadd other cognitions or accomplishments derived from peculiar teachers. Universally — both in the interior of the family, amidst the unscientific multitude, and by the cultivated few — habitual speech was carried on through terms assuming fixed subjects and predicates. It was this recognized process in its two varieties of Analytic and Dialectic, which Aristotle embraced in his logical theory, and to which he also adapted his First Philosophy.
42Plato, Sophistes, pp. 262-263.
42Plato, Sophistes, pp. 262-263.
43Aristot. Soph. El. p. 165, a. 5: ἐπεὶ γὰρ οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτὰ τὰ πράγματα διαλέγεσθαι φέροντας, ἀλλὰ τοῖς ὀνόμασιν ἀντὶ τῶν πραγμάτων χρώμεθα συμβόλοις.
43Aristot. Soph. El. p. 165, a. 5: ἐπεὶ γὰρ οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτὰ τὰ πράγματα διαλέγεσθαι φέροντας, ἀλλὰ τοῖς ὀνόμασιν ἀντὶ τῶν πραγμάτων χρώμεθα συμβόλοις.
44Aristot. Rhet. III. v. p. 1407, b. 19: ἔστι δ’ ἀρχὴ τῆς λέξεως τὸ Ἑλληνίζειν.
44Aristot. Rhet. III. v. p. 1407, b. 19: ἔστι δ’ ἀρχὴ τῆς λέξεως τὸ Ἑλληνίζειν.
45Aristot. Rhet. I. i. p. 1354, a. 1: ἡ ῥητορικὴ ἀντίστροφός ἐστι τῇ διαλεκτικῇ· ἀμφότεραι γὰρ περὶ τοιούτων τινῶν εἰσὶν ἃ κοινὰ τρόπον τινὰ ἁπάντων ἐστὶ γνωρίζειν καὶ οὐδεμιᾶς ἐπιστήμης ἀφωρισμένης· διὸ καὶ πάντες τρόπον τινὰ μετέχουσιν ἀμφοῖν. — p. 1355, a. 25: διδασκαλίας γάρ ἐστιν ὁ κατὰ τὴν ἐπιστήμην λόγος, τοῦτο δὲ ἀδύνατον, ἀλλ’ ἀνάγκη διὰ τῶν κοινῶν ποιεῖσθαι τὰς πίστεις καὶ τοὺς λόγους, ὥσπερ καὶ ἐν τοῖς Τοπικοῖς ἐλέγομεν περὶ τῆς πρὸς τοὺς πολλοὺς ἐντεύξεως. — p. 1357, a. 1: ἔστι δὲ τὸ ἔργον αὐτῆς περί τε τοιούτων περὶ ὧν βουλευόμεθα καὶ τέχνας μὴ ἔχομεν, καὶ ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις ἀκροαταῖς οἳ οὐ δύνανται διὰ πολλῶν συνορᾶν οὐδὲ λογίζεσθαι πόῤῥωθεν. — p. 1357, a. 11: ὁ γὰρ κρίτης ὑποκεῖται εἶναι ἁπλοῦς. Compare Topica, I. ii. p. 101, a. 26-36; Soph. El. p. 172, a. 30.
45Aristot. Rhet. I. i. p. 1354, a. 1: ἡ ῥητορικὴ ἀντίστροφός ἐστι τῇ διαλεκτικῇ· ἀμφότεραι γὰρ περὶ τοιούτων τινῶν εἰσὶν ἃ κοινὰ τρόπον τινὰ ἁπάντων ἐστὶ γνωρίζειν καὶ οὐδεμιᾶς ἐπιστήμης ἀφωρισμένης· διὸ καὶ πάντες τρόπον τινὰ μετέχουσιν ἀμφοῖν. — p. 1355, a. 25: διδασκαλίας γάρ ἐστιν ὁ κατὰ τὴν ἐπιστήμην λόγος, τοῦτο δὲ ἀδύνατον, ἀλλ’ ἀνάγκη διὰ τῶν κοινῶν ποιεῖσθαι τὰς πίστεις καὶ τοὺς λόγους, ὥσπερ καὶ ἐν τοῖς Τοπικοῖς ἐλέγομεν περὶ τῆς πρὸς τοὺς πολλοὺς ἐντεύξεως. — p. 1357, a. 1: ἔστι δὲ τὸ ἔργον αὐτῆς περί τε τοιούτων περὶ ὧν βουλευόμεθα καὶ τέχνας μὴ ἔχομεν, καὶ ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις ἀκροαταῖς οἳ οὐ δύνανται διὰ πολλῶν συνορᾶν οὐδὲ λογίζεσθαι πόῤῥωθεν. — p. 1357, a. 11: ὁ γὰρ κρίτης ὑποκεῖται εἶναι ἁπλοῦς. Compare Topica, I. ii. p. 101, a. 26-36; Soph. El. p. 172, a. 30.
