The Historical Development of Philosophy

Greek Philosophy

The Emergence of the Ethical Problem (Sophists and Socrates)

The second period of Greek philosophy, spanning the fifth and sixth centuries B.C., diverges sharply from the one-sided cosmological focus of the preceding philosophy by initially addressing anthropological issues. Naturalistic thought reached the limits beyond which it could not progress at that time. The political life that began to unfold in the Greek republics brought forth new interests that were closer to the individual. The naive quest for universal knowledge was supplanted by the individual's desire to influence the political life of the state. Questions regarding the meaning and significance of the cosmos were replaced by inquiries into the origins and goals of civil society, the reliability of human knowledge, and the significance of human actions.

The principle of Protagoras—that man is the measure of all things—best captures the transformation in interests that took place. These new problems found their initial refuge among those men who, responding to the demands of the times, emerged chiefly in Athens as teachers of all sciences and arts essential for active participation in public life—the sophists. No longer independent thinkers striving to comprehend the world and its development, the sophists became a new class, engaging in the teaching of rhetoric and logical argumentation as arts, naturally guided not by a pure pursuit of truth, but by a desire to shine and triumph in verbal disputes. Characteristic of this philosophy, dictated by the conditions surrounding them and their status in life, is an empirico-skeptical perspective concerning theoretical questions, while regarding practical action, they adopted a utilitarian-egoistic standpoint. The content and scope of our knowledge are entirely determined by our own sensory perceptions; these, being subjectively variable, cannot yield universally valid knowledge. Likewise, our actions are always determined by momentary needs. Thus, what seems true to the individual is indeed true; what is good is that which serves his advantage.

Against this doctrine of the sophists stands Socrates. Engaging in the education of others not as a profitable endeavor, but akin to the thinkers of earlier times, he explored the questions of meaning and significance from a pure desire for knowledge, gathering disciples by igniting in them a free interest in these inquiries. He primarily opposed the egoistic-utilitarian tendency of the sophists as harmful to the community. Yet, Socrates, too, was a man of his time. He was no longer drawn to the exploration of great cosmic problems; for him, as for the sophists, the individual was the measure of things. In discussing specific matters of practical life, he also recognized the legitimacy of natural motives arising from individual interests. From his sayings and advice in this regard, one could easily form an impression of him as a man for whom the measure of moral actions was individual benefit. However, his worldview is characterized not by these specific practical decisions, but by the fundamental principles he deemed universally valid for human actions, through which those particular considerations of utility acquire a different illumination. For the difference between Socrates and the sophists lies not in Socrates' inability to see utility as a motive for actions; human will, by its nature, is always directed towards some goal, and this goal, according to Socrates, regardless of its utility to others, is in any case beneficial to the individual who strives for its realization. The distinction between Socrates and the sophists is that, for him, the criterion for evaluating actions is based on the motives that determine what is useful and what is harmful.

According to the sophists' theory, these motives, like human knowledge itself, are subjectively variable; their scale is individual desire and therefore, in general, temporary egoistic gain. In contrast, Socrates proclaims that there exists universally valid knowledge, and hence universally valid norms for human actions. It is not the individual man who is the measure of things, but man as a species. The good is not that which seems good to the individual at any given moment, but that which is recognized as good under all circumstances by every person based on his correct judgment. This encapsulates the essence of Socratic "maieutics," that "spiritual midwifery," which aims to awaken the latent knowledge within the individual. The idea that knowledge obtained through dialogue is not externally imparted to any participant but is instead discovered independently by them, while still being universal, rests on the Socratic assumption of the universality of knowledge. Furthermore, for those who cannot rely on their own minds as a trustworthy guide, Socrates directly points to the written laws of the state and the unwritten laws of the gods, thus referring to the external legal order and the voice of conscience: both serve as witnesses to the universality of moral norms. Therefore, for him, self-knowledge is the highest goal of human aspiration, not merely because he is most interested in man, but because self-knowledge is, at the same time, the source of all properties that are beneficial for the individual and society. This significance underlies Socratic assertions about the identity of virtue and knowledge, and the resulting claim that every wrongdoing arises only from ignorance. The foundation of such propositions lies in an understanding that, far exceeding the limits of ordinary practical wisdom, presupposes a complete and universally valid truth that permeates the entirety of human existence once he has become a partaker of it.

The personality of Socrates, who did not systematize his teachings but honed his craft as a freely chosen teacher and advisor to youth, cannot be studied merely through the randomly preserved sayings that, even if they were all transmitted to us, would not encompass the full depth of his worldview. Especially since at that stage of still-imperfect ethical reflection, it could scarcely have been expressed fully and accurately in words. In studying the personality of Socrates, as with any other great individual, it is equally essential to consider the impression he made on those close to him and the influence he had on them. In the schools of Socrates, this influence is reflected in various ways. Some, representatives of the Cyrenaic school or hedonists, draw from his conversations an eudaimonic tendency, though without the profound motivation for the pursuit of happiness found in Socrates’ concept of virtue. Others, the cynics, take his concept of virtue in its strict sense, without softening it with the joyful disposition of the great teacher. Finally, the Megarians overemphasize the high regard for the cognitive need inherent in Socrates' identification of virtue with knowledge, resulting in the eventual degeneration of this need into a striving for dialectics and sophistry. However, the complete and powerful influence of Socrates is thoroughly reflected in the life and work of the greatest of the Socratics, Plato.