Ancient Theories of Knowledge Friday 11:10 – 13:00 DSB G.06 Dr Inna Kupreeva ([email protected]) Office hours: Mondays and Firdays 2-3, DSB 5.02 (and by appointment)

Course. In this course, we shall look at some of the most important ancient epistemological theories: the earliest attempts of demarcation between knowledge and belief by means of the concept of a priori cognition, critical discussion of the three definitions of knowledge (as sense perception, true belief, and justified true belief) in Plato’s Theaetetus. We shall discuss Aristotle’s criticism of Platonic apriorism and his own theory of learning. In the last part of the course, we shall look at the most interesting epistemological discussions of Hellenistic period (Epicurean ‘total’ empiricism, Stoic ‘cognitive impression’ and its Academic critics, the epistemological views of the ancient medical school of Empiricism, and finally, the radical scepticism of Pyrrhonists). Assessment. The course is assessed by two essays: midterm (1500 words, 40% of a grade, due by October 27 2011, by 4pm) and final (2000 words, worth 60% of a grade, due by December 15th 2011, by 4pm). The essays will be marked within three weeks from the due date. It is essential that your read carefully the feedback you are given; should you have any questions, don’t hesitate to come and speak to me. Class presentation. All students are encouraged to do a short class presentation on one of the topics (5-10 minutes in the beginning of the class, to start the discussion; there can be from one to three presenters on each topic). This presentation is not marked, but it gives you an opportunity to come to grips with the material and prepare for one of your essays. Also, it is a good way to practice your presentation and discussion leading skills. You are encouraged to come and see me a week before your presentation. Reading (general) Primary sources: R. McKirahan (ed) Philosophy Before Socrates, Berkeley, 1994 Plato, Meno Republic Theaetetus Aristotle, Posterior Analytics I. 1 – 4, 8,10,13; II 1-2, 8-10, 12, 19; Prior Analytics 1.1-7 On the Soul, 2.12, 3.1 – 6 Nicomachean Ethics VI B.C. Inwood, L.P. Gerson (eds), Hellenistic Philosophy: Introductory Readings, Indianapolis: Hackett, 1988 A.A. Long, D.N. Sedley (eds), The Hellenistic philosophers, 2 vols, Cambridge, 1987 Ch. Brittain (ed), Cicero, On Academic Scepticism, Indianapolis, Hackett, 2005 M. Frede, R. Walzer (eds) Galen: Three Treatises on the Nature of Science, Hackett, 1985 J. Annas, J. Barnes (eds) Sextus Empiricus, The Outlines of Scepticism, Cambridge, 2001. Secondary literature: K. Algra, J. Barnes, J. Mansfeld, M. Schofield (eds), Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy, Cambridge, 1999 [=CHHP] J. Allen, Inference from Signs: Ancient Debates about the Nature of Evidence [IFS], Oxford, Clarendon, 2001

1

J. Annas, Hellenistic Philosophy of Mind, Berkeley, 1992 J. Barnes, J. Brunschwig, M. Burnyeat, M. Schofield (eds), Science and Speculation: Studies in Hellenistic theory and practice, Cambridge, 1982 D. Bostock, Plato’s Theaetetus, Oxford, 1988 M.F. Burnyeat and M.J. Levett, The Theaetetus of Plato, Indianapolis, Hackett, 1990 S. Everson (ed) Companions to ancient throught 1: Epistemology, Cambridge 1990 G. Fine, Plato on Knowledge and Forms: Selected Essays [=PKF], Oxford, 2003 M. Frede, Essays on ancient philosophy, Minneapolis, 1987 L.P. Gerson, Ancient Epistemology, Cambridge, 2009 R.J. Hankinson, The Sceptics, London and New York, 1995 B. Inwood, J. Mansfeld (eds) Assent and Argument: Studies in Cicero’s Academic Books, Brill, 1997 Mi-Kyuong Lee, Epistemology after Protagoras, Oxford, 2005 D. Sedley, The Midwife of Platonism, Oxford, 2002 D. Scott, Recollection and experience: Plato’s theory of learning and its successors, Cambridge, 1995 G. Striker, Essays on Hellenistic Epistemology and Ethics [=EHEE], Cambridge 1996 H. Thorsrud, Ancient Scepticism (Ancient Philosophies), Durham and Berkeley, 2010

Time-table and weekly readings Please note: ‘+’ indicates suggested background reading (especially if you are not familiar with the broader area); * indicates further readings; no prefix means reading to be done for class.