But the First Philosophy that preceded his, had not been so adapted. The Greek philosophers, who flourished before dialectical discussion had become active, during the interval between Thales and Sokrates, considered Philosophy as one whole —rerum divinarum et humanarum scientia— destined to render Nature or the Kosmos more or less intelligible. They took up in the gross all those vast problems, which the religious or mythological poets had embodied in divine genealogies and had ascribed to superhuman personal agencies.
Thales and his immediate successors (like their predecessors the poets) accommodated their hypotheses to intellectual impulses and aspirations of their own; with little anxiety about giving satisfaction to others,46still less about avoiding inconsistencies or meeting objections. Each of them fastened upon some one grand and imposing generalization (set forth often in verse) which he stretched as far as it would go by various comparisons and illustrations, but without any attention or deference to adverse facts or reasonings. Provided that his general point of view was impressive to the imagination,47as the old religious scheme of personal agencies was to the vulgar, he did not concern himself about the conditions of proof or disproof. The data of experience were altogether falsified (as by the Pythagoreans)48in order to accommodate them to the theory; or were set aside as deceptive and inexplicable from the theory (as by both Parmenides and Herakleitus).49
46Aristot. Met.B.iv. p. 1000, a. 9: οἱ μὲν οὖν περὶ Ἡσίοδον καὶ πάντες ὅσοι θεόλογοι μόνον ἐφρόντισαν τοῦ πιθανοῦ τοῦ πρὸς αὐτούς, ἡμῶν δ’ ὠλιγώρησαν· — καὶ γὰρ ὅνπερ οἰηθείη λέγειν ἄν τις μάλιστα ὁμολογουμένως αὑτῷ, Ἐμπεδοκλῆς, καὶ οὑτὸς ταὐτὸν πέπονθεν. — Metaph.N.iv. p. 1091, b. 1-15.
46Aristot. Met.B.iv. p. 1000, a. 9: οἱ μὲν οὖν περὶ Ἡσίοδον καὶ πάντες ὅσοι θεόλογοι μόνον ἐφρόντισαν τοῦ πιθανοῦ τοῦ πρὸς αὐτούς, ἡμῶν δ’ ὠλιγώρησαν· — καὶ γὰρ ὅνπερ οἰηθείη λέγειν ἄν τις μάλιστα ὁμολογουμένως αὑτῷ, Ἐμπεδοκλῆς, καὶ οὑτὸς ταὐτὸν πέπονθεν. — Metaph.N.iv. p. 1091, b. 1-15.
47This is strikingly expressed by a phrase of Aristotle about the Platonic theory, Metaph.N.iii. p. 1090, a. 35: οἱ δὲ χωριστὸν ποιοῦντες, ὅτι ἐπὶ τῶν αἰσθητῶν οὐκ ἔσται τὰ ἀξιώματα, ἀληθῆ δὲ τὰ λεγόμενα καὶ σαίνει τὴν ψυχήν, εἶναί τε ὑπολαμβάνουσι καὶ χωριστὰ εἶναι.
47This is strikingly expressed by a phrase of Aristotle about the Platonic theory, Metaph.N.iii. p. 1090, a. 35: οἱ δὲ χωριστὸν ποιοῦντες, ὅτι ἐπὶ τῶν αἰσθητῶν οὐκ ἔσται τὰ ἀξιώματα, ἀληθῆ δὲ τὰ λεγόμενα καὶ σαίνει τὴν ψυχήν, εἶναί τε ὑπολαμβάνουσι καὶ χωριστὰ εἶναι.
48Metaph.N.iii. p. 1090, a. 34: ἐοίκασι περὶ ἄλλου οὐράνου λέγειν καὶ σωμάτων ἀλλ’ οὐ τῶν αἰσθητῶν. — Metaph.A.v. p. 986, a. 5; and De CÅ“lo, II. xiii. p. 293, a. 25.
