Doxa and Episteme in Greek Philosophy

In Greek philosophy, the term "doxa" refers to belief or opinion. It is often contrasted with "episteme," which refers to knowledge or understanding based on logical reasoning and empirical evidence. The distinction between doxa and episteme is central to the philosophy of Plato and other ancient Greek philosophers who were concerned with the nature of truth and knowledge.

Doxa represents the realm of subjective beliefs that people hold, often influenced by social norms, rhetoric, or personal biases. These beliefs are not necessarily supported by rigorous proof or empirical observation. Episteme, on the other hand, denotes true knowledge that is justified through logical deduction and empirical methods. This knowledge is considered objective and reliable, contrasting with the more unstable and subjective nature of doxa.

This distinction emphasizes the philosophical attempt to differentiate between what appears to be true and what is actually true, aiming for a deeper understanding of reality through reasoned and empirical investigation.

Plato on Doxa and Episteme

Plato's views on doxa and episteme are fundamental to his theory of knowledge and reality, particularly as described in his famous work, "The Republic." Plato sharply distinguished between these two forms of cognition, arguing that they correspond to different levels of reality and understanding. For Plato, doxa includes the beliefs or opinions held by individuals that are not based on the rigorous and rational understanding necessary for true knowledge. These beliefs are often influenced by sensory experiences, which Plato considered deceptive and unreliable. In his allegory of the cave, for example, the shadows on the wall represent doxa; they are the perceptions of those who are not exposed to the true form of things. These shadows are mere reflections of reality and not reality itself, leading those who see them to hold false beliefs about what is true.

Episteme, in Plato's view, is the true knowledge that comes from intellectual understanding and reasoning, particularly concerning the Forms, which are the abstract, unchanging realities that Plato saw as the basis of the visible world of change. According to Plato, knowledge of the Forms is not accessible through sensory experience but through philosophical thinking and intellectual insight. In the allegory of the cave, the journey out of the cave into the sunlight and the ability to see objects in the real world—and ultimately the sun itself, symbolizing the Form of the Good—represent the path to episteme.

Plato argued that most people live in a state of doxa, guided by false beliefs derived from their limited and misleading sensory experiences. Only through philosophical inquiry and the education of the soul can one ascend from doxa to episteme, gaining a true understanding of the Forms and, consequently, the nature of reality itself.

Plato's distinction between doxa and episteme is also critical to his views on governance and society. He argued that philosophers, who are capable of reaching episteme, are the most suitable to lead, as they can understand the true Forms and thus discern the best ways of acting for society (the idea of the Philosopher King).

Aristotle on Doxa and Episteme

Aristotle's view of doxa and episteme differs notably from Plato's and reflects his more empirical approach to philosophy. While Plato emphasized the realm of ideas and the rational understanding of immutable ideals, Aristotle focused on the tangible world and the importance of empirical observation combined with rational analysis.

Aristotle also recognized the concept of doxa but did not dismiss it as entirely misleading or useless as Plato sometimes did. Instead, Aristotle acknowledged that doxa can serve as a starting point in the search for truth. He realized that opinions often contain some truth or stem from experiences that, while not entirely reliable or complete, contribute to the inquiry process that can lead to more certain knowledge. In his view, opinions are important for practical decision-making and are often all that is available in domains that do not lend themselves to rigorous scientific or philosophical investigation.

Episteme, for Aristotle, refers to demonstrable knowledge that can be logically proven and is universally true. This type of knowledge stems from first principles that are certain and self-evident, leading to necessary conclusions. Aristotle's method for gaining episteme involved both empirical evidence and rational inference, applicable in fields like mathematics and the natural sciences.

Aristotle also introduced other forms of knowledge, such as techne (art or craft) and phronesis (practical wisdom). Techne is knowledge about creating objects, while phronesis is socio-political ability. This distinction is critical because it shows that Aristotle valued different types of knowledge for different purposes, extending beyond the Platonic focus on episteme as the highest form of knowledge.

Plato on ths soul and afterlife

Plato had a unique understanding of the soul and its connection to the afterlife. In his dialogues he presents a theory of the soul that is both complex and profound, and has had a lasting influence on the development of Western thought and our perception of the human mind and existence. 

