Key Concept
Social Contract – The agreement to give up certain freedoms and submit to a sovereign power in order to achieve peace and security.
We are all going to die. And yet, as modern medicine continues to advance, many more of us will have the option of choosing how we die. This prompts a difficult question: Should we cling to life as long as possible, cherishing friendships and pleasures even as our body and mind start to deteriorate? Or, is there such a thing as a good time – and a good way – to die?
Socrates, too, faced this question. During his trial, he could have told the jurors what they wanted to hear and likely avoided execution. But Socrates argued that it was the right time for him to die. This belief is reflected in the confident and unapologetic tone of his defense speech. In Xenophon’s Apology, Socrates offers one of the earliest philosophical models of what it might mean to die well.
Xenophon (430-354 BCE) was a Greek historian, soldier, and philosopher who studied under Socrates in Athens. Alongside Plato, Xenophon is one of the key sources of Socratic philosophy. For Xenophon, philosophy was not about armchair theorizing, but rather about how to go about one’s daily life. He emphasized practical wisdom, self-mastery, and a “hands-on” approach to living well. This practical emphasis is reflected in his writings, which range from works centered on Socrates’s life and teachings to instructional texts on horsemanship and household management.
Among these works is Xenophon’s Apology, which is one of the two surviving Apologies of Socrates (the other being Plato’s Apology of Socrates). Xenophon’s portrayal of Socrates is as a deeply pious and practical philosopher, devoted to cultivating virtue in himself and others. Xenophon reflected on the final moments of Socrates’s life and his approach to the bogus charges laid against him. As we will see, Socrates’s commitments make it seem like he committed suicide by jury. Yet Xenophon’s emphasis on clearing Socrates’s name and providing context for Socrates’s antagonizing defense suggests that the real reason he was put to death was because of his stubborn philosophical commitments. Socrates thought that it was the right time for him to die, freeing him to defend his philosophical commitments rather than cater to the jurors.
Some additional context will be helpful to understand Xenophon’s Apology. Socrates, at the age of seventy, was put on trial for impiety. The accusers claimed that Socrates was guilty of not believing in the gods of the city, introducing new divinities, and corrupting the youth. Eventually, Socrates is found guilty and sentenced to death. While Socrates has already been executed at the time of its writing, the Apology is Xenophon’s attempt to clear Socrates of these charges. At the same time, he also wants to correct the record about how Socrates approached his death. You can find the full translation here.
Apology (apologia) – Literally, “a speech in defense”. Rather than merely expressing regret – for instance, saying “I’m sorry” – an apologia in ancient Athens was a response to legal charges, usually in the courtroom.
Virtue – A type of practical knowledge that takes the form of morally excellent habits or character traits. Examples of virtues are justice, piety, and courage. On the Socratic picture (i.e. Socrates’s philosophy), virtue is necessary (and perhaps even sufficient) for living a good life.
Lofty Utterances (Megalegoria) – Literally, “big talk”. Socrates is represented as speaking in a grand and unapologetic manner that antagonized the jurors. Much of Xenophon’s Apology takes up the question of whether these lofty utterances were foolish.
Socrates’s Daimonion – A divine sign that Socrates believed interfered whenever he was about to do something wrong. Socrates says this divine revelation comes by means of a voice. This is best understood as Socrates hearing something like “stop”, whenever he is about to go astray.
We begin with Xenophon’s own statement of purpose in writing his Apology. He wanted to preserve Socrates’s memory by considering his approach to the trial and death. But, Xenophon has a further aim: to set the record straight.
Apology Sections 1-2
It seems to me fitting to hand down to memory, furthermore, how Socrates, on being indicted, deliberated on his defence and on his end. It is true that others have written about this, and that all of them have reproduced the loftiness of his words,—a fact which proves that his utterance really was of the character intimated;—but they have not shown clearly that he had now come to the conclusion that for him death was more to be desired than life; and hence his lofty utterance appears rather ill-considered. Hermogenes, the son of Hipponicus, however, was a companion of his and has given us reports of such a nature as to show that the sublimity of his speech was appropriate to the resolve he had made.
Xenophon wasn’t present at Socrates’s trial or execution. Instead, he relied on the testimony of Hermogenes, a member of Socrates’s inner circle. According to Hermogenes, the tone of Socrates’s defense wasn’t ill-considered or foolish. Rather, Socrates’s defense was appropriate, given that he had come to believe that death was better for him than life.
Xenophon claimed that the authors of the other Apologies failed to explain why Socrates’s defense speech was in accordance with his intentions. His “lofty utterances” (megalegoria) seemed to many of the jurors (and readers) as arrogant and antagonizing. Rather than apologizing and begging for mercy, Socrates confidently and stubbornly doubled down on his philosophical commitments. With death on the line, this might seem rather foolish. But Xenophon disagrees. He wants to show that Socrates’s lofty utterances were purposeful and a reflection of Socrates’s character. First, Xenophon is going to tell us why Socrates didn’t cater to the jurors. Then, he is going to show how Socrates defended himself against the ‘bogus’ charges.
With this purpose in mind, let’s jump into Xenophon’s account of Socrates’s trial. We find Hermogenes pushing Socrates on what seems like a vital question: Why isn’t he preparing a defense, even though he knows that the death penalty is on the line? Socrates’s response adds context to his lofty utterances.
Apology Sections 4-5
Then when Hermogenes asked, “Do you not observe that the Athenian courts have often been carried away by an eloquent speech and have condemned innocent men to death, and often on the other hand the guilty have been acquitted either because their plea aroused compassion or because their speech was witty?” “Yes, indeed!” [Socrates] had answered; “and I have tried twice already to meditate on my defense, but my divine sign interposes.” And when Hermogenes observed, “That is a surprising statement,” [Socrates] had replied, “Do you think it surprising that even God holds it better for me to die now?
Hermogenes emphasizes that a good defense is necessary to overcome the court’s capacity to make wrongful convictions. Yet, Socrates interprets his daimonion’s interference as a message that death is better for him than life. Socrates’s confidence in his daimonion is noteworthy, as it conveys his deep religiosity. He believes he has privileged access to the divine, and trusts it unconditionally. If the divine thinks it’s better for him to be dead, then so be it!
Socrates clearly takes the daimonion’s interference in his defense as a serious warning. So much so that he goes to the trial without any plans about his defense at all. Here is the structure of the argument underlying the passage:
Premise 1: If the daimonion interferes with one of Socrates’s actions, then Socrates should stop that action
Premise 2: The daimonion interferes with Socrates’s attempts at preparing a formal defense
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates should stop preparing a formal defense
Socrates’s Conclusion: Death is better for him than life
Socrates’s daimonion interfered in various Socratic works. Both Xenophon and Plato wrote that Socrates heard the daimonion interfere at both trivial and vital moments in his life. Accordingly, when Socrates exclaims that the daimonion twice interfered in making a formal defense, he comes to believe that he shouldn’t prepare one. Now, we might be initially skeptical that Socrates is able to draw the strong conclusion that he is better off dead merely from his daimonion’s interference. But, recall that Socrates’s daimonion halts Socrates by saying something like “stop” to him. If this is the only sign that Socrates receives, he needs to do some theorizing about what action he is doing that must be stopped, and why it’s wrong for him to continue. Both Socrates and Hermogenes clearly understood that, without a formal defense, he would not be able to defend himself against the charges laid out against him. And so, with his daimonion telling him to stop, Socrates comes to believe that the daimonion’s interference implies that it endorsed his death. To ignore this warning would be unwise and, more importantly for Socrates, impious.