48Metaph.N.iii. p. 1090, a. 34: ἐοίκασι περὶ ἄλλου οὐράνου λέγειν καὶ σωμάτων ἀλλ’ οὐ τῶν αἰσθητῶν. — Metaph.A.v. p. 986, a. 5; and De CÅ“lo, II. xiii. p. 293, a. 25.
49Physic. I. ii.-iii. pp. 185-186.
49Physic. I. ii.-iii. pp. 185-186.
But these vague hypotheses became subjected to a new scrutiny, when the dialectical age of Zeno and Sokrates supervened.Opponents of Parmenides impugned his theory ofEns Unum Continuum Immobile, as leading to absurdities; while his disciple Zeno replied, not by any attempt to disprove such allegations but, by showing that the counter-theory ofEntia Plura Discontinua Moventia, orMutabilia, involved consequences yet more absurd.50In the acute dialectical warfare, to which the old theories thus stood exposed, the means of attack much surpassed those of defence; moreover, the partisans of Herakleitus despised all coherent argumentation, confining themselves to obscure oracular aphorisms and multiplied metaphors.51In point of fact, no suitable language could be found, consistently with common speech or common experience, for expanding in detail either the Herakleitean52or the Parmenidean theory; the former suppressing all duration and recognizing nothing but events — a perpetual stream ofFientiaor interchange ofEnswithNon-Ens; the latter discardingNon-Ensas unmeaning, and recognizing no real events or successions, but onlyEns Unumperpetually lasting and unchangeable. The other physical hypotheses, broached by Pythagoras, Empedokles, Anaxagoras, and Demokritus, each altogether discordant with the others, were alike imposing in their general enunciation and promise, alike insufficient when applied to common experience and detail.
50Plato, Parmenid. p. 128, D.
50Plato, Parmenid. p. 128, D.
51Plato, Theætêt. p. 179, E: περὶ τούτων τῶν Ἡρακλειτείων, — τὸ ἐπιμεῖναι ἐπὶ λόγῳ καὶ ἐρωτήματι καὶ ἡσυχίως ἐν μέρει ἀποκρίνασθαι καὶ ἐρέσθαι ἧττον αὐτοῖς ἔνι ἢ τὸ μηδέν· — ὥσπερ ἐκ φαρέτρας ῥηματίσκια αἰνιγματώδη ἀνασπῶντες ἀποτοξεύουσι, κἂν τούτου ζητῇς λόγον λαβεῖν, τί εἴρηκεν, ἑτέρῳ πεπλήξει καινῶς μετωνομασμένῳ, περανεῖς δὲ οὐδέποτε οὐδὲν πρὸς οὐδένα αὐτῶν.
51Plato, Theætêt. p. 179, E: περὶ τούτων τῶν Ἡρακλειτείων, — τὸ ἐπιμεῖναι ἐπὶ λόγῳ καὶ ἐρωτήματι καὶ ἡσυχίως ἐν μέρει ἀποκρίνασθαι καὶ ἐρέσθαι ἧττον αὐτοῖς ἔνι ἢ τὸ μηδέν· — ὥσπερ ἐκ φαρέτρας ῥηματίσκια αἰνιγματώδη ἀνασπῶντες ἀποτοξεύουσι, κἂν τούτου ζητῇς λόγον λαβεῖν, τί εἴρηκεν, ἑτέρῳ πεπλήξει καινῶς μετωνομασμένῳ, περανεῖς δὲ οὐδέποτε οὐδὲν πρὸς οὐδένα αὐτῶν.
52Ibid. p. 183, B: ἀλλά τιν’ ἄλλην φωνὴν θετέον τοῖς τὸν λόγον τοῦτον λέγουσιν, ὡς νῦν γε πρὸς τὴν αὑτῶν ὑπόθεσιν οὐκ ἔχουσι ῥήματα, εἰ μὴ ἄρα τὸ οὔδ’ ὅπως· μάλιστα δ’ οὕτως ἂν αὐτοῖς ἅρμοττοι, ἄπειρον λεγόμενον.Plato applies this remark to the theory of Protagoras; but the remark belongs properly to that of Herakleitus.
52Ibid. p. 183, B: ἀλλά τιν’ ἄλλην φωνὴν θετέον τοῖς τὸν λόγον τοῦτον λέγουσιν, ὡς νῦν γε πρὸς τὴν αὑτῶν ὑπόθεσιν οὐκ ἔχουσι ῥήματα, εἰ μὴ ἄρα τὸ οὔδ’ ὅπως· μάλιστα δ’ οὕτως ἂν αὐτοῖς ἅρμοττοι, ἄπειρον λεγόμενον.
