Читать книгу Philosophical Ideas - Donald Phillip Verene - Страница 8

After Trophonius and Agamades had built a temple for

Apollo at Delphi, they asked the god while worshipping

to recompense their deed and their toil, and in no small

way to be sure—nothing they could describe, but what

would be best for a human—and Apollo gave them a sign

that a gift would come. Three days later they were found

dead, confirming that death was what this god judged

best, the one to whom the rest of the gods conceded

primacy in divination.

Giannozzo Manetti, On Human Worth and Excellence 4.13;

Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 1.47.114

The most often cited precept inscribed on the temple of Apollo at Delphi urges the entrant to seek self-knowledge (gnothi seauton). The precept that accompanies it, to seek moderation (meden agan) is less discussed. But both are well known. Taken together they appear to offer a complete guide to life. Rarely cited is a third inscription, the letter epsilon or ΕΙ. Is this inscription intended as a precept, to accompany the other two and to stand alone? Or is it the beginning of a word or phrase, the completion of which is lost or was never made? There is no way to know what was intended. We are left with the task of drawing forth a meaning from it as it stands.

The most famous attempt at treating this issue is Plutarch’s “The Ε at Delphi,” that appears in his Moralia. Plutarch advances seven possible explanations of the Greek letter. Of its general status, Plutarch writes: “For the likelihood is that it was not by chance nor, as it were, by lot that this was the only letter that came to occupy first place with the god [Apollo] and attained the rank of a sacred offering and something worth seeing; but it is likely that those who, in the beginning, sought after knowledge of the god either discovered some peculiar and unusual potency in it or else used it as a token with reference to some other of the matters of the highest concern, and thus adopted it” (385a).

Apollo is the most Greek of all gods. With the Muses as his retinue, he is associated with the higher developments of civilization. In regard to ritual, especially ceremonies of purification, his oracles are the supreme authority. Delphi was the chief of his oracular shrines. It was to the Pythian at Delphi that Chaerephon, the friend of Socrates, went with his question of whether anyone was more wise than Socrates, as Socrates reports in the Apology (21a). Among the gods it was Apollo who most governed divination.

The first explanation asserts that the Wise Men were actually five in number, and not seven. They were Chilon, Thales, Solon, Bias, and Pittacus. These five, “after conferring together, dedicated that one of the letters which is fifth [ΕΙ] in alphabetical order and which stands for the number five, thus testifying for themselves before the god [Apollo] that they were five, and renouncing and rejecting the seventh and the sixth as having no connexion with themselves” (385f).

In the Protagoras, Plato lists “Thales of Miletus, Pittacus of Mytilene, Bias of Priene, our own Solon, Cleobulus of Lindus, Myson of Chen, and, the seventh in the list, Chilon of Sparta” (343a). The list of the Sages is given with variation by various authorities to include Periander, the tyrant of Corinth, who would replace Myson of Chen in Plato’s list. Myson was not a tyrant but was said to be the son of a tyrant. In Plutarch’s “Dinner of the Seven Wise Men,” Periander appears as the host of the dinner, not as one of the Seven (146d) The interpretation of the number five argues that Periander and Cleobulus were simply despots of their cities and had no claim to virtue or wisdom, but promoted themselves into the list through their power. They could not have been authors of the two famous inscriptions.

The second interpretation of ΕΙ claims “that Ε is the second in order of the vowels from the beginning, and the sun the second planet after the moon and that practically all the Greeks identify Apollo with the Sun” (386a–b). This claim is dismissed as far-fetched, a product of idle talk. A third interpretation is advanced, that ΕΙ represents “the figure and form of the consultation of the god, and it holds the first place in every question of those who consult the oracle and inquire IF . . .” (386c). ΕΙ is a conditional conjunction carrying the same meaning as Latin si, “if.” It expresses possibility, “supposing that,” asking what will be the result if a given action or decision is taken.

The hypothetical question introduced by “if” cannot be answered with the certainty of a logical deduction because it involves real events, not simply a connection of thoughts. Thus the oracle of the god gives only ambiguous answers. Such inquiries are analogous to a prayer addressed to the god that expresses the fulfillment of a desire. This expresses a fourth interpretation—that the “if” is in fact a way of expressing a request to the god such that those employing it “think that the particle contains an optative force no less than an interrogative” (386c–d). The hypothetical question asked of the oracle is inherently a prayer request that the god grant the desired outcome.