Week 1: Introduction to the course. Early Greek theories of knowledge: Heraclitus, Xenophanes of Elea, Protagoras. Primary sources R. McKirahan (ed) Philosophy Before Socrates, Berkeley, 1994 (chapters 7, 10, 19-20) *Diels, H. and Kranz, W. (1934), Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker 5th ed., 2 vols., Berlin, *Freeman, K. (1948) Ancilla to the Presocratic Philosophers. A Complete translation of the [B] Fragments in Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, Oxford *Kirk, G.S., Raven, J. Schofield, M. (1983) The Presocratic Philosophers, 2nd ed. Cambridge *J. Lesher (ed), Xenophanes of Colophon. Fragments: A Text and Translation with a Commentary, Toronto, 1992 *Sprague, R.K. (ed.), The Older Sophists: A Complete translation, 1972

Secondary literature +Osborne, C. (2004) Presocratic Philosophy: A very Brief Introduction, Oxford +Taylor, C.C.W., ed. (1997) Routledge History of Philosophy, vol. I. From the Beginning to Plato, London + Laks, A. “Soul, sensation and thought” 250- 270 in Long, A.A. (ed), The Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy, Cambridge, 1999 E. Hussey, ‘The beginnings of epistemology: from Homer to Philolaus’ in Everson (ed) Epistemology, 11- 38 Mi-Kyoung Lee, Epistemology after Protagoras, Oxford, 2005, chapters 2,3 J. Lesher, J. ‘Xenophanes’ scepticism’ Phronesis 23, 1-21, 1978 J. Lesher, ‘Early Interest in Knowledge’ in Long (ed), The Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy, 1999, 225-249

2

*J. Barnes, The Presocratic Philosophers, London, 1982 (2nd edition, 1st ed. in 2 vols., 1979) *Graham, D. and Curd, P. eds., (2008) The Oxford Companion to Presocratic Philosophy, Oxford *Guthrie, W.K.C., A History of Greek Philosophy, vol. I (1962) and II (1965), Cambridge *Hussey, E. ‘Epistemology and Meaning in Heraclitus’ in Schofield, M. and Nussbaum, M. (eds), Language and Logos, Cambridge, 1982, 33-59. *E. Hussey, The Presocratics, London/ Indianapolis, 1972 (repr. 1995) *G.B. Kerferd, The Sophists, Cambridge, 1981 *M.Nussbaum ‘Eleatic Conventionalism and Philolaus on the Conditions of Thought’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 83 (1979), 63-108. *J. de Romilly, The Great Sophists in Periclean Athens, Oxford, 1992 *J. Warren, Presocratics. Natural Philosophers before Socrates, Stockfield, 2007 *Woodruff, P. “Rhetoric and relativism: Protagoras and Gorgias” in Long (1999) (above) 290-310 Week 2. Inquiry, knowledge and belief (Plato, Meno and Republic V-VII ) Selected Reading: Primary sources: Plato, Meno Plato, Republic V-VII (473C-520D) Secondary literature: +J. Annas, An Introduction to Plato’s Republic, Oxford, 1981 +J. Annas, Plato: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford, 2003 G. Fine, ‘Inquiry in the Meno’ in her Plato on Knowledge and Forms and in R. Kraut (ed) Cambridge Companion to Plato, 1992 G. Fine, ‘Knowledge and true belief in the Meno’, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 27 (2004), 41-81 G. Fine, ‘Knowledge and Belief in Republic V-VII’ in Everson (ed) Epistemology, 85-111 *D. Devereux, ‘Nature and teaching in Plato’s Meno’, Phronesis 23/2 (1978), 118-126 (online)  *G. Fine, ‘Knowledge and Belief in the Republic V’, Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 60/2 (1978), 121–139, reprinted in her Plato on Knowledge and Forms *D. Scott, Recollection and experience: Plato’s theory of learning and its successors, Cambridge 1995, 3 - 85 *D. Scott, Plato’s ‘Meno’, Cambridge, 2006

Week 3: Knowledge is perception (Plato, Theaetetus I) Primary sources: Plato, Theaetetus 151D – 186E Secondary literature: M.F. Burnyeat, ‘Introduction’ in M. Burnyeat, M.J. Levett (edd) The Theaetetus of Plato, Hackett 1990, 1 – 64 M.F. Burnyeat, ‘Protagoras and self-refutation in Plato’s Theaetetus’, in Philosophical Review 85 (1976) and in Everson 1990, 39 – 59