In this powerful passage, Socrates explains why he thought that the daimonion endorsed the death penalty. For him, it’s not simply about proving his innocence by avoiding a conviction. Rather, it’s about avoiding the burdens of old age that, according to Socrates, make living a good and pleasurable life much more difficult.
Apology Sections 6-7
“But now, if my years are prolonged, I know that the frailties of old age will inevitably be realized,—that my vision must be less perfect and my hearing less keen, that I shall be slower to learn and more forgetful of what I have learned. If I perceive my decay and take to complaining, how,” [Socrates] had continued, “could I any longer take pleasure in life?
“Perhaps,” [Socrates] added, “God in his kindness is taking my part and securing me the opportunity of ending my life not only in season but also in the way that is easiest. For if I am condemned now, it will clearly be my privilege to suffer a death that is adjudged by those who have superintended this matter to be not only the easiest but also the least irksome to one’s friends and one that implants in them the deepest feeling of loss for the dead. For when a person leaves behind in the hearts of his companions no remembrance to cause a blush or a pang, but dissolution comes while he still possesses a sound body and a spirit capable of showing kindliness, how could such a one fail to be sorely missed?”
Socrates envisioned the life that he might be forced to endure, if he wins at trial. He worried that it would be a pleasureless life.
Ancient virtue theorists generally argued that virtue is importantly related to knowledge. Socrates thought similarly and further suggested that, by cultivating virtues, one starts to live a good and pleasurable life. However, unlike some other virtue theorists, Socrates thought that you can lose this type of knowledge (for a similar idea see Xenophon’s Memorabilia 1.2.22-24). In the above passage, Socrates is explicitly worried about bodily deterioration, but implicit is a further worry – namely, one about moral deterioration. He vividly describes the aging process in terms of losing the capacities to live well – for instance, vision and hearing becoming worse, and the potential of losing one’s capacity for kindness. Moreover, he ties these capacities to the same knowledge that one must possess to live a good and pleasurable life. In fact, Socrates emphasizes that, in old age, he will be slower to learn the knowledge necessary for virtue, and might even be forgetful of it. It appears, then, that Socrates believed that aging poses a genuine threat to the type of knowledge that allows a person to live well. On these grounds, Socrates thinks that the daimonion endorsed the death penalty: His death is better than a life filled with burdens that make a good and pleasurable life much more difficult.
Socrates continued with his explanation for why it is better for him to die. His emphasis on the suffering and lack of joy at old age might seem perplexing. After all, don’t we know many elderly people that live pleasurable and fulfilling lives? And, isn’t it possible that some elderly people retain their intellectual and moral capacities?
Apology Sections 7-8
“It was with good reason,” Socrates had continued, “that the gods opposed my studying up my speech at the time when we held that by fair means or foul we must find some plea that would effect my acquittal. For if I had achieved this end, it is clear that instead of now passing out of life, I should merely have provided for dying in the throes of illness or vexed by old age, the sink into which all distresses flow, unrelieved by any joy.
As Heaven is my witness, Hermogenes,” [Socrates] had gone on, “I shall never court that fate; but if I am going to offend the jury by declaring all the blessings that I feel gods and men have bestowed on me, as well as my personal opinion of myself, I shall prefer death to begging meanly for longer life and thus gaining a life far less worthy in exchange for death.”
Socrates is adamant that, at least for him, old age cannot bring any pleasure. Yet, he’s not saying that death is better than life for everyone who enters old age. Rather, he qualifies his claim: when a person believes that a good life is no longer possible because of the burdens of old age, it might be better to choose death. This is because, without knowledge of virtue, one is much more likely to commit vicious actions and, consequently, harm their soul.
Euthanasia – literally, “good death” – or physician-assisted suicide refers to the voluntary ending of a patient’s life, typically to alleviate the patient’s suffering from terminal illnesses or incapacitating physical disorders. Euthanasia is often chosen when continued life is deemed harmful to oneself and those around them. Consider, for instance, an elderly man who is suffering from late-stage Parkinson’s disease. Parkinson’s is a progressive neurological disorder that severely impairs movement and coordination. In the late stages of Parkinson’s, people undergo almost complete loss of voluntary movement, as well as symptoms like dementia, extreme fatigue, and incontinence. Unfortunately, there is no cure for Parkinson’s.
Socrates never explicitly discussed euthanasia. Nevertheless, based on his philosophical commitments, he might say that for some people death is preferable to life. This is because, on Socrates’s view, they are unlikely (and will be unlikely) to be able to live a good life and they might even act viciously. That is, they are unlikely to be able to engage in rational thought, pursue virtue, or act in relation to others and the gods in the required way for a Socratic ‘good life’. Instead, on the Socratic view, these patients might permanently lose the ability to live well. As Socrates points out, they might even lose their ability to be kind to those they love, threatening the good memories their loved ones might otherwise carry with them. In this passage, Socrates does not strictly endorse euthanasia. However, he anticipates a major theme in the contemporary discussion about euthanasia – specifically, that the value of life is not necessarily tied to simply being alive. Instead, Socrates thinks that the value of life is tied to living a ‘virtuous life’.
With Socrates’s commitment that death is better for him than life now made clear, Xenophon turns to the trial itself. So, why was Socrates on trial again?
Apology Section 10
[…] his adversaries had charged [Socrates] with not believing in the gods worshipped by the state and with the introduction of new deities in their stead and with corruption of the young […]
We know from Xenophon’s Memorabilia and Plato’s Apology that these three charges – not believing in the gods of the city, introducing new deities, and corrupting the youth – fell under one broader accusation: impiety. While it might seem strange to treat corrupting the youth as a form of impiety, in ancient Athens impiety took the form of transgressions not only towards the gods and their religious sites, but sometimes also to people. So, if he wants to live, Socrates must persuade the jurors of his piety.
Socrates is often considered the founder of Western philosophy. From our sources, we know that he challenged assumptions, pursued truth and virtue, and rejected the status quo. So, in what way could he be considered to have corrupted the youth?
From our perspective today, it seems more appropriate to say that he inspired the youth. His followers attempted to follow in his footsteps by questioning authorities. But, during the politically unstable period of late 5th century Athens, this rejection of authority could have looked a lot like Socrates corrupting the youth. Either way, it’s a safe bet that the people in charge didn’t like Socrates meddling with the minds of the young, future leaders of Athens. In fact, many scholars think that Socrates’s influence on his students – like Alcibiades and Critias – played a major role in his trial and sentencing, although the extent of his influence and the doctrines he passed on are debated.
Once the charges had been laid out, Socrates had the chance to respond. Remember, he had not prepared a formal defense. He is “winging it”.
