philosophy

check the attachment 

CharmidesPRIVATE

Overview

159b-160d Argument 1

Argument 1 159b 3-160d 3

159b 3-5/ 1. Antithesis: Sophrosune is performing all actions orderly (kosmios => kosmos) [discretely/decently] and quietly (hesukia | opposite to oxeos, sharp and quick)–Assertion.

159c/ 2. In boxing, lyre playing, etc., the proper execution of an art requires quick (seamless) agility–Assertion.

159c/ [3. Proper execution (excellence) renders some action noble and the opposite, shameful] –Fact

159c13-d2/ 4. In all bodily actions (erga somatos) it is quickness which makes it noble and slowness which makes it shameful–2,3

159d/ [5. Sophrosune is associated with the noble.] –Fact

159d 10-11/ 6. With respect to bodily actions, sophrosune is associated with the quick (oxeos) not the quiet/show (hesukia)–4,5

159e 1/ 7. Good learning occurs quickly; difficult (poor) learning occurs slowly–Assertion.

159e 9-10/ 8. Recall which is quick is excellent; recall which is slow is inferior–Assertion

[9. Good learning and recall equal cleverness, agxinoia]–Fact

160a 1/ 10. Excellence in cleverness is due to a quickness of the soul–7-9

160a 4-6/ 11. Deliberations (zetesein) of the soul which are quick are excellent while slowness and difficulty are bad–Assertion.

160a 10/ 12. Deliberations and cleverness of the soul which are quick are noble and the opposite are shameful– 10, 11, 3

[13. Deliberations and cleverness of the soul which are quick are sophrosune while the opposite are not]–12, 5

160b 7- d 3/ 14. In aspects of the body and soul, the quick is sophrosune and the slow is not–13, 6

______________________________

15. Thesis: antithesis is rejected–14,1

Comments on Argument One

Argument one takes some time to begin. There is a very long prologue in this dialogue. Why? Is there a character development of Charmides to let us think of him as a “toy boy”? Is this why the arguments are so bad in this dialogue?

Anthesis. Note that in the statement of the antithesis there are two alternatives given yet Charmides chooses to defend only one. Why is this? It seems as if he chooses the wrong one. If he had decided upon “cosmios” and order, then it might have encompassed the other alternative. Further, if one takes cosmios then one might encompass both fast and slow thinking which is discussed in the argument.

Why is the weaker of the two chosen? Is it because Charmides is so stupid? Is there a dynamic of seduction working between the protagonists? Charmides is associated with the beautiful and the slow. It seems that Charmides is almost female in his depiction. On a feminist interpretation one might say that Socrates is over sensitive to the male or the “fast” thinking as opposed to the “female-slow-thinking.” But this is perhaps stretching things.

I am on record as believing that all great thinking occurs as slow thinking. cf. My introduction to Perspectives in Philosophy.

Premise 2–This is certainly true of boxing. But is it true of all bodily action? Cooking and bomb defusing are probably better if done slowly and deliberately. Perhaps “fast” here only means “decisively” or “confidently.” It is unclear.

Premise 5. The logical move that says, “x has F; y has F, therefore; x = y” is a fallacy in most cases. compare: “John has hair; Jane has hair; therefore, Jane=John.” This move only works when the property asserted is part of the essential definition of the entity involved and the thing and its property are asserted at the same level of generality: “John (as a human) is rational; Jane (as a human) is rational; therefore, John (as human) is the same as Jane (as human). I believe this is a deep and recurring problem in Plato. cf my essay on class inclusion in Plato’s Republic.

Premise 9. There may be two types of learning. It may be true of “quick” learning that Socrates’ suggestions are correct. But they are not universally correct, see premise 11.

Premise 11. This sort of learning cannot be fast. This only works if “oxeos” means “sure” and “confidently” see the discussion of premise 2.