La nceput se gsete versiunea n romn, apoi n englezSINTEZAELEMENTE DE LOGIC I METODOLOGIE LA MICII SOCRATICI

1.Introducere

Socrate s-a nscut i a trit cea mai mare parte a vieii sale la Atena, ntre anii 469-399 .e.n. El a fost deschiztorul epocii de aur a fiosofiei antice, prin triada Socrate, Platon, Aristotel i a fost nu numai prim figur a filosofiei greceti, ci i una din cele mai importante ale filosofiei universale. Tatl su, Sophroniscos, a fost sculptor n piatr, iar mama sa, Phainarete, moa. Meseriile prinilor i-au pus amprenta asupra activitii sale viitoare, el spunnd c este sculptor de oameni al cror suflet l modeleaz pentru a deveni mai buni i i moete pe drumul cutrii dreptii, dobndirii adevrului. Pn la 40 de ani s-a ndeletnicit cu meseria tatlui su, apoi cu filosofia n restul anilor ce s-au sfrit cu tragicul proces. ntreaga istorie a filosofiei greceti este dominat de Socrate. Noi nu vrem s facem din el doar un personaj istoric; Socrate domin istoria, i arat drumul pe care trebuie s-l urmeze dar se sustrage totui, plutete deasupra tuturor evenimentelor. Acest universalism al influenei sale, este observat n clasificrile fcute de istorici asupra diferitelor coli filosofice ce i-au urmat, n funcie de intensitatea folosirii nvmintelor sale. Astfel, gsim micii socratici(cinicii, cirenaicii, megaricii) i marii socratici(Academia lui Platon, Liceul lui Aristotel). Trebuie fcut precizarea c, mici socratici nu sunt doar reprezentanii colilor filosofice recunoscute de istoria filosofiei, ci toi cei care au ncercat sau ncearc s neleag modul de gndire al marelui filosof; inclusiv noi putem fi numrai n rndul micilor socratici. Gndirea socratic a avut un rol deosebit n apariia Ideilor Platoniciene, chiar n raiunile ce au premers apariiei cretinismului sau altor concepii raionaliste ulterioare. Despre presocratici(ionienii sau milesienii, efesenii cu Heraclit, eleaii, pitagoreicii), sec.VII-VI .H., nu ne oprim s spunem dect c au pregtit apariia modului de gndire socratic; mod de gndire care, dei supra pe unii oameni politici ai Atenei socratice, dup cum se ntmpl i cu unii gnditori moderni precum Nietzsche, Schopenhauer sau alii asemntori lor n gndire, noi suntem convini c Socrate este axul istoriei filosofiei, cu el se sfrete un moment istoric i cu el ncepe altul.

Trebuie s vedem, mai nti, n ce const coninutul gndirii socratice. Dup cum tim, Socrate nu ne-a lsat nimic scris, mrind astfel suspansul cu privire la ideile i chiar existena sa. Contemporanii si, mpreun cu cei care i-au urmat ndeaproape felul de a gndi, ne-au lsat manuscrise imense, cu informaii ce se contrazic uneori, fcndu-ne s preferm a vorbi, mai sigur, despre un Socrate al lui Platon, un Socrate al lui Xenofon, un Socrate al lui Aristotel sau un Socrate al lui Aristofan, ce se situeaz pe o poziie opus celor dinaintea sa, considerndu-l pe Socrate un vorbre ridicol, un sofist ateu i blasfemiator care cere bani pentru nvturile sale. Din scoaterea n eviden, de ctre dialogurile lui Platon, a superioritii lui Socrate asupra sofitilor, pe care-i nvingea ntotdeauna prin argumentele sale, ni s-a format o viziune negativist asupra acestora.