Apology Sections 11-13
“One thing that I [Socrates] marvel at in Meletus, gentlemen, is what may be the basis of his assertion that I do not believe in the gods worshipped by the state; for all who have happened to be near at the time, as well as Meletus himself,—if he so desired, — have seen me sacrificing at the communal festivals and on the public altars.
As for introducing ‘new divinities,’ how could I be guilty of that merely in asserting that a voice of God is made manifest to me indicating my duty? Surely those who take their omens from the cries of birds and the utterances of men form their judgments on ‘voices.’ Will any one dispute either that thunder utters its ‘voice,’ or that it is an omen of the greatest moment? Does not the very priestess who sits on the tripod at Delphi divulge the god’s will through a ‘voice’?
[…] Now that I do not lie against God I have the following proof: I have revealed to many of my friends the counsels which God has given me, and in no instance has the event shown that I was mistaken.”
Here, Socrates presents pretty compelling evidence against the charge that he doesn’t worship the gods of the city. People often saw him sacrificing to the same gods as the Athenian. So, how could he be guilty of this impiety?
Socrates claimed that he received guidance from the divine. To make his case, he also presented an argument for why people should think that he is right. It goes as follows:
Premise 1: If Socrates’s guidance were not divine, then sometimes it would result in bad outcomes
Premise 2: Socrates’s guidance never resulted in bad outcomes
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates’s guidance is divine
To evaluate whether Socrates’s guidance is truly divine, he suggested that the jury examine the results of his guidance. If people always benefited from his guidance, it’s good evidence that he is receiving aid from the gods. Yet, this is a bold claim! The accusers would only need one witness to say that they regretted Socrates’s guidance and his defense falls apart. And, problematically, just because his followers benefited from his guidance doesn’t mean that it came from the divine. Maybe Socrates got lucky, or maybe he is simply very wise. Socrates’s risky argument might be best seen as a prelude to his consequent radical claims about the divine – claims that he surely realized would antagonize the jurors.
When someone claims that they receive aid from the divine, it prompts many questions: Why them? Why not me? So, when Socrates emphasized his special access to the divine, the jurors were noticeably upset.
Apology Sections 14-15
Hermogenes further reported that when the jurors raised a clamour at hearing these words, some of them disbelieving his statements, others showing jealousy at his receiving greater favours even from the gods than they, Socrates resumed: “Hark ye; let me tell you something more, so that those of you who feel so inclined may have still greater disbelief in my being honoured of Heaven. Once on a time when Chaerephon made inquiry at the Delphic oracle concerning me, in the presence of many people Apollo answered that no man was more free than I, or more just, or more prudent.” When the jurors, naturally enough, made a still greater tumult on hearing this statement, … [Socrates said] “Now Apollo did not compare me to a god; he did, however, judge that I far excelled the rest of mankind.”
With the jurors already questioning his character, Socrates doubled down. Not only did he possess a daimonion who helped him out, but he claimed that Apollo declared that Socrates was better than everyone else.
Socrates made a strong claim: Apollo considered him better than everyone else. This explains Socrates’s confidence as he goes around Athens interrogating people about virtue. But… isn’t this outrageously arrogant? How dare he invoke the gods to say that he is better than everyone else! Especially at a time when the jurors are deciding whether he lives or dies. Hubris!
Now, it’s intuitive to think that Socrates’s claims are an attempt at antagonizing the jurors. Perhaps he wanted to die at the jury’s hand after all! But, there’s a more charitable take: Socrates genuinely believed that the gods favored him and that his daimonion did give him special access to them. What might come across as purposefully arrogant is, in fact, merely Socrates’s pious and honest self-expression. He might have been insufferable to be around, but at least he was honest! So, he angers the jurors only as a natural consequence of expressing his philosophical and religious commitments. Socrates isn’t the problem… but his philosophical and religious commitments are!
Socrates was found guilty of impiety. Once the guilty verdict came down, the court turned to sentencing. The accusers proposed the death penalty, but Socrates was allowed to offer a counter penalty, if he so desired. As was demanded by Athenian law, the jury then had to choose between the penalties proposed by Socrates and the prosecutors. Nevertheless, Socrates wouldn’t budge:
Apology Section 23
This conviction of his became more evident than ever after the adverse issue of the trial. For, first of all, when he was bidden to name his penalty, he refused personally and forbade his friends to name one, but said that naming the penalty in itself implied an acknowledgment of guilt. Then, when his companions wished to remove him clandestinely from prison, he would not accompany them, but seemed actually to banter them, asking them whether they knew of any spot outside of Attica that was inaccessible to death.
Here, we see how a commitment to philosophy put the nails in Socrates’s coffin. Any counter penalty would constitute admission of guilt or wrongdoing. And this Socrates could never consider. After all, he believes he’s done nothing wrong.
Unlike in Xenophon’s Apology, in Plato’s Apology Socrates offers two counterpenalties: Free meals at the prytaneum – a public dining hall – and later a small fine. Nevertheless, on both accounts, Socrates insists that he is not guilty of the charges and either proposes no counterpenalty or a counterpenalty that the Athenians jurors would never accept.
This factual difference prompts many questions. In fact, the differences in the two Apologies receive much attention from scholars who are interested in the “Socratic Problem” – the problem of reconstructing the philosophical views and historical events of the historical Socrates, as opposed to the character we see in Plato and Xenophon’s text. We have competing accounts of certain aspects of Socrates’s life. For instance, in Plato’s works, we see Socrates questioning people without coming to conclusions, while in Xenophon’s works, Socrates appears to give advice, or lead people to Socratic views. In light of this, scholars debate the views and methods of the historical Socrates and who, if anyone, is able to give insight into his life.
After being sentenced, Socrates’s friends were understandably heartbroken. Nevertheless, Socrates, with his strong conviction that death was better for him, responded with grace… and a joke.
Apology Sections 27- 28
When he noticed that those who accompanied him were in tears, “What is this?” Hermogenes reports him as asking. “Are you just now beginning to weep? Have you not known all along that from the moment of my birth nature had condemned me to death? Verily, if I am being destroyed before my time while blessings are still pouring in upon me, clearly that should bring grief to me and to my well-wishers; but if I am ending my life when only troubles are in view, my own opinion is that you ought all to feel cheered, in the assurance that my state is happy.
A man named Apollodorus, who was there with him, a very ardent disciple of Socrates, but otherwise simple, exclaimed, “But, Socrates, what I find it hardest to bear is that I see you being put to death unjustly!” The other, stroking Apollodorus’ head, is said to have replied, “My beloved Apollodorus, was it your preference to see me put to death justly?” and smiled as he asked the question.
Apollodorus expressed his sadness and frustration with the Athenian’s decision, but Socrates demonstrated his commitment to never having committed any moral wrongs. Socrates’s joke demonstrates that his conviction would be tragic only if it were just. That is, it would be much worse that Socrates was put on trial for impiety and that he actually deserved the punishment.
For Socrates, it is better to suffer injustice than commit it. So, it is better to be put to death unjustly because it leaves his character intact. It is precisely the injustice of the punishment that makes the events of the trial bearable! And his character was envied for generations. In fact, throughout antiquity, almost every philosophical school took Socrates as the model of a philosophical life.