3

*G. Fine, ‘Protagorean Relativisms’, in Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy 10 (1994), 211-43 and in her PKF, 132 – 59 *G. Fine, ‘Conflicting Appearances: Theaetetus 153D – 154B’ in C. Gill and M.M. McCabe (eds) Form and Argument in Late Plato, Oxford, 1996, 105 – 33 and in her PKF, 160 – 83, *G. Fine, Plato’s Refutation of Protagoras in the Theaetetus’, in Apeiron 32 (1998), 201 – 34 and in her PKF, 184 – 212

Week 4: Knowledge is true belief (Plato, Theaetetus II) Reading: Primary sources: Plato, Theaetetus 187D – 201C Selected secondary literature: M.F. Burnyeat, ‘Introduction’, 65 – 127 *J. Barnes, ‘Socrates and the Jury’, [II]. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. Suppl. 54 (July 1980), 193-206. *D. Barton, ‘The « Theaetetus » on how we think’, Phronesis 44/3(1999), 163-180 (online) Benson, Hugh H. Why Is There a Discussion of False Belief in the "Theaetetus"? Journal of the History of Philosophy. 30/2 (1992) 171-199. *M F. Burnyeat, ‘Socrates and the Jury’. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. Suppl. 54 (July 1980), 173-192. *P. Crivelli, ‘The argument from knowing and not knowing in Plato's Theaetetus (187 e 5188 c 8)’, Proceedings of Aristotelian Society 96 (1996), 177-196 *G. Fine, ‘False Belief in the Theaetetus’ in Phronesis 24 (1979), 70 – 80 and in her PKF, 213-224 *Woolf, Raphael. ‘A Shaggy Soul Story: How Not to Read the Wax Tablet Model in Plato's Theaetetus’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 69/3 (2004), 573-604. Week 5: Knowledge as Justified True Belief (Plato, Theaetetus III). Reading: Primary sources: Theaetetus 201C – 210D Select secondary literature: M.F. Burnyeat, ‘Introduction’, 128 – 242. *G. Fine, ‘Knowledge and "Logos" in the "Theaetetus"’. Philosophical Review 88 (1979) 366-397 and in her PKF, 225 - 251 *Shields, Christopher. ‘The logos of “logos”: Theaetetus 206 C-210 B’, Apeiron 32/4 (1999), 107-124 *Thomas, C. J. ‘Theaetetus' snubness and the contents of Plato's thoughts’. Ancient Philosophy 22/1 (2002), 53-74. *Watanabe, K. ‘The Theaetetus on letters and knowledge’. Phronesis 32 (1987), 143-165.

Week 6: Aristotle’s theory of knowledge: the knowledge of principles and the theory of learning

4

Reading: Primary sources: Aristotle, Posterior Analytics I. 1 – 4, 8,10,13; II 1-2, 8-10, 12, 19; Prior Analytics 1.1-7 On the Soul, 2.12, 3.1 – 6 (All the primary readings for this and following class can be conveniently found in J.L. Ackrill (ed) A New Aristotle Reader, Oxford, 1987) Select secondary literature: +J. Barnes, Aristotle: a Very Short Introduction, Oxford, 2000 +J. Lear, Aristotle: the Desire to Understand, J. Barnes (ed) Aristotle, Posterior Analytics (commentary) C.C.W. Taylor, ‘Aristotle’s epistemology’ in Everson, Epistemology, 116 – 142 *J.L. Ackrill, ‘Aristotle’s Theory of Definition: Some questions on Posterior Analytics 2.810’ in his Essays on Plato and Aristotle, Oxford, 1997, 110 – 130 *J. Allen, IFS, 13 - 86 *D. Scott, Recollection and experience, 87 - 156 *C. Shields, Aristotle, Routledge, 2007

Week 7. Epicurus’ epistemology. Reading: Primary sources: B.C. Inwood, L.P. Gerson (eds), Hellenistic Philosophy: Introductory Readings, Indianapolis: Hackett, 1988 A.A. Long, D.N. Sedley (eds), The Hellenistic philosophers, 2 vols, Cambridge, 1987 Selected secondary literature: +S. Everson, ‘Epicureanism’ in D. Furley (ed), From Aristotle to Augustine, London, 1997, 188-221 S. Everson, ‘Epicurus on the truth of the senses’, in Everson, Epistemology, 161 – 183 A.A. Long, Hellenistic philosophy: Stoics, Epicureans, Sceptics, ‘Introduction’, Berkeley, 1974, 14-29 R.W. Sharples, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, ch. 1, London, 1996, 5-8, 11-19 *J. Allen, IFS, 194 - 241 *E. Asmis, Epicurus’ Scientific Method, Ithaca, 1984 *E. Asmis, ‘Epicurean Epistemology’ in CHHP, chapter 8. D. Sedley, ‘On Signs’ in J. Barnes et al. (eds) Science and Speculation, Cambridge 1982, 23972 *G. Striker, ‘The problem of the criterion’ in S. Everson (ed), 1990, 143-160 and in her EHEE. *G. Striker, ‘Epicurus on the truth of sense-impressions’ in Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 59 (1977), 125 – 42 and in her EHEE. *C.C.W. Taylor, ‘All perceptions are true’ in Schofield, Burnyeat, Barnes (eds) Doubt and Dogmatism, 1980, 105 – 24 and in his Pleasure, Mind and Soul, Oxford, 2008 (online)