Platon l-a ntlnit pe Socrate n anul 407 .e.n., cnd avea douzeci de ani i ascult timp de opt ani, pn n anul 399 .e.n., prelegerile celui care l atrgea spiritual, neparticipnd ns la ultimele clipe dinaintea morii ilustrului su profesor. Dei Platon a fost influenat n scrierile sale i de eleai, heraclitieni sau pitagoreici, dialogurile sale se centreaz pe figura lui Socrate, ce i nvingea ntotdeauna adversarii prin argumente nsoite de ironia-i specific. Platon se bucura de o personalitate puternic n vremea respectiv, de aceea, nu putem considera, cu siguran, c toate replicile dialogurilor aparineau, n exclusivitate, lui Socrate; n ultima scriere platonician, se fcea simit absena lui Socrate. Puterea imaginii socratice sufer, astfel, din cauz c cea mai nalt idealizare a sa este oferit posteritii de ctre Platon.

Xenofon, aa cum ne prezint Diogenes Laertios o ntmplare, atunci cnd s-a ntlnit cu Socrate pe o strad din Atena, acesta l-a ntrebat: Unde se cumpr cele trebuincioase vieii?, Unde nvei s devii un om cumsecade?. Deoarece Xenofon nu a tiut ce s-i rspund, Socrate i-a spus: Vino cu mine, i voi arta eu. Vedem, astfel, un simplu procedeu al induciei amplificatoare, n concluzia Vino cu mine, i voi arta eu, se las loc unor informaii subnelese, ceva n plus fa de premise.2.Metoda socratic

Metoda folosit n discuiile sale era arta de a scoate la lumin adevrul cu ajutorul ntrebrilor, metod numit de Platon maieutic , de la cuvntul grecesc maieon care se traduce prin a moi. Mama nsrcinat are nevoie de moa pentru a scoate copilul la lumin, omul are nevoie de ajutor, s fie moit ca s scoat la iveal adevrul ce se afl n interiorul su, este nsrcinat cu el. Prerea oamenilor c dobndesc cunotine noi este considerat de Socrate o simpl reamintire, n greac anamnesis, prin care se nelege ceea ce sufletul omenesc a cunoscut ntr-o via anterioar. Aici recunoatem teoria metempsihozei, promovat de pitagoreici, dup care sufletele oamenilor trec n alte fiine vii dup dispariia noastr, teorie care i-a pus amprenta i asupra lui Platon. Eironeiesthai- n grecete nseamn a ntreba, reprezint ironia folosit de Socrate atunci cnd mima netiina, ignorana sau neputina proprie, doar nchipuit, a partenerului de dialog, fcndu-l s renune la slbiciunile obinuite. Interlocutorii tineri erau slab dojenii, pe cnd cei n vrst, oameni de vaz n cetate, erau supui unei

ironii ce i punea n situaii dificile, atrgndu-i ura din partea lor.

Socrate vroia s se cunoasc pe el nsui, propriul suflet care l nva ce trebuie s fac. Despre imortalitatea sufletului, noi putem s punem urmtoarea ntrebare:poate cineva s distrug sufletul?. De aici putem trage concluzia, c nu ne-am nelat gndindu-ne c ar fi posibil aa ceva, dect dac avem n vedere un om bolnav, care judec injust i este nebun. Doar aa putem gsi un om care s simt plcerea unor activiti ce pot distruge sufletul, contiina ce l reprezint. Socrate nu credea n zei, ca n nite fiine supranaturale care fac activiti supranaturale, zeul n care credea filosoful nostru este cel care l nva ce este bine sau nu, nvminte introduse de zeu prin contiina omului; totul depinde de alegerea omului, dac face lucruri bune sau rele, de care va da, pn la urm, socoteal.3.Cinicii, cirenaicii, megaricii

coala cinic, ale crei baze au fost puse de Anthistenes din Atena, poart numele de la locul unde se nva, Kynsarges(n traducere, cine alb sau gras), artnd modul de comportament, viaa cineasc. Anthistenes, s-a inspirat din morala socratic i a dezvoltat teme privind libertatea interioar, abinerea de la nevoile exterioare, devalorizarea plcerilor i a vieii sociale. Metoda sa, motenit de la Socrate, era ndreptat spre controvers, nvmintele sale cereau lipsa de patimi i perseverena n aciunile ntreprinse.

