The Four Predicables: Property

And a property is that which does not make evident the essence of a thing, but it belongs to the thing alone and can be predicated reciprocally of the thing, for example a property of a human is a natural capacity toward grammar. For if he is a human, he has the capacity of grammar, and conversely, if he has the capacity of grammar, he is a human. For no one says that a property is that which is able to belong to another thing, such as sleeping belongs to the human. Not even if the thing happened to belong to it alone for a certain time. And if one of these things would be called a property, it will not be called a property purely, but a temporary property or a property in relation to something else. For, “Being on the right,” is a temporary property, and “Being two-footed,” happens to be a property in relation to something else, such as man is two-footed with respect to a horse or a dog. And it is obvious that of the things able to belong to another thing, none of them are able to be predicated reciprocally. For it is not necessary, if something sleeps, that it is a human. 1
Topica 102a18-30

After the introduction of “definition,” which is the essence of something, Aristotle transitions to the idea of what a “property” is. Possibly one of the motivations leading Aristotle to discuss property secondly is that there is a common misconception that the property of something simply is its essence. But Aristotle has told us that the essence of something is its definition, not a property. Man, he informs us, has as one of his properties, the ability to understand grammar. But this is only a property insofar as it can be uniquely said of an individual human being as well, and in addition can be mutually said in reverse: i.e. A man is grammar-capable, the one who is grammar-capable is a man.

As one “proof” of his conception, Aristotle, as he often does, seems to appeal to the common opinion and sense of his listeners: “No one says ‘sleeping’ is a property of the human.” In the background of this comment lies the latent idea that people implicitly only attribute properties if they appear to belong uniquely to some one thing. Not only must a property belong to that thing alone, but it must always belong to it. If not, in Aristotle’s eyes, it is merely a temporary or quasi-property. He gives as examples the relative property “being on the right,” relative because it depends on a temporary relation of space and can change. Similarly, “bipedal,” as a biological categorization, is a term created to distinguish it from other animals which have 4 feet.

Near the end of his discussion Aristotle returns to the idea that properties must apply reciprocally to the things they are properties of, and shows the absurdity of disagreeing. “If something sleeps, it is a man,” is absurd. Although one could understandably (and mistakenly) think that sleep is a property of man, the possibility can be tested by “flipping” the subject and predicate and deciding if what ensues is nonsense.

1
Ἴδιον δ’ ἐστὶν ὃ μὴ δηλοῖ μὲν τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι, μόνῳ δ’
ὑπάρχει καὶ ἀντικατηγορεῖται τοῦ πράγματος. οἷον ἴδιον
ἀνθρώπου τὸ γραμματικῆς εἶναι δεκτικόν· εἰ γὰρ ἄνθρωπός (20)
ἐστι, γραμματικῆς δεκτικός ἐστι, καὶ εἰ γραμματικῆς δε-
κτικός ἐστιν, ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν. οὐθεὶς γὰρ ἴδιον λέγει τὸ ἐν-
δεχόμενον ἄλλῳ ὑπάρχειν, οἷον τὸ καθεύδειν ἀνθρώπῳ, οὐδ’
ἂν τύχῃ κατά τινα χρόνον μόνῳ ὑπάρχον. εἰ δ’ ἄρα τι
καὶ λέγοιτο τῶν τοιούτων ἴδιον, οὐχ ἁπλῶς ἀλλὰ ποτὲ ἢ (25)
πρός τι ἴδιον ῥηθήσεται· τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἐκ δεξιῶν εἶναι ποτὲ
ἴδιόν ἐστι, τὸ δὲ δίπουν πρός τι ἴδιον τυγχάνει λεγόμενον,
οἷον τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ πρὸς ἵππον καὶ κύνα. ὅτι δὲ τῶν ἐνδεχο-
μένων ἄλλῳ ὑπάρχειν οὐθὲν ἀντικατηγορεῖται, δῆλον· οὐ γὰρ
ἀναγκαῖον, εἴ τι καθεύδει, ἄνθρωπον εἶναι. (30)

Socrates’ Swan Song

In the maddening swirl of language, we seldom reflect on the meaning of individual words or phrases.  It is not so surprising then, when we pass by even more obscure idioms and metaphors, although this paradoxically does not prevent us from using them again in turn!