5

Week 8: Impression and assent: Stoic perspective Reading Primary sources: C. Brittain, Cicero On Academic Scepticism B.C. Inwood, L.P. Gerson (eds), Hellenistic Philosophy: Introductory Readings, Indianapolis: Hackett, 1988 A.A. Long, D.N. Sedley (eds), The Hellenistic philosophers, 2 vols, Cambridge, 1987 (selected texts) Selected secondary literature: +Annas, Hellenistic Philosophy of Mind, Berkeley, 1992, chapters 3-4 +B. Inwood, ‘Stoicism’ in D. Furley (ed), From Aristotle to Augustine, London, 1997, 222252 J. Annas, ‘Stoic Epistemology’ in S. Everson (ed) Epistemology / Companions to ancient thought 1, Cambridge, 1990, 184 – 203 M. Frede, ‘Stoic epistemology’, in K. Algra, J. Barnes, J. Mansfeld, M. Schofield (eds), Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy, Cambridge, 1999, 295-322J. Allen, IFS, 147 194 R.J. Hankinson, ‘Stoic Epistemology’ in B. Inwood (ed) The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics, Cambridge, 2003, 59-84J. A.A. Long, Hellenistic philosophy: Stoics, Epicureans, Sceptics, ‘Introduction’, Berkeley, 1974, 107-147 R.W. Sharples, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, ch. 1, London, 1996, 20-27 *B. Inwood, J. Mansfeld (eds) Assent and Argument: Studies in Cicero’s Academic Books, Brill, 1997 *A.A. Long, ‘Language and Thought in Stoicism’ in A.A. Long (ed) Problems in Stoicism, London, 1971 (repr. 1996), 75 - 113 *F.H. Sandbach, ‘Phantasia katalêptikê’ in A.A. Long (ed) Problems in Stoicism, London, 1971, 9-21 *F.H. Sandbach, ‘Ennoia and Prolêpsis’ in A.A. Long (ed) Problems in Stoicism, London, 1971, 22 - 37 *G. Watson, The Stoic theory of knowledge, Belfast, 1966

Week 9: Impression and assent: Academic objections Reading Primary Sources: Cicero, On Academic Scepticism, trans., Intro., notes by Charles Brittain, Indianapolis/Cambridge, 2005 A.A. Long, D.N. Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers, Cambridge, 1987, sec. 1-3, 39-42, 6872 Selected secondary literature: M. Schofield, ‘Academic epistemology’ in K. Algra, J. Barnes, J. Mansfeld, M. Schofield (eds), Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy, Cambridge, 1999, 323 – 51.

6

G. Striker, ‘Kritêrion tês alêtheias’, in her Essays on Hellenistic Epistemology and Ethics, Cambridge, 1996, 22-71 *Ch. Brittain, Philo of Larisa, Oxford University Press, 2000 *J.M. Cooper, ‘Arcesilaus: Socratic and Skeptic’ in his Knowledge, Nature, and the Good, Princeton, 2004, 81 – 106 *R.J. Hankinson, The Sceptics, London and New York, 1995 *B. Inwood, J. Mansfeld (eds) Assent and Argument: Studies in Cicero’s Academic Books, Brill, 1997 *A.A. Long, ‘Arcesilaus in his time and place’ in his From Epicurus to Epictetus, Oxford, 2006, 96 – 113 *H. Thorsrud, Ancient Scepticism (Ancient Philosophies), Durham and Berkeley, 2010

