Thomas Blackson

I argue for an alternative interpretation of some of the examples Fred Feldman uses to establish his theory of happiness. According to Feldman, the examples show that certain utterances of the form S is pleased/glad that P and S is displeased/sad that P should be interpreted as expressions of extrinsic attitudinal pleasure and displeasure and hence must be excluded from the aggregative sum of attitudinal pleasure and displeasure that constitutes happiness. I develop a new interpretation of Feldman’s examples. My interpretation is plausible in its own right. Moreover, it is significant within the context of the debate. It allows the attitudinal hedonist to preserve the initial understanding of happiness that Feldman believes is open to counterexample: that happiness is the sum of attitudinal pleasure minus attitudinal displeasure and that all attitudinal pleasure and displeasure counts equally in the aggregation that constitutes happiness.

In Plato’s Protagoras, Socrates argues that ‘the many’ are confused about the experience they describe as ‘being overcome by pleasure’. They think the cause is ‘something other than ignorance’. He argues it follows from what they believe that the cause is ‘ignorance’ and ‘false belief’. I show that his argument depends on a premise he does not introduce but they should deny: that when someone is overcome by pleasure, the desire stems from a belief. To explain why Plato does not make Socrates introduce this premise, the account I construct is speculative. It starts from the assumption that Plato is thinking through an understanding of human beings and what they must do to live good lives that he takes the historical Socrates to set out.

In the Phaedo, to explain why the philosopher lives in the unusually ascetic way he does, Socrates explains what someone realizes when philosophy takes possession of his soul and how he changes his behavior on the basis of this information. This paper considers the conception of belief the character uses in this explanation and whether it is the same as the conception Michael Frede thinks the historical Socrates is likely to have held and that the Stoics much later incorporated into their doctrine of practice.

This volume contains eight articles on various topics in Stoic philosophy, an introduction devoted primarily to the history of the scholarly study of Stoic philosophy, and a select bibliography devoted to recent work on Stoic philosophy not found in either Spindel Conference 1984: Recovering the Stoics, R. H. Epp or The Hellenistic Philosophers, A. A. Long and D. N. Sedley. The first six articles appeared previously in translation in the Greek philosophical journal Deukalion. Professor Ierodiakonou commissioned these articles as “an attempt to present to the Greek public current work on Stoic philosophy, an area that has been unduly neglected in contemporary Greek scholarship,” but subsequently she came to think that these articles “should also, with the addition of two further articles, be made available in their original version” because they “were highly original and important” and because “modern Greek—unfortunately—is not a lingua franca”.

This work is a Festschrift to celebrate the philosophical and scholarly achievements of John Dillon on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday on 15 September 1999. Such celebrations too often have little or no academic interest, but the editor is aware of this problem and has taken steps to prevent it from plaguing Traditions of Platonism. In order to avoid academic provincialism and to create a truly cosmopolitan collection of papers, contributed by some of the leading international experts within the field of Platonic and Neoplatonic studies, Professor Cleary says that he has carefully selected the contributors for their expertise on the ancient traditions of Platonism and for their diversity of perspectives, languages and traditions of scholarship.

Professor Beversluis says that this book is a re-reading of Platos early dialogues from the point of view of the characters with whom Socrates engages in debate. He says that unlike existing studies, which are thoroughly dismissive of the interlocutors and reduce them to the status of mere mouthpieces, this book takes them seriously and treats them as genuine intellectual opponents whose views are often more defensible than commentators have standardly thought. Beversluis says his purpose is not to summarize their positions or the arguments of the dialogues in which they appear, much less to produce a series of biographical sketches, but to investigate the phenomenology of philosophical disputation as it manifests itself in the early dialogues. He thinks that this investigation demonstrates the truth of his thesis that Socrates frequent use of faulty arguments and unscrupulous dialectical tactics calls in question his announced seriousness and concern for the souls of his fellows.

Professor Kahn says that Plato and the Socratic Dialogue “presents a new paradigm for the interpretation of Plato’s early and middle dialogues as a unified literary project, displaying an artistic plan for the expression of a unified world view”. To this end, Kahn argues that “[w]hat we can trace in these dialogues is not the development of Plato’s thought,” as Aristotle and others seem to have thought, “but the gradual unfolding of a literary plan for presenting his philosophical views to the general public”. This “unfolding” begins shortly after the Gorgias. Kahn argues that Plato then “created an essentially new form, the aporetic dialogue with a pseudo-historical setting” in order to bridge the psychological distance between the ordinary conception of the world and the radically new world view he would present in the middle dialogues. Kahn calls his interpretation “the hypothesis of ingressive exposition” and says that this hypothesis is “the claim that the seven threshold dialogues [Laches, Charmides, Euthyphro, Protagoras, Meno, Lysis, and Euthydemus] are designed to prepare the reader for the views expounded in the Symposium, Phaedo, and Republic, and that they can be adequately understood only from the perspective of these middle dialogues”.