Anthistenes l contrazicea pe Platon n privina raportului Unu-Multiplu, esenial trebuia s fie individualul, nu generalul; conteaz lucrurile singulare care exist n lumea noastr, diversitatea, multiplicitatea, nu. Unicitatea ca fiin suprem ce domin existenialitatea. Omul se vede, dar umanitatea nu. O asemenea concepie ducea la relativizarea valorilor, nu la valori universale. Ne punem ntrebarea: Dac omul Socrate avea identitatea absolut cu sine nsui, adic propriul bine, curaj, dreptate, atunci am mai putea considera dreptatea, curajul, binele, ca aparinnd n egal msur i celorlali oameni?. El se oprete asupra diferitelor aciuni omeneti, la plcerile diferite ale fiecruia, dar nu atinge universalitatea socratic, morala actelor comise.

Cu Dion din Prusa, zis Hrisoastomos, cinicii rennoiesc retorica, discursul avea putere de persuasiune. Prin retoric nelegem arta de a vorbi frumos, de a convinge un auditoriu de justeea ideilor expuse printr-o argumentaie bogat, riguroas, avnd la baz diferite stiluri. Retoricianul nu a inut cont de ceea ce este just i onorabil, sau ceea ce este bine; a admis ca toi cei ce vin la el, chiar dac l ignor, i poate nva s nlture contradiciile, fiecare om va accepta ca plcute anumite lucruri, totul pe baza unor ntrebri bine capturate n argumentri ce duc la anumite rezultate. coala cirenaic sau hedonist, are deci ca ntemeietor pe Aristippos din Cyrene(aprox.435-350 .e.n.), o colonie greceasc din Africa de Nord.

Deasupra plcerii trebuia pus nelepciunea, raiunea care ne ajut s ne formm obiceiuri, activiti morale care ne ndrum spre bine i ne feresc s facem ru. Binele ine de nelepciune, de dreptate, n timp ce rul, care d durerea, ine de netiin i de acte nedrepte. Vedem astfel apropierea de Socrate, prin coroborarea actelor drepte cu tiina i a actelor nedrepte cu netiina. Plcerea este legat de manifestarea corpului, bucuria ns, ine de virtute, de bogia noastr spiritual. coala megaric este o coal socratic nfiinat de Eukleides din Megara(450-380 .e.n.), cel care a ncercat o sintez ntre ontologia eleat i morala socratic. Dup eleai, binele se identific cu Unu(identitate imobil), iar orice form de multiplicitate i devenire este negat. Poziia socratic apr n domeniul etic monismul eleailor, neag existena rului, care este doar o ignorare a Binelui. mbinarea celor dou poziii ne conduce la un comportament ascetic din care se exclude preocuparea pentru bunurile contingente, iar scopul este realizarea Binelui-Unu. coala megaric a avut o metod de discuii n contradictoriu, metoda eristic, - a controverselor verbale. De aici, coala este cunoscut i ca eristic sau dialectic. Argumentele megaricilor au fost formulate prin ntrebri i rspunsuri. Noi amintim: Mincinosul, unul dintre cele mai mari paradoxuri de-a lungul istoriei, Ascunsul, Chelul.

Opunndu-se lui Aristotel, megaricii(coal filosofic nfiinat de Euclid din Megara) se foloseau de propoziii, nu de termeni, n demonstraiile logice deductive. Propoziiile folosite se noteaz cu litere mici(p,q,r...) i se numesc variabile propoziionale. n zilele noastre, Quine apare cu dou idei care stau la baza ontologiei sale: a fi este a fi valoarea variabilei i nici o entitate fr identitate. Prima ne arat criteriul ontologic al lui Quine a fi este a fi valoarea variabilei.