Plato applies this remark to the theory of Protagoras; but the remark belongs properly to that of Herakleitus.
But the great development of Dialectic during the Sokratic age, together with the new applications made of it by Sokrates and the unrivalled acuteness with which he wielded it, altered materially the position of these physical theories. Sokrates was not ignorant of them;53but he discouraged such studies, and turned attention to other topics. He passed his whole life in public and in indiscriminate conversation with every one. He deprecated astronomy and physics as unbecoming attempts to pry into the secrets of the gods; who administered the general affairs of the Kosmos according to their own pleasure, and granted only, through the medium of prophecy or oracles, such special revelations as they thought fit. In his own discussions Sokrates dwelt only on matters of familiar conversationand experience — social, ethical, political, &c., such as were in every one’s mouth, among the daily groups of the market-place. These he declared to be the trulyhumantopics54— the proper study of mankind — upon which it was disgraceful to be ignorant, or to form untrue and inconsistent judgments. He found, moreover, that upon these topics no one supposed himself to be ignorant, or to require teaching. Every one gave confident opinions, derived from intercourse with society, embodied in the familiar words of the language, and imbibed almost unconsciously along with the meaning of these words. Now Sokrates not only disclaimed all purpose of teaching, but made ostentatious profession of his own ignorance. His practice was to ask information from others who professed to know; and with this view, to question them about the import of vulgar words with the social convictions contained in them.55To the answers given he applied an acute cross-examination, which seldom failed to detect so much inconsistency and contradiction as to cover the respondent with shame, and to make him sensible that he was profoundly ignorant of matters which he had believed himself to know well. Sokrates declared, in his last speech before condemnation by the Athenian Dikasts, that such false persuasion of knowledge, combined with real ignorance, was universal among mankind; and that the exposure thereof, as the great misguiding force of human life, had been enjoined upon him as his mission by the Delphian God.56
53Xenophon, Mem. IV. vii. 5: καίτοι οὐδὲ τούτων γε ἀνήκοος ἦν.
53Xenophon, Mem. IV. vii. 5: καίτοι οὐδὲ τούτων γε ἀνήκοος ἦν.
54Xenophon, Mem. I. i. 12-16: καὶ πρῶτον μὲν αὐτῶν ἐσκόπει πότερά ποτε νομίσαντες ἱκανῶς ἤδη τἀνθρώπεια εἰδέναι ἔρχονται ἐπὶ τὸ περὶ τῶν τοιούτων φροντίζειν, ἢ τὰ μὲν ἀνθρώπεια παρέντες, τὰ δὲ δαιμόνια σκοποῦντες, ἡγοῦνται τὰ προσήκοντα πράττειν. — αὐτὸς δὲ περὶ τῶν ἀνθρωπείων ἀεὶ διελέγετο, σκοπῶν τί εὐσεβές, τί ἀσεβές, τί καλόν, τί αἰσχρόν, τί δίκαιον, τί ἄδικον, τί σωφροσύνη, τί μανία, τί πόλις, τί πολιτικός, τί ἀρχὴ ἀνθρώπων, τί ἀρχικὸς ἀνθρώπων, &c.Compare IV. vii. 2-9.
54Xenophon, Mem. I. i. 12-16: καὶ πρῶτον μὲν αὐτῶν ἐσκόπει πότερά ποτε νομίσαντες ἱκανῶς ἤδη τἀνθρώπεια εἰδέναι ἔρχονται ἐπὶ τὸ περὶ τῶν τοιούτων φροντίζειν, ἢ τὰ μὲν ἀνθρώπεια παρέντες, τὰ δὲ δαιμόνια σκοποῦντες, ἡγοῦνται τὰ προσήκοντα πράττειν. — αὐτὸς δὲ περὶ τῶν ἀνθρωπείων ἀεὶ διελέγετο, σκοπῶν τί εὐσεβές, τί ἀσεβές, τί καλόν, τί αἰσχρόν, τί δίκαιον, τί ἄδικον, τί σωφροσύνη, τί μανία, τί πόλις, τί πολιτικός, τί ἀρχὴ ἀνθρώπων, τί ἀρχικὸς ἀνθρώπων, &c.
Compare IV. vii. 2-9.