According to Plato, the soul is immortal and exists before we are born. He claimed that the soul, unlike the body, is eternal and is therefore the source of knowledge, virtue and goodness. According to Plato, the soul is divided into three parts: the rational part, the energetic or spirited part and the sensual or appetitive part. The rational part is responsible for reason, intelligence and knowledge. The energetic part is responsible for things like courage, honor and ambition. The appetitive part is responsible for mental movements such as desire, pleasure and the pursuit of material goods.

Plato believed that the ultimate goal of the soul is to reach a state of knowledge, virtue and goodness, which is the same as saying that the soul aims to find truth. For Plato, the one who knows the truth is also the one who acts in a just and good manner. According to him this state can only be achieved by the rational part of the soul, which must be in control and restrain the other parts. In this way he believed that the rational part of the soul is the highest and most important part, and that it is the key to achieving a just and good life.

For Plato, the journey of the soul to knowledge, virtue and goodness is not a journey that is completed during a person's lifetime, but one that continues after his death. He believed that the soul is immortal and that it continues to exist even after the body dies. He argued that death is simply a transition from one life to another, and that the soul continues to exist and learn in the afterlife. He believed that the soul's journey to knowledge, virtue and goodness is a process the runs to course of our entire life and even beyond them.

Plato's Republic and the modern state

Plato's "Republic" is one of the most influential texts in Western political thought. In this book, Plato presents his vision of the "just society" and the essence of justice. This social work had a profound effect on the development of political thought and continues to resonate in politics and political thought to this day.

Plato's "Republic" is divided into 10 books, in which his ideas are presented through dialogue between Socrates and various characters from Athens and beyond. In these dialogues, Socrates argues that justice is a virtue, and that a society in which justice prevails is a society in which all individuals and classes are able to fulfill their proper roles and responsibilities. Plato's vision of a just society is based on the concept of the "philosopher-king". He claims that the ideal ruler is a philosopher who has the knowledge and wisdom to rule justly. This ruler will be someone who seeks truth, virtue and the good of all citizens. In contrast, Plato sees the traditional rulers as those who seek only their power and wealth.

Plato also believed that a just society should be divided into different social classes, with each class having specific roles and responsibilities. The ruling class, consisting of philosopher-kings, will be responsible for running society. The auxiliary status will be responsible for protecting the company and maintaining order. The class of producers will be responsible for satisfying the material needs of the company. One of the most controversial aspects of Plato's thoughts about the state is his idea of the "noble lie." According to this line of thought, the ruling class needs to actively deceive the people in order to maintain order and stability. For example, Plato suggests that in order to convince the guardians of the earth to protect it with their souls, they must be told that the earth is in fact their mother. Plato argues that this is necessary because the people are unable to understand the true nature of justice and therefore need to be guided by those who do.

Plato's influence on political thought and the modern state

Plato's philosophy has had a profound influence on the development of  Western political thought. It served as a source of inspiration for various political theories and ideologies, including socialism and fascism. Many political thinkers, from Aristotle to Machiavelli to Karl Marx, were influenced by Plato's ideas. In contemporary politics, Plato's ideas continue to be relevant. His emphasis on the importance of virtue and wisdom in leadership is often cited in discussions of political ethics. His critique of democracy, as presented in the "Republic", is also relevant to contemporary discussions about the role of democracy in society and its potential pitfalls.

Plato's ideas also have implications in the modern context of government and administration, where the talent and virtue of the leader is often considered a key factor in the success of a company. Unfortunately for Plato (and perhaps others) we are not ruled by a philosopher king, but still believe that our rulers should excel in intellectual and moral virtues.

Plato and fascism

Plato's work, particularly The "Republic", has been cited as an influence on fascist ideology in regards to the concept of the philosopher-king. This idea is often associated with fascism, as it suggests that a small group of distinguished individuals should have the power to govern and make decisions for the rest of society. In addition, Plato's belief in a hierarchical society, where different classes have different roles and responsibilities, was also linked to fascist ideas about order and social hierarchy in which each person should serve as a cell serving the collective organism of the state.

