chroust a., the term philosopher

7/24/2019 Chroust a., The Term Philosopher

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chroust-a-the-term-philosopher 1/3

THE T E R M P H I L O S O P H E R AND THE P A N E G Y R I C ANALOGY

IN

ARISTOTLE'S

PROTREPTICUS

T h e r e exists a w i d e l y s p r e a d

tradition

w h i c h

m ai n t a i n s

that

th e t e rm

p hi l o so p her w a s c o i n e d , o r first u s e d by , P y t h a g o r a s . P y t h a g o r a s is sa id n o t

o n l y to h a v e c a l l e d h i m s e l f a p h i l o s o ph e r , that is, a lover o f w i s dom , bu t

also t o h a v e e x p l a i n e d t h e

m e a n i n g

o f this n o v e l a n d , i t a p p e a r s , startling

term.

T h e tradition

w h i c h d e c l a r e s P y t h a g o r a s

to be th e

originator

an d inter-

preter o f the ^ . e r m , p h i l o s o p h e r is

c o mmo nl y

t r a c e d to H e r a c l e i d e s o f Po n t us

and

hisTT^-T^S

Q . T N O V

mpl \ /06LC >\ /

,

a work w n i c h is c o m p l e t e l y lost.

F o r t u n a t e l y , i n h i s

T u s c u l a n

D i s p u t a t i o n s V . 8 - 1 0 , G i c e r c ha s p r ese r v ed

what

seem

to be the

essentials

o f

H e r a c l e i d e s

c

a c c o u n t .

I t m a y

also

be

pr e s u m e d that

C i c e r o

r e c o r d e d this story f a i r l y accurately.

A c c o r d i n g t o

C i c e r o ' s report,

P y t h a g o r a s o n c e

visited

t h e

town

o f Phlius.

h e n a s k e d

in

what

particular a r t o r

skill

h e

e x c e l l e d ,

he i s

sa i d

to

ha v e

replied

that h e w as a

p h i lo s o ph e r a n d , h e n c e ,

d i d n o t

p o s s e s s

an y

particular

practical

skill.

E x p l a i n i n g f u r t h e r

this

u n u s u a l t e r m , w h i c h a p p a r e n t l y b a f f l e d his

listen-

e r s , P y t h a g o r a s c o n t i n u e d : T h e life o f m a n r e s e m b l e s a great festival celebrated.,

b ef o r e t he

c o n c o u r s e £rom

th e

w h ol e

o f

G r e e c e .

A t

this festival some pe opl e so ug h t

to w i n th e g l o r i o u s distinction o f a c r w o n ; an d others w e r e attracted by th e pros-

pect

o f

m a t e r i a l g a i n t h r o u g h b u y i n g

a n d

selling.

B u t

there

w a s

a l s o

a

certain

type o f p eo p l e , a n d that quite th e best t y p e o f m e n , w h o w e r e

interested

neither

in

c o m p e t i n g , a p p l a u d i n g

o r

s e e k i n g m a t e r i a l g a i n ,

b u t w h o

came solely

fo r

the

s a k e o f

the

spectacle

itself

a n d , h e n c e ,

c l o s e l y

w a t c h e d what

w as

done

and h ow i t

was

d o n e . S o a l s o we, as ' thoug h we had come f rom some city to a crowded festival,

l e a v i n g in like f a s h i o n a n o t h e r life a n d a n o t h e r n a t u r e o f b e i n g , entered upon

this life.

A n d

some

were

slaves

of

a m b i t i o n ,

an d

some

slaves

o f

m on e y .

B u t

there

are a special fe w

w h o, c o u n t i n g

a l l

else

fo r

n o t h i n g ,

closely

s c a n n e d

t h e n a t u r e

of

things.

T h e s e m e n g a v e t h e m s e l v e s th e

n a m e

o f 'philosophers' (sapientiae

studiosi)...and

this is the m e a n i n g of the term

' p h i l o s o p h e r s ' .