55Xenoph. Memor. I. ii. 26-46; III. vi. 2-15; IV. ii.; IV. vi. 1: σκοπῶν σὺν τοῖς συνοῖσι τί ἕκαστον εἴη τῶν ὄντων οὐδέποτ’ ἔληγε. — IV. iv. 9: ἀρκεῖ γὰρ ὅτι τῶν ἄλλων καταγελᾷς, ἐρωτῶν μὲν καὶ ἐλέγχων πάντας, αὐτὸς δ’ οὐδενὶ θέλων ὑπέχειν λόγον οὐδὲ γνώμην ἀποφαίνεσθαι περεὶ οὐδενός. — Plato, Republic I. pp. 336-337; Theætêt. p. 150 C.
55Xenoph. Memor. I. ii. 26-46; III. vi. 2-15; IV. ii.; IV. vi. 1: σκοπῶν σὺν τοῖς συνοῖσι τί ἕκαστον εἴη τῶν ὄντων οὐδέποτ’ ἔληγε. — IV. iv. 9: ἀρκεῖ γὰρ ὅτι τῶν ἄλλων καταγελᾷς, ἐρωτῶν μὲν καὶ ἐλέγχων πάντας, αὐτὸς δ’ οὐδενὶ θέλων ὑπέχειν λόγον οὐδὲ γνώμην ἀποφαίνεσθαι περεὶ οὐδενός. — Plato, Republic I. pp. 336-337; Theætêt. p. 150 C.
56Plato, Apol. Sokrat. pp. 22, 28, 33: ἐμοὶ δὲ τοῦτο, ὡς ἐγώ φημι, προστέτακται ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ πράττειν καὶ ἐκ μαντειῶν καὶ ἐξ ἐνυπνίων καὶ παντὶ τρόπῳ, ᾧπέρ τίς ποτε καὶ ἄλλη θεία μοῖρα ἀνθρώπῳ καὶ ὁτιοῦν προσέταξε πράττειν. — Plato, Sophist. pp. 230-231; Menon, pp. 80, A., 84, B.Compare the analysis of the Platonic Apology in my work, ‘Plato and the Other Companions of Sokrates,’ Vol. I.c. vii.
56Plato, Apol. Sokrat. pp. 22, 28, 33: ἐμοὶ δὲ τοῦτο, ὡς ἐγώ φημι, προστέτακται ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ πράττειν καὶ ἐκ μαντειῶν καὶ ἐξ ἐνυπνίων καὶ παντὶ τρόπῳ, ᾧπέρ τίς ποτε καὶ ἄλλη θεία μοῖρα ἀνθρώπῳ καὶ ὁτιοῦν προσέταξε πράττειν. — Plato, Sophist. pp. 230-231; Menon, pp. 80, A., 84, B.
Compare the analysis of the Platonic Apology in my work, ‘Plato and the Other Companions of Sokrates,’ Vol. I.c. vii.
The peculiarities which Aristotle ascribes to Sokrates are — that he talked upon ethical topics instead of physical, that he fastened especially on the definitions of general terms, and that his discussions were inductive, bringing forward many analogous illustrative or probative particulars to justify a true general proposition, and one or a few to set aside a false one.57ThisSokratic practice is copiously illustrated both by Plato in many of his dialogues, and by Xenophon throughout all the Memorabilia.58In Plato, however, Sokrates is often introduced as spokesman of doctrines not his own; while in Xenophon we have before us the real man as he talked in the market-place, and apparently little besides. Xenophon very emphatically exhibits to us a point which in Plato’s Dialogues of Search is less conspicuously marked, though still apparent: viz., the power possessed by Sokrates of accommodating himself to the ordinary mind in all its varieties — his habit of dwelling on the homely and familiar topics of the citizen’s daily life — his constant appeal to small and even vulgar details, as the way of testing large and imposing generalities.59Sokrates possessed to a surprising degree the art of selecting arguments really persuasive to ordinary non-theorizing men; so as often to carry their assent along with him, and still oftener to shake their previous beliefs, if unwarranted, or even if adopted by mere passive receptivity without preliminary reflection and comparison.