However, it is important to note that Plato's ideas have been interpreted and reinterpreted over the centuries and that Plato's work has been used in a variety of ways, some of which are inconsistent with fascist thinking.

Summary: Aristotle / Nicomachean Ethics Book 10: Happines

Aristotle - Ethics - Book Ten - Pleasure and the Life of Happiness.

In the tenth book of Nicomachean Ethics    , Aristotle discusses pleasure and happiness. All his life man wonders what he should rejoice in and what he should hate, and these questions carry great weight regarding the good virtue and the happy longevity.

Some argue that pleasure is good, that all animals aspire to it and also that sorrow is not desirable at all. Plus when it connects to another good action then it increases the nature of the action. But therefore pleasure is not good, because the good to know Aristotle should be good for himself, and even from the fact that sorrow is bad one should not conclude that pleasure is good. Pleasure does not apply to everything equally, and in the same way (the more one learns, the pleasure is not necessarily greater) does not fulfill any need, and has sources that are not good. Pleasure according to Aristotle is not the good, and not every pleasure is desirable. But there are some desirable pleasures per se according to their image and origin.

The pleasure of knowing Aristotle belongs to the same things that are whole and whole, because in one moment the whole is revealed. Pleasure completes actions according to its own purpose. Therefore the pleasure is not continuous, since it accompanies the activity and complements it. And thus Aristotle argues that there are also different kinds of pleasure, depending on the activity it complements. The activities that accompany it are different for each person according to his nature, and even contribute to the success of the activity and perseverance in it. The pleasures foreign to the action, but accompanying it, harm the nature of the action and even cancel it out. Because there are actions that are good, bad, and that are not so and not so, so too with pleasures. Good pleasure, like good learning, is at the discretion of the decent man.

After discussing good virtue , friendship , and pleasure, Aristotle discusses happiness, which is the purpose for human actions. In Aristotle's opinion everything in the world is done for the purpose of happiness . Happiness derives from a lifestyle that is according to the good virtue, and is expressed in activity according to the good in essence, which is the theoretical action. The mind is the finest of powers, and recognition through it is the finest, and the most continuous. Also, the enjoyment of the theoretical activity is the best. Knowledge, philosophy, combine t with the basic needs of life is happiness. Strong on a person who lives a life of studyThey will leave him free time in life - "this activity is a person's perfect happiness". Such a way of life is superior to what is given to a person, so every person should live according to his life, in accordance with the superiority of its foundations, but at the same time take care of the life according to the mind - which is the person himself. The perfect happiness for Aristotle is a theoretical activity, since it is an activity close to the activity of the gods.

A second-rate lifestyle for Aristotle is a lifestyle according to the other good qualities which are of one man towards another. According to Aristotle acts that include character traits, which have a parallel in the virtues of the brain. But such a lifestyle needs greater external resources, in order to achieve greater happiness. Perfect good virtue is not possible without good intention.

For Aristotle the recognition of the good virtue is not enough, there is a need for deeds, to become excellent people. The person should be able to distinguish between what is proper and what is obscene, and since emotion is subject only to power, it is desirable to adapt the character from a young age to the good virtue. In adulthood they were subject to the laws of the state which in punitive threats, would be directed to the right way of life. Yet, Aristotle states, the good man should indulge in a decent life of his own free will and not coercion, and this should be instilled through education and state intervention in the lives of its citizens, a public concern. Those who have the knowledge, knowledge of the rules and experience, should take care of the public and refer it to a normal life.

Summary: Aristotle / Nicomachean Ethics Book 8: Friendship

Aristotle - Ethics Book Eight - Friendship.

Friendship for Aristotle is a good virtue , and it is necessary for our lives. It binds citizens of the state together, as it is similar to unity. In a country where citizens are friends there is no need for justice.

In book 8 of Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle lists three types of friendships:

Beneficial friendship - liking each other because of the benefit they give each other - for what is good for themselves, and not for who they are.

Friendship for pleasure - for what pleases themselves.

According to Aristotle these are types of friendships which are random, temporary, and premature when there is a change in the situation. Friendship for pleasure is better than friendship for good. Because happy people do not need helpful friends, but pleasant ones do.