These interpretations lead to a fifth possibility, that ΕΙ in the sense of “if” is an indispensible term in the construction of a syllogism. This approach holds: “That the god is a most logical reasoner the great majority of his oracles show clearly; for surely it is a function of the same person both to solve and to invent ambiguities” (386e). The ambiguities of the oracle’s answers have a logical structure. The premises of a hypothetical syllogism can be conjoined so that, taken together, they imply the conclusion. The syllogism is the key to philosophical reasoning. “Since, then, philosophy is concerned with truth, and the illumination of truth is demonstration, and the inception of demonstration is the hypothetical syllogism, then with good reason the potent element that effects the connexion and produces this was consecrated by wise men to the god who is, above all, a lover of truth” (387a). The ability to grasp such logical connections is the basis of the ability to grasp the way in which “all present events follow in close conjunction with past events, and all future events follow in close conjunction with present events” (387b).

From this association of the letter with formal logic and philosophical reasoning there follows a sixth interpretation, that returns to the number five. Five is an important number in mathematics, physiology, philosophy, and music. It is claimed that Plato holds the supreme first principles to be five: “Being, Identity, Divergence, and fourth and fifth besides these, Motion and Rest,” and that “Evidently someone anticipated Plato in comprehending this before he did, and for that reason dedicated to the god an ΕI as a demonstration and symbol of the number of all the elements” (391b–c). It adds that Plato, “in speaking about a single world, says that if there are others besides ours, and ours is not the only one, then there are five altogether and no more” (389a). Problematic for this interpretation is that five divisions, elements, types, forms, and so on, can be found in all areas of human thought, as well as threes, fours, sevens, and tens. We are given no proof that five is fundamental.

The seventh interpretation is different in kind from the others because it considers the role the ΕI may play in relation to the other two precepts. This interpretation holds that “the significance of the letter is neither a numeral nor a place in a series nor a conjunction nor any of the subordinate parts of speech.” Instead, “it is an address and salutation to the god, complete in itself, which by being spoken, brings him who utters it to thoughts of the god’s power.” The Ε stands in a dialogical relation to anyone who is to enter the temple. Thus, “the god addresses each one of us as we approach him here with the words ‘Know Thyself,’ as a form of welcome, which certainly is in no wise of less import than ‘Hail’; and we in turn reply to him ‘Thou art,’ as rendering unto him a form of address which is truthful, free from deception, and the only one befitting him only, the assertion of Being [ontos]” (392a).

“Thou art” as an assertion of Being makes the distinction between the ever-lasting permanence of the divine order and the contingent and ever-changing condition of the human. Wisdom is to know and acknowledge the difference. ΕΙ is placed beside Gnothi seauton to remind us of this difference. Thus “we ought, as we pay Him reverence, to greet Him and to address Him with the words, ‘Thou art’; or even, I vow, as did some of the men of old, ‘Thou art One’ [ei hen]” (393b). The two inscriptions express both an antithesis and an accord. Thus “the one is an utterance addressed in awe and reverence to the god as existent through all eternity, the other is a reminder to mortal man of his own nature and the weaknesses that beset him” (394c). In this account the other precept, Meden agan, is not mentioned. It is assumed under the other two as a way of acting toward the god and as a way of acting toward ourselves.

The significance of ΕΙ as “Thou art” is endorsed by Pico della Mirandola in his “Oration on the Dignity of Man” (1486), one of the key works of the Renaissance. Pico says that the Delphic inscriptions are one of the things that compelled him to the study of philosophy. He regards “Nothing overmuch” as the standard for moral philosophy and “Know thyself” as including the pursuit of the investigation of all nature as well as human nature. He concludes: “When we are finally lighted in this knowledge by natural philosophy, and nearest to God are uttering the theological greeting, ei, that is, ‘Thou art,’ we shall likewise in bliss be addressing the true Apollo on intimate terms.”3

These precepts may take us, as they did Pico, to the study of philosophy. They provide the briefest and most profound guide to philosophical thought. We can say with confidence that all speculative philosophy—that which considers the True to be the whole—is no more than the expansion of the ideas condensed in these three archaic inscriptions. We are taken back to them over and over.