Xenophon ends his Apology of Socrates precisely how he said he would. He bridges Socrates’s commitments with a clear account of why he was sentenced to death.
Apology Sections 32-34
And as for Socrates, by exalting himself before the court, he brought ill-will upon himself and made his conviction by the jury more certain. Now to me he seems to have met a fate that the gods love; for he escaped the hardest part of life and met the easiest sort of death.
And he displayed the stalwart nature of his heart; for having once decided that to die was better for him than to live longer, he did not weaken in the presence of death (just as he had never set his face against any other thing, either, that was for his good), but was cheerful not only in the expectation of death but in meeting it.
And so, in contemplating the man’s wisdom and nobility of character, I find it beyond my power to forget him or, in remembering him, to refrain from praising him. And if among those who make virtue their aim any one has ever been brought into contact with a person more helpful than Socrates, I count that man worthy to be called most blessed.
Xenophon’s final description of Socrates doesn’t merely defend his actions, but he glorifies him. For Xenophon (and countless others), Socrates died a model death – at the right time and in the right way.
Imagine you’re giving your final speech today (perhaps you annoyed your government so much that they put you on trial for impiety!). Your speech is to all of your closest friends and family. What would you say to highlight what you stand for? For what values would you like to be remembered?
In the Apology, Xenophon provided a defense of Socrates. Yet, his defense is not limited to the formal charges. Xenophon cleared the air about why Socrates spoke in such an unapologetic and antagonizing tone, suggesting that this accurately reflected his philosophical commitments. Having realized that death was better for him than life, Socrates was free to show his philosophical and religious commitments. Ultimately, he was put to death for these commitments. Throughout the Apology, Xenophon presented a portrait of Socrates that is worthy of his status as the founder of Western philosophy.
For a deeper investigation into Socrates and how he is portrayed by Xenophon (and Aristophanes), check out this short video podcast by a famous historian of philosophy.
If you are interested in Xenophon’s portrayal of Socrates, consider starting with the Memorabilia, a text dedicated to remembering Socrates, his life, and his teachings. On Socratic philosophy in general, see the articles “Plato’s Shorter Ethical Works” and “Socrates”.
This work has been adapted from Xenophon’s Apology, a title from the Perseus Digital Library. This work is in the public domain. All images were created using Midjourney.
van Duijn, Melle. 2026. “The Right Time to Die: Xenophon’s Apology of Socrates.” The Philosophy Teaching Library. Edited by Robert Weston Siscoe, <https://philolibrary.crc.nd.edu/article/the-right-time-to-die/>.
Relations of Ideas – these are claims we come to believe without any sensory experience required. For instance, we can come to realize that a circle has a perfect center point without discovering any perfect circles in the world. All we need to do is think clearly about what it means to be a circle!
Here, Kant refers to Frederick the Great (Friedrich II, 1712-1786), who was King of Prussia. A supporter of the Enlightenment, Frederick endorsed social and political change by abolishing torture and expanding the educational sector. He suspended censorship for newspapers with the exception of political content. Supporting freedom of religion in general, he nevertheless favored protestants for political higher office and did not grant Jews civil rights.
Monarchy – A monarchy is a state where political deliberation is performed by one person (generally a king or queen).
Phalaris (c. 570-549 BCE) was, by most accounts, the very opposite of Cyrus, and he was used as an example of tyrannical cruelty in antiquity. He was tyrant of Acragas (now Agrigento) in Sicily. Diodorus Siculus records an infamous account of Phalaris’s torturing his enemies in a bronze bull placed over a roaring fire.
Cyrus the Great (d. 530 BCE) was the first emperor of the Persian Empire and a commonly used exemplar of the “enlightened monarch” in antiquity. He was renowned for his tolerance and care for his subjects. Xenophon, a student of Socrates, wrote a partly fictionalized biography of Cyrus called The Education of Cyrus (Cyropaedia). Peter Drucker, an influential 20th-century management theorist, called the Cyropaedia the best book on leadership.
Republic (res publica) – Cicero’s short definition of res publica is res populi (the ‘people’s thing’). Later in the Republic, Cicero famously defines a republic (1.39) as an assemblage of people associated with each other by consensus on justice (ius) and mutual benefit (utilitas).
Scipio Aemilianus Africanus was a hero among many Romans, but his reputation today is far less straightforward. Scipio Aemilianus led a Roman military campaign resulting in the utter destruction of the city of Carthage in 146 BCE. The Carthaginians were a prosperous Phoenician people in North Africa and rivals to Roman power. It has been argued that this act of ‘national extermination’ meets the modern definition of genocide. How should this knowledge impact how we view Scipio’s political philosophy expressed here?
This famous phrase, known by the abbreviation SPQR (senatus populusque Romanus), served as something like the official title of the Roman state (compare ‘USA’, ‘USSR’, ‘UK’), and encapsulated the ideal of a res publica (common property in public hands shared between the people and a council of elders).
Contemplation: The activity of human beings’ rationality. Contemplation is more than just thinking; it’s thinking excellently about ultimate truths. Contemplation is the ultimate activity associated with human flourishing.
Eudaimonia: Often translated as ‘happiness’ (in this text) or ‘flourishing’, eudaimonia is the activity of living the best possible life for a human being. Eudaimonia is more than just feeling happy or contented – it’s the idea that there is a best way to live for human beings.
Virtue: Virtues are cultivated tendencies to perform our function excellently, which allow us to reliably do the right thing, to the right extent, for the right reasons, given the demands of a specific circumstance. There are three components of virtues: virtues involve (a) skillful activity – they’re excellences after all!, (b) proper motivation, and (c) appropriate judgment – they often lead to judgments about what is the right thing to do, which requires careful attention to the circumstances.
Pleasure: The enjoyable feeling that accompanies some activities. Some philosophers (but not Aristotle!) think that pleasure is the only thing that is good in itself
Endoxic Method: An argumentative structure that begins by laying out the endoxa, or the beliefs of the many or the wise, then raises apparent problems for those views and develops a resolution to those problems.
The Problem of Induction: A problem for reasoning about the future based on past experiences. How can we be justified in believing that patterns of events in the past will continue into the future?
A Priori: Hume is using the term ‘a priori’ to denote the kind of reasoning that allows one to gain knowledge as relations of ideas—in other words, reasoning from one necessary, definitional truth to another.
Justification: the concept of justifying one’s thinking, or one’s beliefs, is important in epistemology. Roughly, one’s thinking or belief is justified when there is good reason for it, or when it is well supported or well evidenced. All of these are ways of referring to some connection between what we think or believe and what is, or to some way of at least making ourselves think that we are closer to the truth.
Inference: The psychological process of moving from one thought to another, such as moving from the thought “it’s raining, and I don’t want to get wet” to “I should get my umbrella”, or from “I am tired, and it’s getting late” to “I should get some sleep”. Nowadays, philosophers tend to use the term ‘inference’ to mean the same as ‘reasoning’, and tend instead to use the term ‘association’ to refer to movements between thoughts that are not based on any logic or evidence.
Matters of Fact: Knowledge that is gained by experience, such as by observing or experimenting with objects in the world. For example, knowing whether all swans in the world are white requires somebody to examine the many swans in the world and make sure they do not happen to discover a black one (and in fact, there are black swans!).