Perfect friendship - friendship of good and similar people in terms of good virtue. Liking each other in and of themselves. And just want to get on well with each other. This friendship is rare and eternal, which is built over time.

According to Aristotle, perfect friendship is the property of good people. And she's also a good friend. Perfect friendship is true, by choice and it helps to achieve happiness. Friendship for Aristotle is equality because of the desire to do good and show affection. It is impossible to be friends of a large number of people at the same time.

Those in power will choose for themselves friends who are helpful and friends who are pleasant, but not good people who are both, since a good virtue should be in a proper status, and those in power do not have a good virtue. Aristotle argues that equal friendship is not possible between people of different classes, but is based on right.

According to Aristotle the nature of equality in friendship is different from the nature of equality in justice. Rightly according to what a person deserves, and in friendship absolute equality. Love should be given and received according to the middle index, that is, the desire to learn a balance.

In every partnership there is justice and friendship. Aristotle believes that man avoids doing injustice to his friends and wants to do good to them. The political partnership was created out of benefit, with justice at the forefront of legislators' minds. In regimes, friendship involves the degree of justice that exists in the country. In proper regimes there is friendship to a degree that decreases according to the good of the regime. According to Aristotle in deviations from the proper regimes there is almost no friendship in existence, because there is really no justice. In a dictatorial regime there is no friendship between the ruler and his subjects, due to the inequality, and the action for the benefit of the dictator and not of the people, as in slavery and lordship. Relationship between ruler and controlled as body to mind. The degree of friendship in the country increases in relation to the nature of the regime.

Great Summary: Aristotle / Nicomachean Ethics Book 2

Aristotle: Ethics: Book Two - The Good Virtue, and the Middle Path .

The good virtue according to Aristotle is divided into two types:

The virtues of the mind - wisdom, knowledge and understanding. A virtue acquired through teaching, and in need of experience and time.

Character qualities (ethical virtues) - generosity and common sense. They are bought out of habit, and are not innate.

Aristotle knows virtues which are innate cannot be changed, like the stone that will never move upwards. Everything given by nature is 'by force', and evolves into 'practice'. Aristotle argues that good virtue and omniscience are acquired as they are made. From doing so we will receive. If the actions are done badly so are the qualities we receive were bad, and if they are done well, so we are made good in them. The same is true of the virtues of character. Righteous versus wicked, brave versus cowards, etc. Habit is what determines everything.

Regarding the virtues of character, Aristotle claims that it is agreed that the person must act 'according to the correct pattern'. Acts become corrupt because of those who exaggerate in action and those who underestimate in action, and exist by virtue of the middle measure. Out of habit and experience in the virtue of good character, so it is bought. In addition, Aristotle believes that anyone who enjoys the actions done in accordance with the good virtue, he holds the same virtue of character. Therefore one needs proper education and habituation from a young age.

For Aristotle in order for deeds which according to the good virtue were truly out of justice and common sense need some conditions:

Action out of knowing - knowledge that comes from habit.

Action out of desire, desire for the name of the action.

Action from a stable and unshakable opinion.

As for the essence of the good virtue. Aristotle states that everything that comes from the soul falls into one of three categories:

Emotions - anything that is accompanied by pleasure or sorrow. They do not define a person, and they are not related to desire, but to tendencies.

Forces - an action by which we feel. A trait which is innate, and man has no control over it

Character Traits - What Determines Our Reaction to Emotions.

The best virtue according to Aristotle is a character trait.

The good virtue according to Aristotle is the character trait that is good to choose the middle way - what is neither excessive nor lacking. For Aristotle the middle is in relation to every man and every situation, defined by reason, and by a wise man. Aristotle's middle is exactly what is fine and successful, in everything. Another way to look at it, is easy to miss the target, and hard to hit, so add or subtract it is bad, and the middle - good. Of course there are actions that are fundamentally bad, so you will not find them through the middle. As actions that are proper, and therefore mediocre in nature, like common sense and courage. Even if on both sides of the sequence the features are bad the middle will be good. Aristotle believes that in order to find the middle one must find the edges of each feature, which are the features that are most in contrast to each other.

