Hippias Research Taylor Hoogendoorn 2.22.14 Dr. Schultz, I have consulted a number of sources regarding Hippas, a Sophist about whom our reader provides very limited information and even fewer aphorisms. Sources consulted are listed below, although I will more formally cite them in my official bibliography: 1) Curd Reader 2) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 3) Plato's Hippias Minor 4) "The Lesser Hippias" by Theodore de Laguna, a journal article 5) "On the authenticity of Hippias major" by Grube, a journal article 6) "The Sophists" by WKC Guthrie, a book 7) "The Greek Sophists" by Dillon and Gergle, a book 8) "The Sophists: an Introduction" by Patricia O'Grady, a book 9) "The Sophistic Movement" by Kerferd, a book Of note is the fact that almost all of my thoughts on Hippias derive from my readings of these secondary sources. Curd just didn't provide much information on Hippias beyond grounds for rampant speculation. After consulting these sources, I have determined to spend some time with the class discussing some of the following points: 1) I would like to give background on Hippias, and possibly brief background on the Sophists 1a)I would also like to talk about Plato's disregard for Hippias and the lens through which we must read Plato's criticism 1b)I would like to talk about Hippias's starting of the study of the history of Philosophy. Although I have not found very much tangible information on this topic, it seems downright negligent to not mention this point in a course on the history of philosophy 2) I would like to mention briefly the controversy surrounding the validity of Plato's Hippias Major and give a brief outline of that text 3) I would like to discuss briefly the content of Hippias Minor, possibly an interactive activity 4) I would like to talk about Hippias's geometric discovery, the Quadratrix, and how it may be significant to the three major geometric problems questioned by the ancient world. 5) Finally, I would like to talk about Hippias brief mention of legal thoery in the second aphorism from Curd. It seems that Hippias has a number of interesting points. The first is his skepticism toward mannmade laws and reliance on or adherence with the natural law. There are some fairly interesting ties I can make between this point and a couple of other legal and political concepts that I have been studying in other classes. This discussion would be tangential to Hippias actual writings, but would be both an interesting and relevant way to teach the class. With your permission, I will cite Thomas Sowell's "A conflict of Visions" and talk about how that may tie into Hippias's legal philosophy. This will likely be the most extended and interesting portion of my presentation. There was indication that a post of this nature would count as a blog entry; if so, would you please confirm that fact in the comments. Thanks! Taylor

Taylor Hoogendoorn

Leucippus & Democritus

2.20.14

            Among my favorite books is A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking. When I first read this book—humorously on the way to Baylor for freshman orientation—my mom was skeptical of my reading it due to Hawking’s intensely professed atheism. I saw the book in the opposite light; it helped me to realize the awesomeness of creation.

            Many philosophers speculate as to the underlying composition of nature. One of my favorite exercises is to compare their thoughts to my rudimentary understanding of modern science. Although Leibniz does the best job of any philosopher I’ve read, Democritus also does an admirable job. He does a good job of surmising an atomistic structure. Although modern science has broken “atoms” into many smaller parts and ultimately equated mass to energy, an atomistic framework is still used in many forms of analysis. I also really think that he hits the nail on the head with his idea of void. For Leucippus and Democritus, the void allows atoms to freely move about according to some form of reason. Empty space in modern science serves a similar purpose, as it is filled with a variety of forces that pull and push atoms to empty space.

            The two atomists also give a pretty compelling view of the nature of iron and lead. They are mostly correct when they relate the relative weights of the two materials to how tightly packed they are, density in modern terminology. They also make a strong observation as to why iron is harder than lead. It has to do with the internal structure of the material and how it bonds. It is always fun to see rational though pre-empt modern scientific discovery.

Taylor Hoogendoorn

Plato  

2.18.14

            The Phaedo by Plato was a very interesting read. In it, he tries to explain his quest for the nature of causality to Cebes, evidently one of his followers.  He begins with a very interesting analysis of the nature of the numbers one and two. He says that when you put two groups of one thing together they become two things, yet when you take one group and divide it into two parts, it also becomes two things. From this analysis, he determines that causality must be something that we assign in our minds, rather than something that is absolute. This is, in many respects, a funny argument to me as one could view a single thing, say a square, as two things at any point in time. In other words, although it is true that a square becomes two things when it is split into two right triangles, it can also be viewed as two right triangles when it is arranged as a square. There is no true creation or demolition of a thing when you move around the pieces.

            One idea that really stood out to me was Plato’s suggestion that you have to choose one rule that is most important to you and then discard those things that contradict that rule. This has interesting ties into Reformed Theology. In Reformed Theology, God’s omnipotence is viewed as the central tenet of the faith. Other rules and theories must conform to this underlying principle. I think that Plato really hits the nail on the head with his “most important rule” suggestion.

Parmenides of Elea

2.3.14

            A substantial majority of the provided excerpts from Parmenides work revolves around his epistemological views. There are a couple of overarching themes that grow clear as one reads his work—namely that there exists an absolute truth and that sensory perceptions are of limited value.

            Parmenides clearly advocates for a single, unchanging truth. He really harps on the concept that what-is is and what-is-not is not. Although this is a rather confusing use of language, I think he is taking a very similar approach to that which Descartes used 2 millennia later. One must move from the central concept of thought and existence and build his or her philosophical framework from this supposition.

            Along with this über-rational view of knowledge, Parmenides is very skeptical of sensory perception. He says, “do not let…habit compel you along this route [of inquiry].” On should not allow perceptions to cloud the purer form of reasoning. Along with this notion, Parmenides is very skeptical of what others tell him. Information given by others falls into the camp of perceptions, not pure reasoning. The major risk, of course, with any of these methods of thought is that one will follow a path towards becoming an absurdist or Nihilist. Although I do not think that Parmenides falls into either of these camps, I am a little skeptical of his writing.