And just as at

these

festivals

t h e m e n o f t h e m o s t e x a l t e d e d u c a t i o n l o o k e d o n w i t h o u t an y

s e l f - s e e k i n g interest,

so in life t h e

c o n t e m p l a t i o n

o f

t h i n g s

a n d their rational

a p p r e h e n s i o n ( c o g n i t i o )

b y f a r surpasses a l l other pursuits. 4

T h a t H e r a c l e i d e s o f P o n t u s w a s n o t t h e i n v e n t o r o r p e r h a p s th e

first

reporter

o f

this e n g a g i n g story m i g h t

b e

g a t h e r e d

f rom

Aristotle's

Protrepticus

w h i c h , '

it is fairly

r e a s o n a b l e

to

a s s u m e ,

was

com posed

a b o u t

350

B . C . ,

that

is,

some

t i m e

b e f o r e H e r a c l e i d e s w r o t e h i s rtfa\

ôçò drt^cxJ

° In the

Protrepticus

Aristotle m a i n t a i n s : I t i s by no

m e a n s

s t r a n g e that p h i l o s o p h i c wisdom

(^puv^eiS ) sho u l d a p p ea r d ev o i d o f

i m m e d i a t e practical

u s e f u l n e s s a n d , a t t h e

same

t i m e ,

m i g h t n o t a t a l l prove itself a d v a n t a g e o u s . F o r w e call p h i l o s o p h i c

wisdom

n o t

a d v a n t a g e o u s ,

b u t

g o o d .

I t

o u g h t

to be

p u r s u e d ,

no t fo r th e

sa k e

o f

a n y t h i n g

else, b u t

solely

fo r ts o w n

s a k e «

F o r a s w e

j o u r n e y

to th e

Games

a t

Olympia

for the s a k e of the s p e c t a c l e itself - for the spectacle as s u c h is w o r t h

more t h a n just a great d e a l of

money

- and as we w a t c h th e D i o n y s i a no t in

order

to derive some

m a t e r i a l g a i n from

th e actors - as a

m a t t e r

o f

f a c t ,

w e

spend

money

on them - and as there a re many m o r e

s p e c t a c l e s

w e

o u g h t

to prefer to

great

riches:

so ,

t o o ,

t h e

v i e w i n g

a n d


o f t h e

u n i v e r s e

is to be

v a l u e d

above

a ll other

t h i n g s commonly c o n s i d e r e d

to be

u s e f u l

in a practical sense.

F o r ,

m os t certainly,

i t

w o u l d m a k e

little

sen se w er e

w e

to

t a k e p a i n s

t o

w a t c h

m e n i m i t a t i n g w o m e n

o r

slaves,

o r

f i g h t i n g

o r

r u n n i n g ,

b u t n o t

t h i n k

i t

proper

t o

v i ew , f r ee

o f a l l

c h a r g e s ,

t h e

n a t u r e

a n d t n e true reality o f

e v e r y t h i n g

that

exists .

b

Thi s p a ssa g e from Aristotle's Protrepticus,

w h i c h

h a s a p p a r e n t l y b e e n

c o m p l e t e l y o v e r l o o k e d or s i m p l y i g n o r e d ,

s t tou ld

m a k e it

quite

clear that the use

of th e p a n e g y r i c a n a l o g y for th e p u r p o s e o f e x p l a i n i n g th e t e r m p hi l o so p her o r

theoretic m a n ,

is certainly older

t h a n

H e r a c l e i d e s '

n f f t

**?J ctrTVOtJ , and

p er ha p s ev en o l d e r t ha n Aristotle's

Protrepticus.

It

m i g h t

be c o n j e c t u r e d

that

i t w a s a l r e a d y k n o w n , a n d a l r e a d y u s e d , d u r i n g t h e first part o f t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y

B . C . ,

a n d , as f r a g m e n t 19 4 ( D i e l s - K r a n z ) of Democr i t u*- seems t o indicate, probably

b e f o r e

that

t i m e . T h e f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n as to w h e t h e r

this

a n a l o g y

m a y i n f a c t b e

traced b a ck to P y t h ag o ra s h i m s e l f , is o u t s i d e the s c o p e of this

brief

c o m m e n t . It

d o es seem d o u b t f u l , h o w e v e r , that so t e c h n i c a l a t e r m a s p h i l o so p he r sho u l d

a l r e a d y be in use d u r i n g t h e

latter

part o f the

sixth

c e n t u r y

B . C .

7

I n a n y

event,

Aristotle d o es

not

credit

it

s p e c i f i c a l l y

to

P y t h a g o r a s .



15.