57Aristot. Metaph.M.iv. p. 1078, b. 28: δύο γάρ ἐστιν ἅ τις ἂν ἀποδοίη Σωκράτει δικαίως, τούς τ’ ἐπακτικοὺς λόγους καὶ τὸ ὁρίζεσθαι καθόλου· ταῦτα γάρ ἐστιν ἄμφω περὶ ἀρχὴν ἐπιστήμης. — ib.A.p. 987, b. 1: Σωκράτους δὲ περὶ μὲν τὰ ἠθικὰ πραγματευομένου, περὶ δὲ τῆς ὅλης φύσεως οὐθέν, ἐν μέντοι τούτοις τὸ καθόλου ζητοῦντος καὶ περὶ ὁρισμῶν ἐπιστήσαντος πρώτου τὴν διάνοιαν.
57Aristot. Metaph.M.iv. p. 1078, b. 28: δύο γάρ ἐστιν ἅ τις ἂν ἀποδοίη Σωκράτει δικαίως, τούς τ’ ἐπακτικοὺς λόγους καὶ τὸ ὁρίζεσθαι καθόλου· ταῦτα γάρ ἐστιν ἄμφω περὶ ἀρχὴν ἐπιστήμης. — ib.A.p. 987, b. 1: Σωκράτους δὲ περὶ μὲν τὰ ἠθικὰ πραγματευομένου, περὶ δὲ τῆς ὅλης φύσεως οὐθέν, ἐν μέντοι τούτοις τὸ καθόλου ζητοῦντος καὶ περὶ ὁρισμῶν ἐπιστήσαντος πρώτου τὴν διάνοιαν.
58No portion of the Memorabilia illustrates this point better than the dialogue with Euthydêmus, IV. vi.
58No portion of the Memorabilia illustrates this point better than the dialogue with Euthydêmus, IV. vi.
59Xenophon, Memor. IV. vi. 15: ὅποτε δὲ αὐτός τι τῷ λόγῳ διεξίοι, διὰ τῶν μάλιστα ὁμολογουμένων ἐπορεύετο, νομίζων ταύτην τὴν ἀσφάλειαν εἶναι λόγου· τοιγαροῦν πολὺ μάλιστα ὧν ἐγὼ οἶδα, ὅτε λέγοι, τοὺς ἀκούοντας ὁμολογοῦντας παρεῖχεν· ἔφη δὲ καὶ Ὅμηρον τῷ Ὀδυσσεῖ ἀναθεῖναι τὸ ἀσφαλῆ ῥήτορα εἶναι, ὡς ἱκανὸν αὐτὸν ὄντα διὰ τῶν δοκούντων τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἄγειν τοὺς λόγους.Compare ib. I. ii. 38; IV. iv. 6; also Plato, Theætêtus, p. 147, A, B; Republic I. p. 338, C.
59Xenophon, Memor. IV. vi. 15: ὅποτε δὲ αὐτός τι τῷ λόγῳ διεξίοι, διὰ τῶν μάλιστα ὁμολογουμένων ἐπορεύετο, νομίζων ταύτην τὴν ἀσφάλειαν εἶναι λόγου· τοιγαροῦν πολὺ μάλιστα ὧν ἐγὼ οἶδα, ὅτε λέγοι, τοὺς ἀκούοντας ὁμολογοῦντας παρεῖχεν· ἔφη δὲ καὶ Ὅμηρον τῷ Ὀδυσσεῖ ἀναθεῖναι τὸ ἀσφαλῆ ῥήτορα εἶναι, ὡς ἱκανὸν αὐτὸν ὄντα διὰ τῶν δοκούντων τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἄγειν τοὺς λόγους.
Compare ib. I. ii. 38; IV. iv. 6; also Plato, Theætêtus, p. 147, A, B; Republic I. p. 338, C.
Without departing from Aristotle’s description, therefore, we may conceive the change operated by Sokrates in philosophical discussion under a new point of view. In exchanging Physics for Ethics, it vulgarized both the topics and the talk of philosophy. Physical philosophy as it stood in the age of Sokrates (before Aristotle had broached his peculiar definition of Nature) was merely an obscure, semi-poetical, hypotheticalPhilosophia Prima,60or ratherPhilosophia PrimaandPhilosophia Secundablended in one. This is true of all its varieties, — of the Ionic philosophers as well as of Pythagoras, Parmenides, Herakleitus, Anaxagoras, Empedokles, and even Demokritus. Such philosophy, dimly enunciated and only half intelligible,61not merely did not tend to explain or clear up phenomenal experiences, but often added new difficulties of its own. It presented itself sometimes even as discrediting, overriding, and contradictingexperience; but never as opening any deductive road from the Universal down to its particulars.62Such theories, though in circulation among a few disciples and opponents, were foreign and unsuitable to the talk of ordinary men. To pass from these cloudy mysteries to social topics and terms which were in every one’s mouth, was the important revolution in philosophy introduced in the age of Sokrates, and mainly by him.