Relations of Ideas: Knowledge that is gained just by sufficiently clear thinking, without having to observe or experiment with objects in the world. For example, knowing that a triangle has three sides is something you can know just because of what it means to be a triangle, hence without having to carefully examine triangular objects that you find throughout the world.
Reasoning: Developing arguments to try and support the truth of one’s beliefs.
Causation: A relation between events, where one event (cause) is responsible for another (effect). Eating too much chocolate can cause the effect of having an upset stomach, and not getting enough sleep can cause someone to be grumpy.
Epistemological Theories: Theories about the nature and possibility of knowledge – whether, when, how, and to what extent we can know about reality, such as the physical world, or our own consciousness. For example, one epistemological theory says that we can gain understanding of our own consciousness by studying the brain, whereas other theories say that we can only gain knowledge of consciousness by reflecting on our own inner experiences.
Aristotle means “happy” in the sense of a person who has developed a complete character, lived a full life, and become a true example of human goodness.
Happy Person – Someone who has developed her entire self well and lived a complete and flourishing life. She is a real and positive example of how we should live.
This is where Aristotle defines virtuous friends. These are friends who you actually answer the phone for. These are the friends who you ask for advice on work, love, and life. They are the friends that celebrate you for being you, but they also tell you when you’re messing things up. Not only do they love you, but you love them and try to be the same kind of friend to them too.
This is where Aristotle defines pleasurable friends. These are your TikTok, Snap Chat, or Instagram friends, the ones you post to social media when you’re having a good time.
This is Aristotle’s explicit definition of useful friends. These are your LinkedIn friends, those who you like networking with at events or enjoy working with on projects.
Virtuous Friendship – A friendship where people set as their goal for their friendship becoming good people together and living happy lives just because they value the good of their friends as persons. These are also known as “perfect” or “true” friendships. They are usually between people who are equally good. And they might be limited to people of equal social status, wealth, and power. Aristotle doesn’t think that any happy person will lack virtuous friends. But he thinks it’s likely that we’ll only have a few of this sort.
Pleasurable Friendship – A friendship where people set as their goal for their friendship some pleasant goal, such as friendship between people who go out on the town together. These friendships are plentiful and easy to form and dissolve.
Useful Friendship – A friendship where two people set as their goal for their friendship some useful or utilitarian purpose, such as friendship between work colleagues. These friendships are plentiful and easy to form and dissolve.
Aristotle uses “friend” broadly for any relationship between people who like each other, wish good things for each other, and get something out of spending time together.
Friendship – A relationship between two people who like each other, generally wish each other well, and have a goal for their interactions.
Happiness – The final end and highest good of human life. The perfect good that objectively fulfills human nature and subjectively satisfies desire.
Happiness Criteria – The conditions that the true object of happiness must satisfy. They are: finality, intrinsic value, purity, internality, authenticity, stability, self-sufficiency, completeness.
Object of Happiness – The thing in which happiness essentially consists, the attainment of which will make us truly happy.
Highest Good – The greatest good for a human being.
Final End – The ultimate goal of human life. All of our other goals are chosen for the sake of this final end.
Constituent Principles – Parts of a material object that cause the object to be the sort of thing that it is, but that cannot be removed from that object (in the way that some properties can be gained or lost). For Aquinas, this would include things such as form (the structure of a material object) and matter (that which is structured). For example, Dylan’s form is his soul, and his matter is his body. His soul and body are distinct, but Dylan could not exist if he were not composed of both.
Accident/accidental property – A property that something can possess or not possess while still remaining the thing that it is. For example, Dylan could grow taller, or he could stop being musical, without becoming a different person. By contrast, rationality is an essential property of Dylan, since being rational is part of the “what it is to be” of a human being.
Subject/Suppositum – Something or someone that can bear properties but is not itself a property that something else can bear. Dylan can have properties, like being short or being musical, but no one can have Dylan as a property.
Property – A feature that an object has. For example, a ball could be orange, which means that the ball has the property of orangeness. In many cases a property can be gained or lost. The ball could be painted green, in which case it would gain the property of greenness and lose the property of orangeness.
Actuality – The being, or act of being, of a thing. For example, hot water is actually hot (the water is hot), even though it is potentially cold. Likewise, a boy is actually a human being (he is a human being), even though he is also potentially a full-grown man (and he will still be an actual human being when he becomes a full-grown man).
Potentiality – Ways a given thing can become different from the way it is now. For example, cold water is potentially hot, since it can be heated up, and an acorn is potentially an Oak tree since it can grow to full size under the right conditions.
Essence – The “what it is to be” of a thing. For example, the essence of a human being is to be a rational animal, and the essence of a cheetah is to be the fastest land animal.
Principle of Specialization – The idea that work is more efficient and more effective if each worker specializes in exactly one task.
Extrinsic Value – Value a thing has that is dependent on something else. Extrinsically valuable things are worth pursuing because they get you something else that is valuable. Money, for instance, is only useful because it can be exchanged for other things.
Intrinsic Value – Value a thing has independently or inherently. Intrinsically valuable things are worth pursuing for their own sake.
Adeimantus and Glaucon were Plato’s older brothers (along with an older sister, Potone). They were both honored for military valor at a battle with Megara. We know little about their lives otherwise. Potone had a son, Speusippus, who inherited leadership of the Academy upon Plato’s death.
Thrasymachus was a real person, who lived about 459-400 BCE moved to Athens from Chalcedon to become a sophist (a professional teacher and public speaker). Only a few fragments of his work survives
Prudence – Prudence is virtue wherein a person is able to choose, in any given situation, the course of action that will lead to greater happiness. For example, a prudential person knows when it is appropriate to continue a difficult conversation and when it is best to wait for a more appropriate time.
Pleasure – Epicurus would have us think about pleasure as coming in two forms: moving and static. Moving pleasures are the type that we experience in the process of satisfying a desire (this coffee tastes amazing!). Static pleasure is the feeling of being satisfied — no longer experiencing need or want (I am feeling so peaceful sitting in the park). Epicurus thinks these static pleasures are the best sort.
Epicurus believed that reality is composed of matter. This sets him apart from other philosophers of the time who, often influenced by Plato, believed that reality is composed of both the material and immaterial (like the soul, or the Platonic forms).
Happiness – Epicurus uses the Greek word “eudaimonia,” which is typically translated into English as “happiness.” Whereas today happiness is most often used to describe a momentary feeling (this new notebook makes me happy!) Epicurus means something more like a consistent state of well-being and contentment.
Unconditioned: an ultimate explanation of reality. For example, if I explain why it is raining today by appealing to some atmospheric conditions, I can always ask for the cause of those conditions, and so on. Only a cause that is not caused by anything else (something unconditioned) would give us an ultimate explanation.
Transcendental Idealism: Kant’s mature philosophical position. It holds that appearances are not things in themselves, but representations of our mind. It is opposed to transcendental realism, which identifies appearances with things in themselves.
Appearances (vs. things in themselves): things as they are experienced by us (also known as phenomena). They should be distinguished from things as they are independently of our experience (things in themselves or noumena).