Aristotle emphasizes that it is not easy to grasp the middle, and that is where an expert is needed. So first of all one should stay away from the edges, and if already, then choose a tendency that is less bad. To get used to the middle Aristotle believes that we must first exaggerate and choose the side that gives the person less pleasure, and from this our ability to score in the middle will increase. Indecent is just the one who deviates often and much from the middle.

Great Summary: Aristotle / Nicomachean Ethics Book 1

Book One - The General Good and the Good Man 

Summary: The definition of good according to Aristotle in book 1 of Nicomachean Ethics is the same thing to which everything strives . But there is a need to distinguish between two different types of purpose for actions, the purpose of the action itself, and a purpose which is results which are different from the action itself, so the results of the action are more equal than the action itself. In addition, there are purposes which are for a particular purpose but also for a higher purpose, for which all the specific purposes are named. When we work for a lofty goal, it does not matter whether it is achieved by the action or by its results. The good is the same purpose to which we aspire, in itself and through other purposes . Therefore we must seek the same good. (It is clear that political science is the one whose good purpose is in the country, and therefore its way can be projected on personal good.)

According to Aristotle we are looking for what is the same thing which is fine and handsome. This requires knowledge of the subject of political science, which a young boy may not have, since knowledge is not the way to find the good, but the act . To find the good one needs experience in life, and the ability not to pursue the desires of life. Only people whose discretion directs their desires and they act accordingly will benefit from knowing about these issues.

There is a consensus among most human beings that the pinnacle of all fulfilling favors is happiness , and a life of happiness equals a good life. But there are disagreements about the nature of happiness, since it depends on the things that human beings desire. It is impossible to argue for universal good, for in every inquiry it is necessary to depart from the point which is already known to us, and not from the mere known. From this it can be understood that only the ‘well-educated’ person will understand the inquiry of happiness.

There are three types of life patterns associated with happiness:

A life of pleasure - to which the crowd is attracted.

Political life - which is the essence of gaining respect. But the good belongs to man per se and is not separate from him . The good virtue is superior to the honor. But even the good virtue is not happiness , for a man can have the good virtue but not do any deed all his life.

A life of thought - which will be discussed later.

The general good is the good in itself . Since everything can be said about it that there is a situation that is good, it is impossible for there to be a separate 'idea' for good, since it will be empty and meaningless. There is no good in anything that has one and only one idea embedded in it . In all actions the purpose is the good that can be actually achieved, and as the number of purposes, the types of good that can be achieved.

The best of all (the best good ) has perfection in it, and therefore there is only one purpose that is complete, a purpose to which one strives for oneself. For Aristotle the purpose of good is happiness , for only to happiness does man strive for himself. And even all of man's other actions are directed to happiness. A condition for a whole life, in which nothing is lacking, is happiness. Therefore, happiness is perfect and sufficient for itself, and the purpose of all human actions.

Man's activity is a mental activity done out of discretion, and the activity of the good man is an action done well in accordance with the good virtue of the action. Fine action over time will make the person happy. Benefits are the actions that belong to the soul, not external benefits. There should be enjoyment in actions which are done in the name of the good virtue, and should be done in the name of the good virtue and not for another external purpose. But inner happiness is also the result of external factors, such as pleasure, wisdom, beauty, familial pedigree, and decent children since man cannot do good deeds without inventions. Therefore, one can associate happiness with good luck and also with good virtue.

Happiness for Aristotle is among the most divine things, whether it is a gift from God or bought by study and habit. Humans who have not been happily blessed by luck, can acquire it by good virtue, learning and habit. Happiness requires perfect virtue as well as perfect longevity, and the role of the state is to impart to certain citizens certain qualities and to make them good and capable of good deeds. A person's life is measured by the actions he has performed during them , actions that are done according to the good virtue will lead to happiness. Stability is required in the actions he does, that only then will happiness depend only slightly on luck and man will be a really good person.