Both

Pythagoras and Aristotle seem to stress

that /fzjptci,

is enjoyable

per

se without any material gain - a

distinctly

Platonic twist. Heracleides, it

s e e m s ,

tries to point out

that

in

h u man life

we

m i g h t

be

either

a passionate

participant or a dispassionate spectator. For

some u n k n o w n

reason Heracleides

links this observation

to the

story that Pythagoras invented

the

term philosopher

T he panegyric analogy emp loyed by

Aristotle

and credited by Heracleides to Pythag-

oras in no way explains the term

philosopher

10

,

but merely proclaims or illustrates

that

dispassionate contemplation -

the

purely theoretic life - constitutes the

m a i n

or

preferred activity

of the

true philosopher. H e n c e

it

m i g h t

be

argued that

the link be tween the term philosopher and the

m a i n

activity of the philosopher

is not altogether successful : it

s i m p l y

presupposes the term philosopher as

a

well-established

term.

It

w o u l d

not be too far fetched to surmise

that

the a b o v e m e n t i o n e d

passage f rom Aristotle's

Protrepticus

is a faint

echo

of Plato, Republic 475E:

Who, then, are the true philosophers? T h o s e . . . w h o are the lovers of the vision

of truth

(ôïàß

iff?

aUf ct e/tO sdtA 'Ctú ) « One m i g h t quote here also the

m a n y Platonic references to the true nature or f u n c t i o n of philosophy and the

philosopher: Philosophical m i n d s a l w a y s have

k n o w l e d g e

of a

sort w h i c h shows

them

the

eternal nature ( R e p u b l i c

485B);

the philosophers alone

are

capable

of

grasping

that

w h i c h is eternal and u n c h a n g e a b l e ( R e p u b l ic 484B); those who

love

the

truth

in

e a c h thing

are to be

called philosophers (Republic 480A);

only

the philosopher is capable of k n o w i n g the truth of each thing

( R e p u b l i c

484D) ;

and of experiencing the

delight

w h i c h

is to be

f o u n d

in the understanding

of

true

being

( R e p u b l i c 5 8 2 D ) ;

the

philosopher alone, being capable

of visual-

izing and loving absolute beauty, recognizes the

existence

of absolute beauty

( R e p u b l i c

476B) ; the philosopher's eyes are forever directed

towards things

i m m u t a b l e and

fixed ( R e p u b l i c 500C) ; God invented

and gave us

sight

to the end

that

we m i g ht

beho ld

the courses of the intelligences in the heavens....and f rom

this source we

h ave

derived philosophy ( T i m a e u s 47A f f . ) ; the

m i n d

of the

philosopher, disdaining the

pettiness

and nothingness of hu m a n

affairs . . . .

is

flying

about, m e a s u r i n g

earth

a n d heaven

(Theaetetus 173E); and the

philosopher's

m i n d , being

f i x e d

on true being, has surely no time to

look

down on h u man affairs

....And holding conversation with the divine order, he himself becomes....divine :

(Republ i c 500C f f . ) .

All

these

statements,

in

turn,

bring

us

close

to the

problem, discussed

in Plato's Sympos i um (201C f f . ) , but not to be discussed

here,

that the

good

is

also the beautiful

and , ,

hence, truth; and that love is directed towards the beaut-

iful and the true

0

The

dispassionate v i e w i n g

of the

sublimely beautiful

is the

dispassionate love of the sublimely beautiful and of the ultimate truth arid b e a u t y «

W i t h Plato, the close interrelation

of

ô&

KC^ON/

/nd y Ë&/ permits us to call

philosophy

âÑ/ëè«?/1<âÉ

, and the philosopher a

òÑ/ëïÇáÁï^

: But who are the lovers

of w isdom? ° >

They

are

those

w ho are in a mear . b e t w e e n th e t w O o Love is one of

t hem

0

For

wi sdom

is a mos t beautiful t h i n g , , and

love

is of the beautiful. And

therefore love is also a

p h i l o s o p h e r »

1

Bu t

ail these

explanations

a n d references

still leave unsolved the p rob l em of the panegyric a n a l o g y « ,

It

m i g h t

be

s a f e

to a s s u m e

that the ideal

of the

contemplative

or

theor-

etic

life, as it is

extolled

in the

story

of

Pythagoras

and

stated

in Aristotle's

Protrepticus.was originally a d v o c a t e d by PJatc a n d t h e

Academy»

