Amber Faber

Philosophy 1000
Spring 2017
Andrew Israelsen

Before Plato, Socrates, Parmenides, Xenophanes, and even the sophists, people in

Ancient Greece believed that the Gods determined what was considered powerful. They were

ethnocentric people, they believed that they were superior to all. Everything others thought or

believed was wrong, and made them unimportant. Since then, the thoughts and idea that are

presented to the world have evolved. One way these old beliefs were overcome was through

philosophy and the revolutionary approach to thinking about the world and our standing within

it. The Philosophical Revolution aimed to bring knowledge of the ultimate reality to those who

lived in Ancient Greece. Four philosophers, Xenophanes, Parmenides, Socrates, and Plato each

took their ideas about the world and tried to convince society that knowledge is more powerful

than man and his strength. Before these philosophers, Sophists became popular in Athens and

were known as professional educators. Their views were relative and never achieved the

ultimate truth. They believe that everything was different or changing; nothing ever stayed the

same. They charged fees to teach people how to achieve power. Man determined power and

each individual had different qualities. Xenophanes, however, had a different view.

Society believes in order to have power you needed to be as close to god-like as possible.

You need looks and athleticism, or strength to be like Gods. The Gods were the only ones who

had knowledge or wisdom, which was not achievable by man. Xenophanes believed that

knowledge is power and that certain people could achieve it. He knew that wisdom was better

than physical strength. Even if he won with horses, he would get all this, but would not merit it
as I: for better than strength of men and horses is our wisdom. (Xenophanes, 1) Those who had

strength and looks ruled in Athens and everyone looked up to them. Xenophanes disagreed

with this way of thinking and believed that those who know, should rule.

Xenophanes was the teacher to Parmenides. Parmenides learned from him and aimed for

a better solution to unity through Athens beliefs by the thinking of, what is, is. He turned away

from the study of individual things and devoted his attention to an analysis of the process of

change itself. (Soccio, 66) Parmenides explained what it meant to be, being. Being is positive,

simple, and unconditioned. Not being, on the other hand, paralyzes thought and is inexpressible.

(Soccio, 66) To not be being simply doesnt exist. To not be being is still a way of being,

therefore everything is simply being. Parmenides believed that change and variety are only

appearances (not real). He solved the problem of the appearance of change by concluding that

the very concept of change is self-contradictory. (Soccio, 68) He based all his ideas on the

concept of appearance and that reality cannot be apprehended by the senses. Change is only an

appearance and is therefore not reality. Being is something that can be thought and there is only

one being. Humans and stars are all being, but in different ways or forms. Plato expands on the

concept of forms, and what is means to have change.

Socrates had a different approach to philosophy. He asked people questions, also known

as the Socratic Method. The Socratic Method begins with the assumption that the function of

education is to draw the truth out of the pupil rather than fill an empty vessel. In practice, it is a

series of guided questions known as the dialectical method of inquiry. (Soccio, 104) He

encouraged people to talk to him because they claimed they knew everything. Socrates said

something along the lines of, I know that I know nothing, but everyone else thinks they know

everything. Socrates aimed to prove people wrong and that they really knew nothing. When
speaking with others he gave them all an equal opportunity and discussion. He just wanted to

engage with others. It is a highly personal activity, guided by one who knows both the general

direction of the inquiry (but not the answers) as well as the nature and needs of the individual

student. It works only if the other participant actively listens and responds. (Soccio, 104) He

would allow people to speak, but then would ask questions to make them think and usually

contradict their original thought. A great example of this is Socrates discussion with Euthyphro.

Euthyphro was putting his father on trial for impious actions. Socrates asks the question,

Tell me then, what is the pious, and what is the impious, do you say? (Plato, 6) Euthyphro

states that what he is doing is pious, prosecuting a wrongdoer. He believes that not prosecuting

him would be impious. Socrates follows by asking what makes something pious. Euthyphro says

that what the gods love is pious. Socrates doesnt understand this definition of piety because it

doesnt explain why it is pious. The conversation continues and contradictions arise. Euthyphro

agrees with the following statements; the pious is being loved because it is pious, and the pious is

not pious because it is being loved. These two statements contradict and Socrates makes sure that

Euthyphro knows. After a few minutes of debating they agree that a thing that is pious is pious

because it is being loved by the gods. Socrates ends the conversation by stating, Either we were

wrong when we agreed before, or, if we were right then, we are wrong now. (Plato, 20) This is

the Socratic Method and how it is put to use. Socrates knew that Euthyphro didnt understand his

own definition of piety because every statement contradicts. Socrates knew how to get him to

agree with wrong statements to conclude one final statement.

Socrates was sentenced to death for corrupting the youth and creating false gods. He had

an opportunity to escape but he knew that to do so would go against his morals. He knew that his

legacy and teachings would move on through his followers, one especially, by the name of Plato.
 Plato learned from Socrates but moved forward with his thinking. Plato took on

developing the theory of forms. The form is the what-it-is-to-be of a thing. Forms are essentially

ideas that show up differently in many things. According to Plato, each form actually exists-

pure and unchanging- regardless of continuous shifts in human opinions and alterations in the

physical world of sensible. Each form is a pure, unmixed essence that exists independently of

human consciousness. (Soccio, 134) He wanted to explain the conceptual identity of the thing,

rather than the physical appearance. Parmenides focused on the appearance of a thing, while

Plato took Parmenides thought and added the explanation of conceptual identity. Forms are

changeless while the appearance may change. Plato knows that things arent necessarily how

they seem. He explained how things are in terms of reality or ideas to explain why certain things

always change in the same way and how things are the same. Plato wants to know how many

different things can all be considered the same. For instance, how can many things be beautiful?

What factors make those things beautiful and why? Platos way of thinking differed from

Parmenides. Parmenides way of being meant that nothing was different. Plato took his thinking

of what is and determined that it must contain difference. Platos thought was there is one form

of a thing with many instances.

With each new philosopher came new ideas. Each had their own views on those before

them and they grew from there. Each moved closer to the ultimate reality, although we may

never know what that truly is.

Works Cited

Soccio, Douglas J. Archetypes of Wisdom: An Introduction to Philosophy. Ninth ed. Boston, MA:

Cengage Learning, 2016. Print.

Plato. Five Dialogues. Second ed. Indianapolis: Hackett, 2013. Print.

Xenophanes. Fragments. Graham. Handout