Susan Haack, n capitolul Ce reprezint conectorii, spunea: A identifica un sistem din calculul propoziional, nu este nevoie doar de axiome, reguli i interpretrio ale lor, prin anumite matrici; avem nevoie mai ales de valori care reprezint adevrul i falsitatea, reprezentate de litere mici, precum p, q, r, s......care reprezint anumite propoziii simple ce pot forma, cu ajutorul conectorilor logici de negaie, conjucie, disjuncie, alte propoziii comple ce le poart numele.

Revenind la megarici, se mergea pe ideea c adevrul poate fi gsit i prin eliminarea aseriunilor false. Modus tollens ne spune c dac consecina unei propoziii este fals, atunci i ea este fals. De exemplu:

pq

q

...........

p

Dac Socrate i recunotea nvinuirile aduse la proces=p atunci el ar fi fost liber i oamenii nu ar mai fi crezut n spusele sale=q. Dar oamenii au rmas ncreztori n cele propovduite de el=q. Rezult c Socrate nu i-a recunoscut nvinuirile aduse la proces=q. Stoicii erau ferm convini c totul este supus divinitii, fiecare fenomen din univers se desfoar conform unei cauze determinate, stabilite dinainte, astfel c fiecare eveniment din viaa real este necesar s se ntmple aa cum se ntmpl i nu altfel. De aceea se foloseau propoziiile, n demonstraiile logice, pentru a dovedi aceast necesitate a desfurrii faptelor de zi cu zi. Aici a fost punctul de plecare n utilizarea operatorilor logici de conjuncie, disjuncie exclusiv sau neexclusiv, implicaie, echivalen.

O schem a propoziiilor compuse ce rezult cu ajutorul operatorilor logici, poate fi redat n felul urmtor:

pq p&q pq pVq pq pq p q pwq pq pq

11 1 11 1 11 1 11 0 11 1

10 0 10 1 10 0 10 1 10 0

01 0 01 1 01 1 01 1 01 0

00 0 00 0 00 1 00 0 00 1

Oricare ar fi fost deosebirile ntre Socrate i discipolii si, un lucru l-au avut n comun, cutarea nelepciunii.

SYNTHESIS

ELEMENTS OF LOGIC AND METODOLOGY AT THE MINORS SOCRATICS

1.Introduction

From the start, I want to establish some statements about the big philosoph Socrate and what signify the minors socratics.

Socrate was born and he lived the biggest part of his life in Atena, between the years 469-399 .e.n. He was pathfinder of the gold age to antique philosophy, about the order Socrates, Plato, Aristotel and he was not only the first figure at Greek philosophy, but also one of the famoust who belong at universal philosophy. His father, Sophroniscos, was carver in stone and her mother, Phainarete, midwife. Crafts of his parents placed the impression towards his future preocupations; said that is carver of the men, whose soul he fashion for will become better and they have need in usual activities of person like a midwife to the way where search the right, to acquire the truth. Pending 40 years he dealed with craft of his father, than with philosophy in all the years witch succed the death of the tragic trial.

The whole history of Greek philosophy is marks by Socrates.We don t want to make of him just a historian hero. Socrates lords the history, show the way who must to follow but yet evade, hovers above whole events. This worldwide of his influence, can be observed in the classifications maked by historics men at differents philosophics schools who followed him, in function at the intensity use of his highers educations. So, we find the minors socratiques(the men who represents schools of cynics, cyrenaics, megarics) and the big socratics(the Academy of Plato, the secondary of Aristotel). We must be specify about the minors socratics, they are not just delegates at philosophics schools recognized by history of psilosophy, but also everybody tried to understand the think mode who belong at Socrates.

The socratic thinking had a remarkable role in the appearance to Plato s Ideas, even in reasons before the appearance of Christianity or any conceptions rationalized in future. About presocratics, sec.VII-VI .e.n., we stopped to say just that prepaired the appearance of thinking mode socratic; thinking about mode which, even get angry for some politics men who belong Atena at this time, in the same case at some moderns thinkers like Nietzsche, Schopenhauer or any similars men in their thinking. We are sures that Socrates is the shaft of philosophy history, with him, we have the finish of one historic moment and with him beging another moment.