Metaphysics: the study of what there is. Traditionally, metaphysics is divided into general metaphysics and special metaphysics. The former investigates the general features of reality and asks questions such as ‘What is possible?’. The latter studies particular kinds of being and asks questions such as ‘Does God exist?’ or ‘Is the soul immortal?’.
Reason: the faculty that knows a priori. Kant uses this term in a general sense (the knowing faculty as such) and in a specific sense (the faculty that demands ultimate explanations).
A priori: term denoting propositions that can be known independently from experience. For example, propositions such as ‘All bachelors are unmarried’ or ‘The whole is greater than its parts’ can be known without recourse to any experience.
Make sure not to think that ‘unjustified’ means ‘false.’ Even if they are true, the point is just that this would not be something that had been shown.
‘Absolute’ might be a confusing word, here. Socrates means that the geometers are not reasoning about their drawing of the square, for example, but of the square itself. They do not conclude that, for the square they drew, the area is equal to the square of a side – they conclude that this is true for squares as an intelligible object, or, as Plato would say, the Form of the square.
By ‘science’, Plato means to be talking about all rational disciplines, including mathematics.
The form of the beautiful has to be perfectly beautiful because all instances of beautiful things are explained by it, so it has to be responsible for the highest possible degrees of beauty possessed by anything. Moreover, it has no trace of ugliness in it.
The form of the beautiful has to be immaterial because all the many beautiful things do not share any material – that is, they are all made of different stuff.
Form (εἶδος / ἰδέα) – Intelligible, immaterial, perfect entities that explain the unity among the many things which share the feature named by the entity (e.g., Beauty, Squareness, Oddness). For example, think of a square. There might be many different squares, but they all share features like having four sides of equal length. So, the Form of Squareness would include all of those features that make something a square.
Guardian – This is the name Plato gives to the ruling class in his ideal city. Think of them as philosopher kings – they have complete control over the organization of the state. The Republic is partially about why Plato thinks they would be needed for an ideal system of government and what they would need to learn to do the job well.
Plato has previously argued that we are made up of different parts. The first part is the appetitive which is responsible for our desires for food, sex, and other bodily needs. Then there is the spirited part, which longs for fame and honor. Finally, he identifies the rational part, which discerns what is good and bad for us through reason. The parts can all come into conflict with one another, and managing their relations is what Plato thinks justice is all about.
Soul (ψῡχή) – What Greeks meant by this word is controversial. For now, think of it as the thing that makes you different from a rock or other objects, the thinking and experiencing part of you as well as the part of you that acts and makes decision. You might use the word ‘mind’ or ‘self’ to talk about this.
Virtue – Virtues are the character traits that make a person good. For example, most people consider courage and generosity to be virtues. English-speakers usually reserve the word ‘virtue’ for human beings, but in ancient Greek the word can be more comfortably applied to other beings as well.
Was it his burly physique, his wide breadth of wisdom, or his remarkable forehead which earned him this nickname?
Aporia – A Greek term for “being at a loss” or “clueless.” Socrates often questions people until they have no idea how to define something that they thought they understood.
You might be confused by the word ‘attention’ below. In Greek the word is therapeia, from which we get the English word ‘therapy.’ It primarily means the same as ‘service’ as in ‘to serve,’ but shades into ‘worship,’ ‘take care of,’ and ‘attend to.’
Meletus – A poet and citizen of Athens and one of Socrates’ accusers. Amongst other things, Meletus accused Socrates of impiety and corrupting the youth.
Divine Voluntarism – The idea that God is free to determine even the most basic truths. If divine voluntarism is true, then God could have made it so that 2+2=5 or so that cruelty and blasphemy are holy and good.
Euthyphro Dilemma – The question, “Is a thing holy because the gods love it, or do the gods love it because it is holy?” The general idea of a forced choice (or “dilemma”) about the true order of explanation occurs often in philosophy and gets referred to by this term.
Essence – What a thing fundamentally is. A square might be red or blue without changing the fact that it’s a square, but a square must have four sides, so having four sides is part of a square’s essence.
Definition – The perfect description of a thing. A definition should pick out all and only examples of a thing. For example, ‘bachelor’ might be defined as ‘unmarried man,’ because all unmarried men are bachelors, and only unmarried men are bachelors.
In Disney’s retelling of the Hunchback of Notre Dame, the clergyman Claude Frollo orders the death of many Roma on religious grounds. It is clear, however, that he is really motivated by spite and his unrequited lust for the Romani woman Esmerelda.
Spanish conquistadors were shocked by the scope of ritual human sacrifice among the Aztecs, as hundreds or even thousands of people were sacrificed each year. The Aztecs thought that the sacrifices could repay the sacrifices the gods had made in creating the sun and earth.
Zeus – The god of sky and thunder in ancient Greek mythology, Zeus was depicted as chief among the gods and called the father of the gods and men.
Forms – The perfect, divine, and intelligible entities that exist independently of the physical world. They are comprehensible only through reason, not through our senses, and their existence explains the properties of objects in the physical world.
Recollection – The soul existed prior to birth; during this time it learned everything, and hence all learning is only recalling what we already know.
Immortality of the Soul – Unlike the body, the soul is not subject to physical death, because it is immortal and indestructible.
Philosophy – The practice of preparing the soul for death by training it to think and exist independently of the body
Death – Plato understands this as the soul’s separation from the body
Human Identity Across Time – Locke’s notion that any human stays the same across time if, and only if, it maintains the same (distinctively human) organizing structure of parts.
Substance Identity Across Time – Something is the same substance across a segment of time if, and only if, it continuously exists across the relevant segment of time without gaining or losing any of its parts.
Immaterial Soul – A personal thinking substance without any physical constitution.
Personal Identity Across Time – Whatever makes someone the numerically same person (i.e., that very person) at different times; according to Locke, it is a relation of first-person consciousness via memory.
Person – Locke’s forensic definition of person (pertaining to courts of law regarding the justice of praise, blame, reward, or punishment): a thinking, intelligent being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing in different times and places.
The Prophet Muhammad is a central figure in Islam. He is viewed as the last of a long line of prophets, which includes Moses and Jesus. He is responsible for writing the Quran, which was dedicated to him by the angel Gabriel. His life and sayings are recounted in the Hadith; he is viewed as an exemplary role model of Islamic life and faith.
Exhortation — The method of understanding and interpreting Truth available to the common people. The majority of people take scripture literally and understand truth and right action based upon this understanding. They are persuaded by the vivid imagery of the Quran and the rhetorical exhortations of religious leaders. Averroes takes this to be lowest form of understanding
Dogmatic Discourse — The method of understanding displayed by those who, through natural ability and habit, are able to have a deeper understanding of the Quran, and of the truths it illuminates. These people know that not all of the scriptures are to be taken literally, and that greater underlying Truths are revealed by interpreting some elements allegorically. Still, they err on the side of dogmatism and literal interpretation whenever uncertainty arises. Averroes associates this way of thinking with Muslim theologians and views this to be the middle level of understanding.
Philosophical Inference – The type of understanding associated with philosophical demonstration or argument. This is the highest level of understanding, accomplished by a select few, who have a natural capacity for philosophy and proper philosophical training.