"… Happy as a person who acts according to a good and perfect virtue, and is sufficiently equipped with the external favors, and this not only in a period of time that happens at random, but in days of life in which there is some perfection." (Aristotle  / Nicomachean Ethics Book 1)

 

see also: 

Aporia Explained (Philosophy short definition from Plato to Derrida)

Aporia's best definition in Greek is "difficulty". Aporia is a term in the philosophical tradition that indicates an insurmountable contradiction, which ends in an insoluble conflict (Poros = way; A poros = lack of way). Aporia as a concept is repeated in post-structuralist critique. The philosopher Jacques Derrida sees aporia as a paradoxical term whose teaching is to block the very ability to move between boundaries, to define, to formulate. Aporia is a "no-way," a blind spot that blocks the field of vision; Difficulty in defining metaphysically what is.
Aristotle defines Aporia as an equality created between two conflicting arguments. In Plato, Aporia appears as part of the Socratic technique designed to bring the interlocutor to the realization of his ignorance: from a position of temporary ignorance one can present an alternative position leading to the right path. The dialectic of spirit, according to the wave, progresses from the impasse of the contradiction between thesis and antithesis to overcoming - synthesis. The post-Hegelian tradition continues this line of thinking and even radicalizes it. Now the Aporia marks the subjective place of contradiction, from which it is not possible to move towards a dialectical "overcoming" (Aufhebung).
In post-structuralist thought , Aporia marks a dead end in thinking, calling for a reformulation of the questions asked. Thus, for example, Heidegger tries to overcome the Aporia of the binary- object / subject contrast by proposing a third term, Dasein, which means being there , "being (the self) within the world." This condition does not completely eliminate the aphoria; He does not replace it with a new entry. In Derrida, the term is used to describe the disintegration of the sign , that is, the erosion of the meaning . In his book Aporias  (1993) he defines Aporia as "no man's land", where the inability to cross becomes the inability to create a formation, structure, project or marking boundaries. 
 
 

Short Summary: Classic Greek Philosophers - History of Philosophy

Some questions and beliefs of the classic Greek philosophers:

            Does natural modesty exist?

            Wisest is one who knows that they don’t know.

            He who knows right will do so.

            True insight comes from within.

Sophists – skeptics; they accept that man can’t know the truth about the universe.

Protagoras(410 BC) – “Man is the measure”, said that right or wrong must be considered in relation to a person’s needs. Wondered about what was natural and what was socially induced.

Socrates(470-399BC) – Plato wrote about him so it’s difficult to distinguish between his philosophy and Plato’s.  Socratic method – ask questions until they see the weaknesses in their own justifications and views, which leads to true insight. He was killed because he introduced new gods and corrupted youth, according to the Greeks. There’s an allusion in the book for a parallel between JC and Socrates. He knew he didn’t know everything and had an unshakable faith in human reason(rationalist). Felt that because people want happiness and can’t handle guilt, if they know what’s right, they’d do right.

Plato(428-347BC) – Concerned with what is eternal and immutable versus what flows. Felt that all substances could change. The “form” of a horse is immutable. (In essence, he noticed that atoms don’t form randomly into a eladile or a crocophant.) The “form” idea is that a perfect copy or “idea” of all objects resides in god so to speak & that we are born with these “ideas” already in our head so we can identify objects into categories. He felt that you can only have true knowledge through reason since physical things are always in a state of change, unlike the “ideas” they are based upon. So, reality has two regions – the sensory and the ideas. We DO have an immortal soul because we have the realm of reason to explore ideas. The sensory world is dark and dreary compared to the clarity of ideas. His political ideas are based on rationalism.

Questions posed:         Are all horses the same?

                                    Is there an immortal soul?

                                    Are men and women the same?

Aristotle(384 – 322BC) – Europe’s first great biologist; interested in the changes in nature. He didn’t believe in ideas. He thought that humans saw a whole bunch of things and then categorized them(taxonomy). Man has the innate ability to classify. Man has reason, but no innate ideas. There are four causes in nature: material, efficient, formal and final cause. All matter has the potential to achieve form (like a chicken) through the causes. Split things into living and non-living entities. Man can only live a good life by using all of his abilities. Man is political – should have monarcy, aristrocrasy and polity. Thought that women were incomplete men. Women are substance while the man is form.

Assumed that god started all movement.

Previous summary: Natural Philosophers
Next summary: Hellenism and the Middle Age

Back to the history of philosophy 


Good to books to start exploring the history of philosophy: