In the preceding post I raised the question whether the
science/knowledge of the beauty itself, of which Diotima tells Socrates in
the Symposium, sheds light on the
science/knowledge of the good mooted by Socrates in the Charmides. I suggested that the dating of the Charmides may help us in answering this question. I discussed the
dating of the Charmides in the fifth
chapter of The Lost Plato, entitled
‘The Charmides and the Phaedrus’ (available on my website); in
its first paragraph the dating of the Charmides
is presented as in a nutshell:
‘In the preceding chapter [Ch.4, ‘The dating of the Phaedrus: Ancient Sources’] I argued
that Plato wrote the Phaedrus in
response to Aristophanes’ scathing attack on Socrates and his disciples in the Frogs, in the final stages of the
Peloponnesian war, and that it was finished and published after its end, for
only then Simmias, to whom Plato refers in the dialogue in parenthesis, could
come to Athens from Thebes. The question arises which dialogue came next. This
I believe to be the Charmides, for
there are strong reasons for dating it shortly after Plato’s publishing of the Phaedrus. Socrates’ interlocutors in the
Charmides are well known historical
figures: Chaerephon, Critias, and Charmides. Charmides and Critias took an
active part in the aristocratic revolution that took place after the
dissolution of democracy with which the military defeat of Athens ended. This
regime deteriorated in a few months into tyranny under Critias’ leadership and
became known as the rule of the Thirty Tyrants. In the dialogue Chaerephon, an
ardent democrat, is on the best terms with Critias and is presented as a great
admirer of Charmides. Chaerephon went into exile when the aristocratic regime
began to show its true nature (cf. Apology
20e-21a); I therefore date the Charmides
in 404, before Chaerephon went to exile.’
***
Before bringing in the passages on which I found the dating
of the Charmides, let me refer to a
passage in the Phaedrus, which,
together with the science/knowledge of the beauty itself, discussed by Diotima
in the Symposium, sheds light on the
science/knowledge of the good mooted by Socrates in the Charmides. The passage in the Phaedrus
is the one in which Plato’s Socrates describes the ‘place beyond heavens’ (ton huperouranion topon, 247c3), where
the Forms reside: ‘It is there that true Being dwells, without colour or shape,
that cannot be touched; reason alone, the soul’s pilot, can behold it, and all true knowledge is knowledge
thereof (hê gar achrômatos te kai
aschêmatistos kai anaphês ousia ontôs ousa, psuchês kubernêtê̢ monô̢
theatê nô̢, peri hês to tês
alêthinês epistêmês genos, touton echei ton topon). Now even as the
mind of a god is nourished by reason and knowledge
(hat’ oun theou dianoia nô̢ te kai epistêmê̢ akêratô̢ trephomenê),
so also is it with every soul (kai
hapasês psuchês) that has a care (hosê̢
an melê̢) to receive her proper food (to
prosêkon dexasthai); wherefore when at last she has beheld Being (idousa dia chronou to on) she is well
content (agapa̢ te), and
contemplating truth (kai theôrousa
t’alêthê) she is nourished (trephetai
te) and prospers (kai eupathei),
until the heaven’s revolution brings her back the full circle (heôs an kuklô̢ hê periphora eis t’auton
perienenkê̢). And while she is borne around (en de tê̢ periphora̢) she discerns justice, its very self (kathora̢ men autên diakiosunên), and
likewise temperance (kathora̢ de
sôphrosunên), and knowledge (kathora̢ de epistêmên), not the knowledge that is neighbour to Becoming
and varies with the various objects to which we commonly ascribe being (oud’ hê estin pou hetera en heterô̢ ousa
hôn hêmeis nun ontôn kaloumen), but the veritable knowledge of Being
that veritably is (alla tên en tô̢ ho
estin on ontôs ousan).’ (247c6-e2; translation is Hackforth’s)
When Diotima in the Symposium
speaks of the sciences that are subject to change as everything else in this world (207d-208b), she refers to
sciences/knowledges (epistêmai,
207e5 ff.) of which Plato speaks in the Phaedrus
as ‘the knowledge that is neighbour to Becoming and varies with the various
objects to which we commonly ascribe being’ (in Hackforth’s translation;
Christopher Rowe translates: ‘not that knowledge to which coming into being
attaches, or that which seems to be different in each different one of the
things that we now say are’).