Law — The Quran (the central religious text of Islam) and, to a lesser extent, the Hadith (reports of what the prophet Muhammad said and did). Averroes is concerned with explaining how philosophy relates to what Muslims take to be the unerring Truth regarding God and the nature of existence, as they are expressed in Scripture.
Occasionalism — a theory claiming that God is the only true cause of changes in the world. For example, when you high-five me, you’re not really the cause of the stinging sensation I experience. God is the cause. Your high five is just the occasion on which God causes it.
Interactionism — a theory claiming that things in the world can truly cause changes in each other. For example, when you high-five me, you truly cause me to experience a stinging sensation in my hand.
Substance Dualism — a theory claiming that the mind (or soul) and body are two distinct and very different things.
Body — what it sounds like! The body is the physical part or aspect of a thing and has characteristics like shape, size, etc.
Soul — that part or aspect of a thing involving mental aspects of their existence, e.g., thoughts, feelings, decisions, etc. The “soul”, in this sense, is more or less just the mind.
Causal Interaction — When one thing acts (i.e., itself does something) and in so acting makes another thing change. For example, when you high-five me, you cause me to experience a stinging sensation in my hand.
God as God – The phrase “God as God” is basically a synonym for “God the subject.” In other words, it refers to God precisely in God’s status as an incomprehensible divine Other.
Incarnation – The Christian doctrine of the incarnation is the notion that the word of God became fully human in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. It is closely associated with the doctrine of the trinity, which asserts that God the Father, God the Son (Jesus as the word made flesh), and God the Holy Spirit are one God.
Religious Fanaticism – In Feuerbach’s use of the term, a religious fanatic is someone who is unwaveringly faithful to God as an utterly mysterious superhuman being. They subordinate other things—especially the love of other humans—to submission before this divine other.
God the Subject – When Feuerbach refers to God as a subject, he is referring to the commonplace religious belief that God is a being who has various attributes, like a loving nature.
Faith Separates Man From God – Faith separates God from man in this sense: it treats God as a mysterious other, a being radically distinct from us.
Faith – Belief in and fidelity to a transcendent divine subject like God.
Orthodoxy – Orthodoxy refers to “right belief,” and it is concern with identifying heresies and ensuring that people believe and practice correctly.
Indirect Form of Self-Knowledge – Feuerbach’s view is that religious belief is a naive way of relating to our human nature and its perfections. It is naive or childlike because it treats these as external realities that belong to God. He believes a mature and contemplative person realizes these don’t belong to God, but rather to our species, abstractly conceived.
Above the Individual Man – The human perfections are “above the individual” insofar as no particular individual ever perfectly realizes them. They are abstractions.
Divine Trinity – Feuerbach is having fun here. He is using the theological phrasing of the Trinity to talk about human perfections. In calling reason, love, and freedom of the will “divine,” he means they are absolutely good; they are activities whose goodness is intrinsic to their practice or exercise. This isn’t a novel philosophical view. For example, Immanuel Kant argued that autonomy or a good will is the only thing which is unconditionally good.
Perfections – The end to which a faculty or power is ordered. For example, omniscience would be the perfection of the intellect. Traditionally, God is said to possess all perfections.
Love – When Feuerbach writes about love, he is referring to unconditional concern for others and the desire for fellowship with them. He is here asserting that love, understood in this sense, is the perfect activity of the affective faculty. In other words, our feelings and passions are fully actualized and engaged in an intrinsically valuable activity when we genuinely love others.
Infinite – The infinite is whatever can be understood as unbounded or unlimited. Human nature in the abstract is unbounded and unlimited. It is only bounded or limited in its concrete form as it is realized by particular material individuals.
Higher Consciousness – The sort of consciousness that mature human beings possess, but which other animals do not. It is “higher” than animal consciousness because it involves thinking abstractly about the form or essence of things.
Science – Feuerbach uses the term science in its classical sense, meaning systematically organized knowledge. Any body of knowledge founded on an understanding of first principles and the essences of things is a science in this sense.
Popular Sovereignty – The view that a government’s authority to rule comes from the people, making a ruler subject to the will of their citizens.
The Divine Right of Kings – The theory that kings are chosen by God and thus that political revolt is a rebellion against the will of God.
Synthesis – The prefix ‘syn-’ means “together,” so a synthesis “brings together” or combines elements of both a thesis and its antithesis.
Antithesis– An antithesis is the contradiction of a thesis. For example, internationalism could be understood as the antithesis of nationalism.
Thesis – In Hegelian terms, a thesis can be understood as a position or theory. Examples include any of the “-isms” that we discuss in science, history, and philosophy, such as Darwinism, capitalism, nationalism, etc.
Progressor’s Temptation – a unique temptation for those making progress in which pride impedes their further progress and leads to backsliding.
Progressors – those who are not yet expert Stoic practitioners, but who are also aware of the fact that they must change their lives in that direction. They are working on making progress.
Intellectualism – the philosophical view that our motivations and emotions are all judgments. The reason why you do something, your motivation, is because you believe it’s the right thing to do. The reason why you feel good or bad about something, an emotion, is because you believe that something good or bad happened to you.
Duties – acts of service, obedience, and respect that we owe to each other. The duties we owe to each other depend on what kind of relationship we have.
Askeses – exercises of Stoic thought and practice that make the lessons and habits of Stoic philosophy second-nature for Stoic practitioners.
Externals – things that are not under our control but that are all-too-easily confused with things that should be important to us, like wealth, status, and pleasure. Too many people believe externals like these are necessary for the good life, and the Stoic path is to focus not on these things but rather what is up to us.
The Fundamental Division – the division between things that are under our direct control and those that are not. The important lesson is to care only about the things we can control.
The Greatest Happiness Principle – A principle which says that actions are right insofar as they promote happiness and wrong insofar as they promote unhappiness
Higher and Lower Pleasures – Types of pleasures that differ in terms of their quality. Things like food and drugs create lower pleasures. Things like intellectual pursuits and doing the right thing create higher forms of pleasure.
The Doctrine of Swine – An objection that utilitarianism entails that if people would be happy rolling in mud, that’s what would be morally best for them to do, so we should reject the theory.
Utilitarianism – A normative theory of which actions are right or wrong. Utilitarianism says the right action is that which maximises utility.
Jeremy Bentham – Considered by some as the father of utilitarianism, Bentham was a moral philosopher and one of John Stuart Mill’s teachers
Epicurus – an ancient Greek philosopher and one of the first to advocate that the ultimate good is experiencing pleasure and avoiding pain.
Utility – The thing that is ultimately valuable in itself. For Mill, this is happiness, which he then understands as pleasure and the absence of pain.
Contract Theory – a modern political theory identifying consent as the sole justification for government. Contract theory is associated with Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), John Locke (1632-1704), Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), and more recently, John Rawls (1921-2002)
Prejudice – a foundational, strongly held, unreasoned (but not necessarily irrational) moral opinion or belief. We might believe, for example, that parents have special obligations towards their own children.
A Priori – a philosophical term of art meaning (in Latin) “prior to experience,” which refers to knowledge that is innate or arrived at purely through reasoning, like the truths of mathematics.