60Aristot. Metaph.Γ.iii. p. 1005, a. 31.
60Aristot. Metaph.Γ.iii. p. 1005, a. 31.
61Ibid.A.x. p. 993, a. 15: ψελλιζομένῃ γὰρ ἔοικεν ἡ πρώτη φιλοσοφία περὶ πάντων, ἅτε νέα τε κατ’ ἀρχὰς οὖσα καὶ τὸ πρῶτον.
61Ibid.A.x. p. 993, a. 15: ψελλιζομένῃ γὰρ ἔοικεν ἡ πρώτη φιλοσοφία περὶ πάντων, ἅτε νέα τε κατ’ ἀρχὰς οὖσα καὶ τὸ πρῶτον.
62Aristot. Metaph.α.i. p. 993, b. 6: τὸ ὅλον τι ἔχειν καὶ μέρος μὴ δύνασθαι δηλοῖ τὸ χαλεπὸν αὐτῆς (τῆς περὶ τῆς ἀληθείας θεωρίας).Alexander ap. Schol. p. 104, Bonitz: εἰς ἔννοιαν μὲν τοῦ ὅλου καὶ ἐπίστασιν πάντας ἐλθεῖν, μηδὲν δὲ μέρος αὐτῆς ἐξακριβώσασθαι δυνηθῆναι, δηλοῖ τὸ χαλεπὸν αὐτῆς.Aristotle indicates how much thePhilosophia Primaof his earlier predecessors was uncongenial to and at variance with phenomenal experience — Metaphys.A.v. p. 986, b. 31.To shape their theories in such a way — τὰ φαινόμενα εἰ μέλλει τις ἀποδώσειν (Metaphys.Λ.viii. p. 1073, b. 36), was an obligation which philosophers hardly felt incumbent on them prior to the Aristotelian age. Compare Simplikius (ad. Aristot. Physic. I.), p. 328, a. 1-26, Schol. Br.; Schol. (ad. Aristot. De CÅ“lo III. I.) p. 509, a. 26-p. 510, a. 13.
62Aristot. Metaph.α.i. p. 993, b. 6: τὸ ὅλον τι ἔχειν καὶ μέρος μὴ δύνασθαι δηλοῖ τὸ χαλεπὸν αὐτῆς (τῆς περὶ τῆς ἀληθείας θεωρίας).
Alexander ap. Schol. p. 104, Bonitz: εἰς ἔννοιαν μὲν τοῦ ὅλου καὶ ἐπίστασιν πάντας ἐλθεῖν, μηδὲν δὲ μέρος αὐτῆς ἐξακριβώσασθαι δυνηθῆναι, δηλοῖ τὸ χαλεπὸν αὐτῆς.
Aristotle indicates how much thePhilosophia Primaof his earlier predecessors was uncongenial to and at variance with phenomenal experience — Metaphys.A.v. p. 986, b. 31.
To shape their theories in such a way — τὰ φαινόμενα εἰ μέλλει τις ἀποδώσειν (Metaphys.Λ.viii. p. 1073, b. 36), was an obligation which philosophers hardly felt incumbent on them prior to the Aristotelian age. Compare Simplikius (ad. Aristot. Physic. I.), p. 328, a. 1-26, Schol. Br.; Schol. (ad. Aristot. De CÅ“lo III. I.) p. 509, a. 26-p. 510, a. 13.
The drift of the Sokratic procedure was to bring men into the habit of defining those universal terms which they had hitherto used undefined, the definitions being verified by induction of particulars as the ultimate authority. It was a procedure built upon common speech, but improving on common speech; the talk of every man being in propositions, each including a subject and predicate, but neither subject nor predicate being ever defined. It was the mission of Sokrates to make men painfully sensible of that deficiency, as well as to enforce upon them the inductive evidence by which alone it could be rectified. Now the Analytic and Dialectic of Aristotle grew directly out of this Sokratic procedure, and out of the Platonic dialogues in so far as they enforced and illustrated it. When Sokrates had supplied the negative stimulus and indication of what was amiss, together with the appeal to Induction as final authority, Aristotle furnished, or did much to furnish, the positive analysis and complementary precepts, necessary to clear up, justify, and assure the march of reasoned truth.63What Aristotle calls the syllogisticprincipia, or the principles of syllogistic demonstration, are nothing else than the stepstowards reasoned truth, and the precautions against those fallacious appearances that simulate it. The steps are stated in their most general terms, as involving both Deduction and Induction; though in Aristotle we find the deductive portion copiously unfolded and classified, while Induction, though recognized as the only verifying foundation of the whole, is left without expansion or illustration.