In Determinism and Freedom in Stoic Philosophy, Professor Bobzien accomplishes what she describes as her “primary goal”; namely, “to establish-as far as that is possible—what the Stoic positions were, and to make them comprehensible to modern readers”. To this end, she demonstrates a scholarly command of the ancient texts and the contemporary secondary literature that places her as one of the most knowledgeable philosophers working in the history of ancient philosophy today. Moreover, as Myles Burnyeat says in his remarks on the jacket, not only is the book “a model of scholarly method,” it is “an outstanding example of lucid philosophical thinking in an area where clear thought is extremely difficult.” Bobzien herself says that the “book is written with those in mind who have an interest in philosophy” and that “[t]his means that historical and philological questions are treated strictly as subordinate to the question of what the respective philosophical position was, whether it was consistent, etc.” This strict subordination is not always so clear, and the philosophical problems are certainly interesting enough that a deeper and more extensive discussion would have been welcome, but Bobzien does provide a philosophically lucid treatment of the Stoic position on determinism, freedom, and related subjects. Determinism and Freedom in Stoic Philosophy is likely to be a dominate work in the field for quite some time.

According to the Stoics, human beings enslave themselves. When they change from nonrational children into rational adults, human beings form false beliefs about what is good and what is bad. These beliefs enslave them to things that are neither good nor bad. The author argues for an interpretation of how the Stoics understood the reasoning in terms of which human beings form these false beliefs. This interpretation helps makes sense of the argument against Chrysippus’s explanation of the origin of vice that Galen attributes to Posidonius. It also helps explain how the Stoics could think that nature is provident and that nature constructs human beings so that they enslave themselves when they change from nonrational children into rational adults.

The aim of this dissertation is to take a fresh look at Plato's thought on cause and definition and the connection of these topics to explanation. I trace and examine the development of his thought from certain early definitional dialogues through parts of the Hippias Major to Socrates' autobiography in the Phaedo and beyond to the Timaeus. ;The result of my investigation is a very different interpretation of Plato's views from the one currently accepted by scholars. Commentators on Plato have made a mistake by trying to see him as anticipating Aristotle's Doctrine of the Four Causes. Plato does not suppose, as Aristole is often claimed to suppose, that the Greek noun 'aitia' has several senses. Furthermore, Plato does not distinguish kinds of "causes" and kinds of "explanations" in the way that many suppose Aristole does. Plato's views on cause and definition, and the connection of these topics to explanation, are different from those of his famous pupil, Aristotle. ;Perhaps the most striking difference between their views concerns cause and definition. In the Hippias Major, Plato supposes that the search for definitions is a search for definitional ways to specify causes. He firmly renounces this view in the Phaedo, and he never again thinks of definition in this way in his post-Phaedo searches for definitions. Thus, far from proposing, in the style of Aristotle, that definitions specify a kind of cause and that definitional explanations are acceptable, Plato concludes in his post-Phaedo dialogues that definitions, as such, do not specify causes at all and that definitional explanations are not one of many possible kinds of explanation

IN POSTERIOR ANALYTICS 2.19 AND METAPHYSICS 1.1, Aristotle describes the natural process by which man acquires reason and the knowledge that belongs to reason. He says that from perception comes memory, from memory comes experience, and from experience comes reason and the knowledge that belongs to reason. This is the sequence in induction, and it is common to the description in both passages. In the Metaphysics, however, unlike in the Posterior Analytics, Aristotle goes on to explain how the expertise gained in experience is different from but easily mistaken for the knowledge that belongs to reason. He says that men of experience know that the thing is so, but not the why and the cause, and this can be perplexing because it can seem to conflict with his epistemology and ontology of reason. As I understand Aristotle, he thought that wisdom, not the knowledge that belongs to reason, varies among men, and that every adult who is not defective acquires the knowledge why in the course of his natural development. It thus follows that the experience that men of experience possess cannot be the experience in induction, for otherwise reason and its knowledge would come to man late in life, if at all, and would come to only those who had acquired the expertise that belongs to men of experience.