Rights – moral claims invoking immunity from (or entitlement to) some specific treatment (or good) from others. Commonly recognized rights include the right to free speech or the right to healthcare.
Reform – a change in the social order that originates from the existing character of society. An example would be market-based healthcare reform in a capitalist society.
Conservatism – a modern political ideology that aims to preserve and promote the existing (or traditional) institutions of society. These institutions typically include the rule of law, property, the family, and religion.
Contingent Being – A being that can fail to exist. Its existence is not guaranteed. This being might come to exist or it might not.
Necessary Being – A being that can’t fail to exist. Its non-existence is impossible. This also means that such a being has always existed.
Want to read more about why the infinite regress option doesn’t work in the Second Way? Check out Sean Floyd’s entry in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Efficient Cause – An efficient cause is something that directly makes another thing exist or move. An example of this is when I kick a ball down a hill. I am the efficient cause of the ball rolling down the hill because I make it move down the hill.
Infinite Regress: Begin with some fact. We begin to explain that fact by appealing to another fact, where these facts are related by either causality or dependence. To create the regress, you keep appealing to more and more facts about causality and dependence without end.
Actuality – An ability or action something is currently exercising. Imagine that I am sitting comfortably at my desk, and then I stand up to take a break from reading. In this case, I am now actually standing.
Potentiality – What something has the capacity to do, but isn’t currently doing. Imagine I am sitting comfortably at my desk. Even though I’m not currently standing, I have the capacity to be standing. So, even while I’m not standing, I have the potential to stand.
Theists and Non-Theists – A theist is someone who believes that God exists, while a non-theist does not. Non-theists include atheists, who believe that God does not exist, and agnostics, who are uncertain about whether God exists.
Glaucon – one of Plato’s brothers and one of Socrates’ main interlocutors in the Republic dialogue. In that dialogue, he challenges Socrates to provide a compelling justification for why one should be a just person beyond merely following conventions or avoiding punishment. This sets up Socrates’ defense of justice as intrinsically worthwhile. Throughout the Republic, Glaucon prods Socrates to fully explain his theories of the ideal society, philosopher-kings, and the Form of the Good.
Aristotle – a Greek philosopher (384-322 BC) who studied under Plato and went on to be one of the most influential philosophers to ever live. Simply called “The Philosopher” by Thomas Aquinas and others in the medieval period, Aristotle’s views would eventually be synthesized with Christian theology, laying the intellectual foundation for later scholarly developments in Western Europe.
Understanding – Socrates describes education as turning one’s “understanding” in the right direction. The word “understanding” here translates the ancient Greek term “to phronēsai,” which means “understanding,” “being conscious,” or “having insight.” People who are wicked focus their “understanding” on how best to accomplish their selfish and narrow desires. Those who are wise, in contrast, have learned to focus their “understanding” on what is truly good and beneficial.
The Form of the Good – Socrates characterizes the ultimate goal of education as coming to know “the Form of the Good.” The Form of the Good is his technical term for the meaning of goodness: what it is to be good. Socrates is clear that this “knowledge of the Good” is not simply theoretical knowledge, but also knowledge in the sense of “knowing how”: knowing how to achieve what’s good, to do what’s good, to accomplish what’s good. Mere “book knowledge” or simply being smart is not enough.
The Intelligible – Socrates uses “the intelligible” to name the aspects of the world that we can only grasp through thinking or insight. With my eyes I can see the tree outside my window, but what it means to be a tree is something I can only comprehend in thought. Likewise, I can see the people around me, but human nature, human dignity, and what it means to be human is something I can only grasp conceptually. “The intelligible” is the world insofar as it “makes sense” and can be comprehended.
The Visible – By “the visible,” Socrates means those aspects of the world we can perceive with our five senses and our imagination—those aspects of the world we can see, hear, taste, smell, touch, and imagine. For example, with my eyes I can see the sky, trees, people around me, and so on as visible things. “The visible” is the world insofar as it can be perceived and imagined.
Education – Socrates says that the allegorical story he tells represents the effect of education on human nature. “Education” here is a translation of the ancient Greek word “paideia,” which means “education” in the widest sense of the term. “Paideia” doesn’t mean “education” in the sense of going to school or getting good grades. Instead, it refers to the process of becoming a wise, intelligent, good, and well-rounded human being.
Allegory – An allegory is a symbolic narrative where characters, events, and/or settings represent abstract ideas or convey deeper meanings beyond the literal story. Socrates tells such a symbolic narrative in the passages below. The characters, events, and setting of his narrative symbolize the effect of what he calls “education.”
Self-knowledge – Knowledge of the contents of one’s own mind, such as one’s own beliefs and desires. Self-knowledge can be gained through introspection, that is, by reflecting on what one thinks and experiences. Some philosophers believe that self-knowledge has special properties that our knowledge of the external world lacks, such as being clearer, more reliable, or more valuable.
Dualism – The view that the mind is entirely distinct from the body. This view is usually contrasted with different kinds of monism, which hold that the mind is ultimately just a part of the body (materialism) or that the body is ultimately just a part of the mind (idealism). Dualists hold that the mind and the body are fundamentally different aspects of reality, and both categories are needed to properly describe the universe, especially the human person.
The Self – What the ‘I’ in ‘I am, I exist’ refers to; the part of you that really makes you you. Many philosophers have provided rich accounts of what the self ultimately is, including the soul, the mind, one special feature of the mind (such as consciousness), a mixture of all these elements, or perhaps a mere illusion.
The ‘Cogito’ – Descartes’ famous claim ‘I think, therefore I am’ is often referred to as the cogito. The name comes from the Latin rendering of this phrase, which is ‘cogito, ergo sum.’ Descartes held that one can always believe this proposition with certainty. We cannot doubt our own existence, so the cogito survives his exercise of intense doubt. The cogito appears several times in Descartes’ writings, and he often phrased it slightly differently each time. It appears in the Second Meditation as ‘I am, I exist.’
Certainty – When one believes something with certainty, one is maximally confident that it is true. A certainty is something that is beyond dispute or immune to doubt. Although this captures the basic idea, like many epistemological notions, clarifying precisely what the notion of certainty amounts to is an ongoing area of philosophical research.
Vice – A bad habit that we learn over time through instruction or instinct and that we develop through repetition. What makes the habit bad is that, once we have that habit, our tendency is to do the incorrect thing in certain types of situations. We may choose to do something entirely uncalled for in that situation, or we may act at the wrong time, in the wrong way, to the wrong degree, or with the wrong attitudes, or for the wrong reasons.
Relative Mean – The “Goldilocks amount” of some type of action or emotion. When you act in this way, according to Aristotle, you act exactly as is required under the current circumstances. This means that you do what is called for by the situation at hand, rather than doing something too extreme or not doing something extreme enough. You do something in the moderate amount (the mean amount) relative to the specific situation you are in when you need to act.
Excellence/Virtue – A good habit that we learn over time through instruction and repetition. What makes the habit good is that, once we have that habit, we have a strong tendency to do the right thing at the right time, in the right way, to the right degree, with the right attitudes, whenever we are confronted with a situation that we know calls us to exercise that habit.