At one time, w e

m a v surmise, thie ideal was retroactively attributed or credited to Pythagoras,

p r e s u m a b l y w h e n

late Piatonism a s s u m e d a

distinct

Pythagorizing

trends

U n d o u b t e d l y ,

the

panegyric a n a l o g y refers primarily

to the

truee basic

w a y s of

life:

the

life

of

bodily pleasure or material gain,

represented

by those who

attend

the

festival

tor the sake of buying and selling ; the life of

virtue

and h o n o r (the

practical

or political life), represented by those w n

' ° a eeK

a c r o w n ; and the life of pure


(or theoretic life -

$F£j£>tft

) » represented by the dispassionate

(philosophic) observer.

The

philosopher

- and

this s e e m s

to be a

definite Platonic

twist

- is

w h o l l y dedicated

to a

life

of

contemplation

and

' theory , that

is, a

life centered

a r o u n d

(Pfd^dct °

H e n c e ,

the accounts of Aristotle and Heracleides

of

P o n t u s actually

c o m b ine two m a j or

themes:

the three f u n d a m e n t a l

w a y s

of life

a n d

the way of the

true

p h i l o s o p h e r , ,

W . J a e g e r

S u g g e s t s

that

Heracleides took

these

tw o

themes

directly f rom

Aristotle's

Protrepticus ( a & d more

remotely

f rom Plato),

a n d , at the

s ame

time, c o m b ine d to

tried

to integrate them into a single a c c o u n t »

In order to

endow this

story with greater authority he projected into the remote

past by creo*iting it to. Pythagoras» ̂ I n Aristotle's a c c o u n t . , it will be noted,

the key terrfi is Oe^jpco, and it is this (9f6J£t . w h i c h he advocates and extolls»



16.

For

the purpose o f

illustration

Aristotle d r a w s certain parallels be tween the

con t empl a t i ve

or theoretic life

of the true ph i l o s ophe r a n d t h e ce leb ra t ed

spectacle

(o r

d i s p a s s i o n a t e v i ewe r

of the

s p e c t a c l e )

a t Olympia or the

G re a t

D i o n y s i a .

Tha t

the story of the

three

b a s i c

w a y s

o f

life

goes back t o P l a t o ma y

b e

ga t he red

from R e pub l i c

581C,

where w e a r e told that there exist

three

classes

of

m e n : lovers

o f

wi sd om,

lovers o f honor (o r virtue o r f a m e ) , a n d

lovers

o f

m a t e r i a l gain.

In

short, a c c o r d i n g

to

Plato ( a n d Aristotle)

there are three

main

purposes in human life as we l l a s i n a l l

f u n d a m e n t a l human

pursuits.·^

D i f f e r e n t people seek

their

h a p p i n e s s

a n d

f u l f i l m e n t

in

these

three

pursuits,

n a m e l y ,

either

in ifpOWeiS , or in virtue (honor o r f a m e ) , or in p h y s i c a l

p l e a s u re

or

m a t e r i a l gain. Th i s triadic n o t i o n ,

wh i ch is vitally

related to

Plato's basic p h i l o s o p h i c o u t l o o k ,

i s once

a g a i n

restated in Aristotle's

E u d emian

Ethics, i n c i d e n t a l l y a fairly early w o r k :

N o w

to be h a p p y , to

live

b l i s s f u l l y

'and b e a u t i f u l l y , must

consist

m a i n l y in three t h i n g s wh ich appea r t o be

most

desirable. F o r

some

m a i n t a i n

that <Upow76iS

is the greatest

go o d , some

sa y

virtue ( o r h o n o r ) , a n d

some

s a y p h y s i c a l pleasure. ̂ Hence w e realize

that

there are

three

lives wh ich

a l l

those choose

w ho

have

the

power

to do so , to

w i t ,

the life o f

'political (practical) m a n ,

1

th e life of the ph i l o s ophe r , a n d t h e

life of the

v o l u p t u a r y .

Of

these,

the

phi losopher

is

de t e rmi n ed

to

ded i c a t e

himse l f

to <pf>o \S )6l5

;

the

'political

( p r a c t i c a l )

m a n '

to n ob l e deeds ,

that

is,

to acts

wh ich

originate w i t h virtue; and the v o l u p t u a r y to b o d i l y pleasures.