Week 10: The Epistemology of the ‘Empiricist’ school of medicine Primary sources: Galen, Three Treatises on the Nature of Science, Hackett, 1985 Secondary literature: + V. Nutton, Ancient Medicine, London, Routledge, 2005 + M. Frede, ‘Philosophy and medicine in antiquity’, in his Essays on Ancient Philosophy, 225-242 M. Frede, ‘The Ancient Empiricists’ in his Essays on Ancient Philosophy, 243 - 260 M. Frede, ‘An empiricist view of knowledge: memorism’, in Everson (ed), Epistemology, 225 – 250 *M. Frede, ‘The Method of the So-Called Methodist School of Medicine’ in his Essays on Ancient Philosophy, 261 - 278 Week 11: Pyrrhonism Primary sources: Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Scepticism, ed. by Julia Annas and J. Barnes, Cambridge, 2001, ‘Introduction’, Book 1; Book 2 sections i-xi. B. Inwood, L. Gerson (eds) Hellenistic Philosophy: Introductory Readings, Indianapolis/Cambridge, 1988 (2nd ed. 1997), 261-341 Select secondary literature: J. Barnes, ‘Some ways of scepticism’, in Everson 1990 M. Frede, ‘The sceptics’, in D. Furley (ed), From Aristotle to Augustine, London, 1997, 253286 R.W. Sharples, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, ch. 1, London, 1996, 27-32 *J.E. Annas, J. Barnes, The Modes of Scepticism: Ancient Texts and Modern Interpretations, Cambridge, 1985 *J. Barnes, The Toils of Scepticism, Cambridge, 1990 *R. Bett, Pyrrho, his antecedents and his legacy, Oxford University Press, 2000 *R. Bett (ed) The Cambridge Companion to Scepticism, 2010 *M. Burnyeat, M. Frede (eds), The Original Sceptics: A Controversy, Indianapolis, Hackett, 1997 *R.J. Hankinson, The Sceptics, London, Routledge, 1995 *A.A. Long, Hellenistic philosophy: Stoics, Epicureans, Sceptics, Berkeley, 1974, 75-106

7

*C. Perin, The Demands of Reason: an Essay on Pyrrhonian Scepticism, Oxford, 2010 *R. Polito, The sceptical road: Aenesidemus' appropriation of Heraclitus, Leiden, Brill, 2006 *G. Striker, ‘The problem of the criterion’, in her Essays on Hellenistic Epistemology and Ethics, Cambridge, 1996, 150-65 *G. Striker, ‘Sceptical strategies’, ibid., 92-115 *G. Striker, ‘The Ten Tropes of Aenesidemus’, ibid., 116-134 *G. Striker, ‘On the difference between the Pyrrhonists and the Academics’, ibid., 135-149

Extensions Students are expected to monitor their workload, be aware of all deadlines and be able to organise themselves accordingly. Extension requests should be submitted before the submission deadline. They must be submitted to the Teaching Office for approval, and must include details of the assessment(s) affected and length of extension requested, together with supporting evidence if required. Other than in exceptional circumstances, extensions will only be granted in cases of illness or family emergency. If students are seeking extensions for more than one week, they must provide medical evidence and/or discuss the request with the Student Support Officer. Extension requests due to time mismanagement, personal computing/printing problems or ignorance of deadline will not be accepted. The Teaching Office will email the student to tell them whether the extension has been granted. The decision conveyed in this email is final; if students feel that they have been unfairly denied an extension they should make a case to the special circumstances committee for the removal of late submission penalties at the examination board. Retrospective extensions will not be granted. However, late submission penalties may be waived if a student requests an extension on the day of the submission deadline but cannot get medical evidence until some days later. Extensions include weekends and University holidays. If an extended deadline falls on a weekend, the work should be submitted by 9:30am on the next working day (i.e., work which would be due at 4pm on Saturday due to an extension should be submitted by 9:30am on the following Monday). Students with Adjustment Schedules Extension requests from students with adjustment schedules that allow 'short notice extensions' will be treated sympathetically where possible. Students should however be prepared to give a reason for the extension request; simply citing an adjustment schedule is not an adequate reason. If students are seeking extensions for more than one week, they must provide medical evidence and/or discuss the request with the Student Support Officer. Special Circumstances Students may apply for consideration of special circumstances if they feel that events out with their control have resulted in poor exam performance in comparison to their previous coursework record or even missing an exam. These circumstances most commonly include illness or bereavement but can be submitted for a variety of issues. 8

It is the student’s responsibility to complete a Special Circumstances form giving as much detail as possible and providing supporting evidence. All submissions must be accompanied by medical or other documentation.

PLEASE NOTE THAT WEEK 6, SEMESTER 2, IS INNOVATIVE LEARNING WEEK.

9