Critias

Diagoras and Theodorus are two of the atheists remembered in several catalogues of atheists in Antiquity, the first of which dates back to the 2nd century BC, and from then on invariably referredto by the ancients and to the present day as atheists. In fact, the atheism condemned in Athens had its roots in the pre-Socratic philosophical and scientific culture, whose fundamentally "materialistic" imprint is authoritatively testified to by Aristotle (MetaphysicsI 983b5-10). The philosophies of Anaximander, Anaximenes, Xenophanes, Heraclitus, Anaxagoras, Diogenes (...) of Apollonia, and of course the Atomists and Sophists offered, albeit in different ways, not only some important support for the critique of traditional divinities, but also for the philosophical foundations of atheism. Diagoras has nothing to do with this tradition; even some events in his life may at most merit the accusation of being impious, but not of being an atheist. heodore appears to be of a different cultural temperament, close not only to the culture of the Cyrenaic school, but also to that of the Cynics and the Sophists. We have not only references to his philosophical doctrines, but also clear evidence of his atheism, having dedicated himself to "radically eliminating common beliefs in the gods". In conclusion, while Diagora's name can safely be removed from the catalogues of atheists, Theodore's is rightly included. (shrink)

This paper explores the prevailing readings of the Atlantis story. The purpose of this paper is to show how interpretative judgements on the narrator’s intentions, the objectives of the characters, and the genre and the development of the story prepares the grounds for the political understanding of Athens and Atlantis. In this way, I will show how the dramatic framework influences the expression of political thought. I argue that the most important dramatic feature of the story is Critias’ interaction with (...) Socrates and Timaeus, which explains why Critias composes two speeches that are essentially dedicated to the question of political origins. (shrink)

À la fin du ve siècle avant Jésus-Christ, apparaît dans la littérature grecque un certain nombre de discours impies. Platon en fait l’inventaire dans les Lois. Parmi les critiques adressées à la religion traditionnelle, l’une figure en bonne place chez Euripide : puisque les hommes injustes n’ont, dans les faits, guère à pâtir de leur conduite, il est légitime de mettre en doute l’existence des dieux. Or une autre thèse, voisine dans son vocabulaire mais conceptuellement distincte, se fait jour à (...) la faveur de la première : l’irrespect de la loi et son affaiblissement entraînent une perte de confiance dans les dieux, car ces derniers sont une partie même du nomos. La réponse sophistique et même platonicienne à ce constat propose d’inverser les termes du problème : il faudrait pouvoir renforcer le tout par la partie, le nomos par la croyance aux dieux, les deux étant des faits institutionnels produits par le ou les législateurs. L’article examine comment cette suggestion se trouve développée, avec des variations, par Protagoras, Critias et l’Étranger d’Athènes au livre X des Lois. (shrink)

No topic could be more relevant in these times than tyranny, “the greatest sickness of the soul.” The Charmides of Plato gives us an opportunity to look deeply into the soul or cognitive structure of one of Athens’s most notorious tyrants, Critias, and looks deeply into its dialectical opposite, the soul and cognitive structure of Socrates.

This paper aims to explain the very sharp contrast between the portraits of Critias found in Plato and Xenophon. While depicted as a monster in Xenophon's Hellenica, Critias is described with at most mild criticism in Plato's writings. Each of these portraits is eccentric in its own way, and these eccentricities can be explained by considering the apologetic and polemic aims each author pursued. In doing so, I hope to shed light not only on the relations between these portraits and (...) the works that contain them, but also on the personal relations between Plato and Xenophon and their manner of expressing them in literary productions. (shrink)

At Charmides163, Critias attempts to extricate himself from refutation by proposing a Prodicean distinction between praxis and poiēsis. I argue that this distinction leads him further into contradictions.