63Though the theorizing and the analysis of Aristotle presuppose and recognize the Sokratic procedure, yet, if we read the Xenophontic Memorabilia, IV. vii., and compare therewith the first two chapters of Aristotle’s Metaphysica, in which he describes and extolsPhilosophia Prima, we shall see how radically antipathetic were the two points of view: Sokrates confining himself to practical results — μέχρι τοῦ ὠφελιμοῦ; Aristotle extollingPhilosophia Prima, because it soars above practical results, and serves as its own reward, elevating the philosopher to a partial communion with the contemplative self-sufficiency of the Gods. Indeed the remark of Aristotle, p. 983, a. 1-6, denying altogether the jealousy ascribed to the Gods, &c., is almost a reply to the opinion expressed by Sokrates, that a man by such overweening researches brought upon himself the displeasure of the Gods, as prying into their secrets (Xen. Mem. IV. vii. 6; I. i. 12).
63Though the theorizing and the analysis of Aristotle presuppose and recognize the Sokratic procedure, yet, if we read the Xenophontic Memorabilia, IV. vii., and compare therewith the first two chapters of Aristotle’s Metaphysica, in which he describes and extolsPhilosophia Prima, we shall see how radically antipathetic were the two points of view: Sokrates confining himself to practical results — μέχρι τοῦ ὠφελιμοῦ; Aristotle extollingPhilosophia Prima, because it soars above practical results, and serves as its own reward, elevating the philosopher to a partial communion with the contemplative self-sufficiency of the Gods. Indeed the remark of Aristotle, p. 983, a. 1-6, denying altogether the jealousy ascribed to the Gods, &c., is almost a reply to the opinion expressed by Sokrates, that a man by such overweening researches brought upon himself the displeasure of the Gods, as prying into their secrets (Xen. Mem. IV. vii. 6; I. i. 12).
If we go through the Sokratic conversations as reported in the Memorabilia of Xenophon, we shall find illustration of what has been just stated: we shall see Sokrates recognizing and following the common speech of men, in propositions combining subject and predicate; but trying to fix the meaning of both these terms, and to test the consistency of the universal predications by appeal to particulars. The syllogizing and the inductive processes are exhibited both of them in actual work on particular points of discussion. Now on these processes Aristotle brings his analysis to bear, eliciting and enunciating in general terms theirprincipiaand their conditions. We have seen that he expressly declares the analysis of theseprincipiato belong to First Philosophy.64And thus it is that First Philosophy as conceived by Aristotle, acknowledges among itsfundamentathe habits of common Hellenic speech; subject only to correction and control by the Sokratic cross-examining and testing discipline. He stands distinguished among the philosophers for the respectful attention with which he collects and builds upon the beliefs actually prevalent among mankind.65Herein as well as in other respects his First Philosophy not only differed from that of all the pre-Sokratic philosophers (such as Herakleitus, Parmenides, Anaxagoras, &c.) by explaining theprincipiaof Analytic and Dialectic as well as those of Physics and Physiology, but it also differed from that of the post-Sokratic and semi-Sokratic Plato, by keeping up a closer communion both with Sokrates and with common speech. Though Plato in his Dialogues of Search appears to apply the inductive discipline of Sokrates, and to handle the Universal as referable to and dependent upon its particulars; yet the PlatonicPhilosophia Primaproceeds upon a view totally different. It is a fusion of Parmenides with Herakleitus;66divorcing the Universal altogether from its particulars; treating the Universal as anindependent reality and as the only permanent reality; negating the particulars as so many unreal, evanescent, ever-changing copies or shadows thereof. Aristotle expressly intimates his dissent from the divorce or separation thus introduced by Plato. He proclaims his adherence to the practice of Sokrates, which kept the two elements together, and which cognized particulars as the ultimate reality and test for the Universal.67Upon this doctrine his First Philosophy is built: being distinguished hereby from all the other varieties broached by either his predecessors or contemporaries.