Must to see, for the first time, in what reside the message of socratic thinking. We Know that Socrates don t sagged nothing in write, was augmented in such a way the suspense about Ideas and even his existence. His moderns, alongside with those who followed nearby his mode of thinking, they dump us the enormous manuscripts, with informations what are in the contrary sometimes, makes us prefere to talk, certainly, about a Socrates at Plato, a Socrates at Aristofanes; these are situate on a contrary position those before him, consider by Socrates a foolish speaker, an atheist sophist and that who tells blasphemies and requests money for his teachings. We observe that on to set apart by Plato s dialogues, the Socrate s superiority against sophists, whom he conquers all times by his arguments, we acquire a bad vision about these.

Plato meet be Socrates in 407 year .e.n., when he was twenty years and this, the first, listens for a while at eight years, until the year 399 .e.n., the lectures that who spiritual fascinate him, unparticipated at the last moments before the death of his great teacher. But, though Plato was affected in his masterpieces and Helleat, Pytagoreans, or the men who approved Heraclitus, his dialogues have in center the Socrates s figure, who conquered always the opponents by arguments accompanied by specific irony. Plato had a strong personality in those times, so, we couldn t considered, certainly, that all the contents of dialogues belongs, not counting, to Socrates; in the last masterpiece at Plato, we observw rhe Socrates s absence. The power of socratic imagine suffers in such a way, because the higher itself idealizy is offer to posterity by Plato.

Xenophanes, like presents Diogenes Laertios a happened, than when he met with Socrates on a street of, this put him a sentence: Where it is buy those necessarys at life? Where you learn to become a respectable man? Because Xenopfanes don t know what he answered, Socrates says him:Come with me, I ll show you!. We see, therefore, a simple method at magnification induction in the conclusion: Come with me, I ll show you!, remain some informations what can addeds over those which we observe at first side, when write the procedure of induction, the literary aspect.

2. Socrates s method Method who used in his discussions was the art of to bring forward the truth with help at questions, method which her name is maieutycs, about Plato, by Greek word maieon which translate similar midwife. The pregnant mother have need at midwife for to bring forward the child, man have need of help for to bring forward the truth who exist inside, he is pregnant with the truth. Opinion of the men about to acquire the knowledge is considerated of Socrates a simple memory. Greek anamnesis, whereby it is understand what human soul knew in the anteriory life. Here we recognize the theory of transmigration, introduced by Pytagoreans, the purport is that the men souls across in other being after our disappearance, theory who put her mark about Plato. Eironeiesthai, in Greek meaning to ask, signify the irony used by Socrates when he mimes unscience, ignorance or own unpower just pictured at dialog partner, make this to renounce at usuals weakness or faibles. The youngs interlocutors was faible, admonisheds, but, the older men, who occuped the high positions in fortress, received an irony who put them in difficult situations, and they have been angry for him.

Socrates wished to know himself, the soul who was teaching him, what must to do. About the immortality of the soul, we can to put the question: does any one disolve and distroy our soul?. We see that are not cheated into thinking, but just the unjust or foolish man try this and is happy when he destroy by injustice, or any similar situation, our feelings, conscience which represent the soul. This ruinous result, about the soul, appear because the unjust man has an illness.

Socrate don t believe in the gods like supernatural beings who make the supernatural activities, the god who believe our philosopher is he who teach him, infuse in conscience what is good or bad; afterwards, all depend of choice maked.

3. Cynics, Cyrenaics, Megarics The cynic school, with her base was instead of Anthistenes, in Ahena, keeps the name at place where it is studyed. Kynsarges, in translate meaning a white dog, show the mode of behaviour, life of the dog. Anthystenes inspired at Socrates s moral and developed theme about inside liberty, stopped of exterior needs, to depreciate of pleasure and social life. His method, inherit of Socrates, was pointed to contradiction, his learnings request absent of passions and perseverance in enterprises actions.