When Diotima in the Symposium
points to the knowledge of the beauty itself, she points to the knowledge of
which Plato speaks in the Phaedrus as
‘the veritable knowledge of Being that veritably is’.
***
It might be objected that neither in the Phaedrus nor in the Symposium
does Plato speak of the knowledge of the good; in the Phaedrus passage he speaks of the knowledge of the true being, in
the Symposium passage of the
knowledge of beauty itself; what entitles us to relate these two passages to
the knowledge of the good in the Charmides?
The knowledge of the good is a subject that in Plato’s view could not be
discussed by means of the written word, only by the living spoken word; in the Charmides it is only gestured at.
In the Symposium
Diotima intimates that when the philosopher begins to see the beauty itself, he
is almost touching the end he strives at (schedon
an ti haptoito tou telous, 211b6-7). In her discussion with Socrates
Diotima had indicated that the good is of higher dignity and greater importance
than beauty.
Diotima: ‘When a man loves the beautiful (era̢ ho erôn tôn kalôn), what does
his love desire (ti era̢;)?’ – Soc.
‘That the beautiful may be his (Genesthai
hautô̢).’ – D.: ‘Still, the answer suggests a further question (All’ eti pothei hê apokrisis erôtêsin
toiande): What is given by the possession of beauty (Ti estai ekeinô̢ hô̢ an genêtai ta kala;)?’ – S.: ‘To what you
have asked, I have no answer ready (Ou
panu ephên eti echein egô pros tautên tên erôtêsin procheirôs
apokrinesthai).’ – D.: ‘Then, let me put the word “good” in the place of
the beautiful, and repeat the question once more (All’ hôsper an ei tis metabalôn anti tou kalou tô̢ agathô̢
chrômenos punthanoito): If he who loves the good (Phere, ô Sôkrates, era̢ ho erôn tôn agathôn), what is it then
that he loves (ti era̢)?’ – S.: ‘The
possession of the good (Genesthai hautô̢).’
– D.: ‘And what does he gain (Kai ti
estai ekeinô̢) who possesses the good (hô̢
an genêtai t’agatha;)?’ – S.: ‘Happiness, there is little difficulty in
answering that question (Tout’
euporôteron echô apokrinasthai, hoti eudaimôn estai).’ – D.: ‘Yes, the
happy are made happy by the acquisition of good things (Ktêsei gar agathôn hoi eudaimones eudaimones). Nor is there any
need to ask (kai ouketi prosdei eresthai)
why a man desires happiness (Hina ti
bouletai eudaimôn einai ho boulomenos;); the answer is already final (alla telos dokei echein hê apokrisis).’
(204d5-205a3, tr. Jowett)
Let me end this post with a passage in which Plato in the Phaedrus indicates why is it the Form of
beauty that leads a philosopher to the other Forms: ‘Now beauty (Peri de kallous), as we said (hôsper eipomen), shone bright amidst
these visions (met’ ekeinôn te elampen
on), and in this world below we apprehend it through the clearest of our
senses (deuro t’ elthontes kateilêphamen
auto dia tês enargestatês aisthêseôs tôn hêmeterôn), clear and
resplendent (stilbon enargestata).
For sight (opsis gar) is the keenest (oxutatê) mode of perception vouchsafed
us through the body (tôn dia tou
sômatos erchetai aisthêseôn); wisdom, indeed, we cannot see thereby (hê̢ phronêsis ouch horatai) – how
passionate had been our desire for her (deinous
gar an pareichen erôtas), if she had granted us so clear an image of
herself to gaze upon (ei ti toiouton
heautês enarges eidôlon pareicheto eis opsin ion) – nor yet any other of
those beloved objects, save only beauty (kai
t’alla hosa erasta); for beauty alone this has been ordained (nun de kallos monon tautên esche moiran),
to be most manifest to sense (hôst’ ekphanestaton
einai) and most lovely of them all (kai
erasmiôtaton).’ (250c8-e1, tr. R. Hackforth)
No comments:
Post a Comment