Plato’s Timaeus–Critias juxtaposes a long description of our universe in the making with a discourse on human nature. The latter, confined to Critias, flanks Timaeus’ full-blown cosmogony without clearly articulating how, if at all, do the apparently so different stories fit together. By contrast to many precedent efforts at articulating their relation, the article tries to take seriously Timaeus’ distinction between the two kinds of divinities, whereby he opposes celestial bodies together with the ensouled physical universe to the traditional gods. (...) It seems possible that the two kinds of gods correspond to the duality of human nature itself, and thus to its peculiar position at the juncture of the immortal and mortal parts of the universe. Plato’s recourse to gods distinct from the celestial objects of intellectual assimilation then has nothing to do with theology in some doctrinal sense, but serves to indicate a link between divine and human capacities of deliberation and practical action. Reread in this light, the story told by Critias and several passages from the speech of Timaeus indicate the limits of theoretical knowledge and point towards the problematic ontology of the deliberating mind and the puzzling status of artefacts including man and the universe. In this context, the article re-examines the issue of human civilization and war, and also the question of great cataclysms. Presented by Critias, these issues are revelatory of the Platonic conception of human city not as an expression of man’s natural gregariousness but as a carefully composed artefact. The article concludes that, under the overlays of pseudo-history and cosmology, Socratic colours may well be more prominent than we usually assume. (shrink)

Many commentators still take the Delphic speech in the Charmides as Socrates’ opinion of sôphrosunê. This is a misreading. The speaker is Critias, a future tyrant, and close analysis reveals his conception of self-knowledge, as a godlike and self-certain wisdom, to be perverted by his tyrannical views. His conception of sôphrosunê must be distinguished from Socrates’, and while the former conception is refuted in the dialogue, the latter is not.

Plato presents Socrates as an ethical example and a political warning. Other characters serve other philosophical functions. Alcibiades---the worst man in the democracy---and Critias---the worst in the oligarchy---are the most notorious characters. This dissertation argues that Plato uses these characters in order to open a diachronic dimension in the synchronic accounts of the dialogues. This dimension turns historical characters into paradigmatic characters and allows the reader to evaluate the accounts people give in terms of the lives that they lead. In (...) order to make a case for philosophy, Plato needs to make it clear that bad accounts have negative ethical effects, particularly over a period of time. The use of paradigmatic characters like Alcibiades and Critias allows him to make this case in the strongest possible way, while also allowing him to explore the relationship between time and virtue. I show that the connection between time and virtue explains not only individual decline, but also the historical decline described in Republic VIII. ;I offer close readings of the Protagoras, the Alcibiades I, the Symposium, the Timaeus-Critias , the Charmides and the Republic in order to show Plato's creation and use of the diachronic dimension surrounding paradigmatic characters in order to show the effects of time on virtue. In so doing, I substantially contribute to our understanding of Plato's use of historical characters; his understanding of the human experience of time; and the nature of Socratic intellectualism and its relationship to error. I show that Socrates uses elenctic questioning in order to avoid the self-forgetfulness in the face of time that allowed both Alcibiades and Critias to become so vicious, even while intending to do the good. (shrink)

One of the best-known fragments of a lost Greek drama is Critias' fr. 43F19 Snell, an extended rhesis from the play Sisyphus in which the protagonist narrates how once upon a time human life was squalid, brutal, and anarchistic; as a remedy men devised Law and Justice; this expedient served to check open wrongdoing but did not hinder secret crimes; then some very clever man hit upon the idea of inventing gods and the notion of divine retribution; thus secret criminality (...) was stopped by fear of the gods. The prevalent understanding of Critias' motives is largely determined by the commonest interpretation of this fragment. Some authorities think the notion of divine justice as merely a human device designed to serve a socially utilitarian purpose is Critias' own invention; others regard this passage as wholly or in part a réchauffé of the ideas of others, such as Protagoras, Democritus, or Diagoras of Rhodes. With few exceptions, it has until recently been thought that Critias was, if not a sophist himself, at least a cynical disciple of Machtpolitik who differed from similar thinkers such as Thrasymachus and Callicles only in that he translated ideas similar to those these figures are made to express in the pages of Plato into brutal political action. A handful of authorities have dissented from this view on the grounds that it is dangerous to attribute to a playwright sentiments placed in the mouths of his stage-characters . Recently the prevalent interpretation of fr. 19 Sn. has been subjected to additional criticism in two articles by German writers that may well be harbingers of a major reappraisal – long overdue, in the present writer's opinion – of Critias' beliefs. (shrink)