14

The triad

of

< ^ D V < t f t S

,

virtue

(o r

n o b l e d e e d s )

and

p h y s ic a l

pleasure, it

goes

w i t h o u t s a y i n g , is closely related to Plato's d o c t r i n e of the

tripartite

soul,

f rom wh ich P l a t o a l s o derives the three w a y s o f life a s w e l l as the three types

of happ i n e s s o r p l e a s u r e .

Notre

D a m e L aw

Schoo l ,

An ton -He rmann

C hrous t

N o t r e Dame,

I n d i a n a .

N o t e s ;

1..

S ee

A .

-H . C hrous t ,

Some

O bserva t ions on the O r ig in o f the

Term

' P h i l o s o p h e r ' ,

The N ew S c h o l a s t i c i s m , v o l .

28 .

n o .

4. (1 96 4 ) , pp .

423-434.

2. Diogenes

Laertius 1.12.

3. See also l a m b l i c h u s , Protrepticus ( S u m m a r i a ) ,

p.

4, lines 15 f f

(edit.H.Pitelli,

1888).

4 . l a m b l i c h u s , V i t a P y t h a g o r a e , pp .

58

f f . , closely

f o l l o w s

C i c e r o ' s a c c o u n t .

Hence i t ma y be assumed that l a m b l i c h u s relies o n Cicero for his i n f o r m a t i o n o r ,

pe rhaps ,

on a

source c lose

to that used by

C i c e r o .

It is not

i mpos s i b l e

that he

sa w the

original

work o f

H e r a c l ei d e s

o f

P o n t u s .

S ee

a l s o

l a m b l i c h u s « P r o t r e p t i c u s ,

p. 53,

lines

15 f f . ; A t he n ae us ,

De i pn os oph i s t a e

X I. 463DE;

D i o g e n es L a e r t i u s V I I I .

8. He re Diogenes

L a e r t i u s

credits the

story

to Sosicrates'

Success ion

of

P h i l o s o -

phers

rather

t h a n

to

H e r a c le id e s

o f

P o n t u s .

5.

l a m b l i c h u s , Protrepticus,

p. 53, line 5 - p. 54, line 5;

f r a g .

58, R o s e ;

f r a g .

12,

W a l z e r ; f r a g .

12, R o s s ; f r a g . 44, Dur in g (I . D u r i n g ,

Aristotle's

Protrepticus; A n

At tempt

a t R e c o n s t r u c t i o n ,

S t ud i a Graeca

e t

L a t i n a G o t h o b u r g e n s ia ,

vol.

XI I ,

G

teborg, 1961,

p. 6 7 ) ; f r a g . 42,

C hrous t

(A

0

- H » C h r o u s t , Aristotle iProtrepticus

-

A

Recon s t ruc t i on , N o t r e Dame, Ind i ana , 1964 , pp .18 f f .T i

6. It

will

be

no ted that Aristotle r e f e r s

to the

Olymp ic Games

in

Nicomachean

E thics 1099

a

3;

a n d that

St. P a u l ,

I

C o r i n t h i a n s 9 : 2 4 , l i k ew i s e u s e s

the

p a n e g y r i c

a n a l o g y ( the I s thmian

Games ) .

- S i n c e P y t h a g o r a s compares th e ph i l o s ophe r to the

f o n d v iwer of the

subl ime

spec t ac le (o r v i s i o n ) , he s hou l d have c a l l e d h i ms e l f

a <^i/ioO FQ//c^y (see Plato,

R e p u b l i c

475E, an d ibid, a t 476A) or , perhaps , a

(see

Aristotle, Nicomachean

E thics 1100 b 19-20) , rather t han a

7. It is not imposs ib le

that

the d e f i n i t i o n of the ph i l o s ophe r as the

lover

of

wisdom

goes back

to Plato, Phaedrus

278D:

Wise ( 6 o<po£ ) , I may no t call

them

(seil. ,

those whose

com pos i t i on s a r e b a s ed on t he knowledge o f

truth,

a n d w h o

are

ab le t o de f e n d or prove

t he m ) . F o r ^ t h i s

i s a n exa l t ed t e rm

wh ich

b e l on gs t o G od

a l o n e . B u t

'lovers

o f

wi sd om

1

(ö/ëï ïöïß,

)

is

their modes t a n d b e f i tt i n g

title.

chroust a., the term philosopher

Documents