Anthystenes has contradictory opinion by Plato concerning the report One-Multiple, essential must to be the individual., not general; important are singular things which exists in our world, diversity, multiplicity, in no case. Oneness like the best being what dominates existence. The man it is observes but not umanity. This conceptio bring to relativity of values, not to universaly at values. We can put the question: If the man Socrates had the absolute identify with himself, meaning own good, who belong in the same way and those men? It is stopped about differents at human actions, at differens pleasures who belongs to everyone but don t touch the socratic universaly, the ethics, the morals of acts who makes.

With Dion from Prusa, Hrisoastomos, the cynics give us an reuewal concerning the rethoric, the address had power of conviction, persuasion. About rhetoric we understand the art to talk nice, to conviction the men who listen us of validity to Ideas exposes about an wealthy and rigid argumentation, had at base the different styles.The rhetorician denyed the just and the honourable and the good, and admitted that to any one who came to him ignorant of them he could teach them, and then out of this admission there arose a contradiction-the thing which every man so dearly, and to which not he, but every man, brought the argument by his captious questions.

The cyrenaic school or hedonist, has like founder to Aristippos from Cyrene(aproximate 435-320 .e.n.), an Greey colony from North Africa. Over the pleasure must keep the sagacity(wisdom), the reason which help us to form customs moral activitys who show us to good and safe the make bad. The Good keep sagacity, justice, meanwhile the bad, which give the pain, keep at unknowledge, unscience and unjustice acts. We see thus the approach, through the mix of truth acts with science, ethics and the untruth acts. The pleasure is bound of actions to the body, but enjoy, keep of virtue, of our spiritual wealth.

The megaric school is a socratic school started of Eukleides from Megara(450-380 .e.n.), that who tried and synthesis between heleat ontology and socratic moral. After heleats men, the Good it is identifys with One(inunovable identify) and any form of multiplicity or makig is denied. The socratic position defend in ehic domain the heleat monism, denied the existence of bad, with is just an neglect to Good. The megaric school had an method of contrary discussions., the heristic method which represents a verbal controversy. In such a way, the school is recognize like a eristic or an dialectical method.

The arguments of megarics was formulate through questions and requests. We remind: A man who lie, it is an veritable paradox, The hidden man, The hairless. The megarics opposed to Aristotels and they used of sentences, without terms, in their demonstrations. The sentences used it is notes with small characters(p,q,r,s...) and it is terms of sentencevariables. In our days, Quine has an publication with two Ideas who stays in base of his ontology: : to be is to be value of a variable and No entity without identity. The first show us the ontologic principle: to be is to be value of variable. Susan Haack, in the chapter The meanings of the connectives, says: To identify a system as a sentence calculus one does not only need to know the axiom/rules and their formal interpretation by means of matrices; one also needs to know that the values are to represent thruth and falsity, the letters p, q, r, s,..etc., to represent sentences, , negation, & conjunction, disjunction, and so forth.

To return at megarics, they considers that the truth can be find through expulsion the phoney considerations. Modus Tollens point us that if consequence of sentence is phoney, then he is phoney, certainly. For exemple:

pq

q

...........

p

If Socrates recognized the charges=p

Then could be free and men don t believed in his words=q But men remaind trustfuls in his learnings=q.

Result that Socrates not recognized the charges of trial=p

The stoics men was unshakeable convicted that all was coming to God, either phenomenon of universe it is to carry on proper one determinated cause, established before, thus that either event of real life is necessary to happen it in such a way is happen and not otherwise. So it is used the sentences in logic demonstrations, for to prove this necessity at to carry on the facts of day by day. There was the point of departure in used the logicals operators of conjunction, exclusive or not exclusive disjunction, implication, equivalence. An desing of the sentences what results with help of the logicals operators, can be rendered in the next form:

pq p&q pq pVq pq pq p q pwq pq pq

11 1 11 1 11 1 11 0 11 1

10 0 10 1 10 0 10 1 10 0

01 0 01 1 01 1 01 1 01 0

00 0 00 0 00 1 00 0 00 1

Whatever was the differences between Socrate and his disciple, one thing they had in common, the search of sagacity.

PAGE 1