One of these phrases is “swan song”, often meaning the last effort or final production coming from someone in his respective field before retirement, or sometimes, death.  This idea has a long pedigree in Western thought.  It first appears in literature in Aeschylus (Agamemnon, 1444), and has not performed its own swan song in our communal imagination since.  The idea behind the myth was that the swan is silent its entire life save the prescience it is granted of its oncoming death, then the swan pours out the first and final charming melodies from its soul.

Socrates himself alludes to this myth, albeit not without commenting on what he sees as its probable origin:

But I seem to you more common than the swans regarding prophecy, which when they sense that it necessary that they die, they sing in the interval before death, indeed, at that time, especially and most beautifully do they sing, rejoicing that they are about to go to the divine, the very thing they serve.  And men, because of their own fear of death, they both slander the swans and they say that the swans lament their death singing because of pain, and they do not consider that no bird sings when in hunger or cold or during any other pain it undergoes, nor does the nightingale, the swallow, nor the hoopoe, which they say laments singing because of its pain.  But these do not appear to me to sing because they are pained, nor do the swans, but I think, since they are prophetic, being from Apollo, and foreknowing the good things in Hades they sing and rejoice during that day more than in the time before.  I myself think I am a co-laborer of the swans and a priest of the same god, and I have the gift of prophecy from my master not worse than theirs, nor do I think I am freed from a life more melancholy than theirs.

ὡς ἔοικε, τῶν κύκνων δοκῶ φαυλότερος ὑμῖν εἶναι τὴν μαντικήν, οἳ ἐπειδὰν αἴσθωνται ὅτι δεῖ αὐτοὺς ἀποθανεῖν, ᾁδοντες καὶ ἐν τῷ πρόσθεν χρόνῳ, τότε δὴ πλεῖστα καὶ κάλλιστα ᾁδουσι, γεγηθότες ὅτι μέλλουσι παρὰ τὸν θεὸν ἀπιέναι οὗπέρ εἰσι θεράποντες. οἱ δ᾽ ἄνθρωποι διὰ τὸ αὑτῶν δέος τοῦ θανάτου καὶ τῶν κύκνων καταψεύδονται, καί φασιν αὐτοὺς θρηνοῦντας τὸν θάνατον ὑπὸ λύπης ἐξᾴδειν, καὶ οὐ λογίζονται ὅτι οὐδὲν ὄρνεον ᾁδει ὅταν πεινῇ ἢ ῥιγῷ ἤ τινα ἄλλην λύπην λυπῆται, οὐδὲ αὐτὴ ἥ τε ἀηδὼν καὶ χελιδὼν καὶ ὁ ἔποψ, ἃ δή φασι διὰ λύπην θρηνοῦντα ᾁδειν. ἀλλ᾽ οὔτε ταῦτά μοι φαίνεται λυπούμενα ᾁδειν οὔτε οἱ κύκνοι, ἀλλ᾽ ἅτε οἶμαι τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος ὄντες, μαντικοί τέ εἰσι καὶ προειδότες τὰ ἐν Ἅιδου ἀγαθὰ ᾁδουσι καὶ τέρπονται ἐκείνην τὴν ἡμέραν διαφερόντως ἢ ἐν τῷ ἔμπροσθεν χρόνῳ. ἐγὼ δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς ἡγοῦμαι ὁμόδουλός τε εἶναι τῶν κύκνων καὶ ἱερὸς τοῦ αὐτοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ οὐ χεῖρον ἐκείνων τὴν μαντικὴν ἔχειν παρὰ τοῦ δεσπότου, οὐδὲ δυσθυμότερον αὐτῶν τοῦ βίου ἀπαλλάττεσθαι. ἀλλὰ τούτου γ᾽ ἕνεκα λέγειν τε χρὴ καὶ ἐρωτᾶν ὅτι ἂν βούλησθε, ἕως ἂν Ἀθηναίων ἐῶσιν ἄνδρες ἕνδεκα. Phaedo 84e-85b

The old Euthyphro trick gets the polytheist every time…

The Euthyphro dilemma, as it has been deemed, has never seemed to me to be a threat to traditional western monotheism. I will within the next few weeks address the reason why I think this is so. But I wish to be upfront: I think it obviously only presents a problem to a certain set of theological beliefs. Thus, I am offering an observation, not an argument. Implicit to this take on the Euthyphro dilemma however, is the possibility that Plato was arguing on behalf of some sort of monotheism, by way of denying the moral authority of a plurality of gods. Deity by committee, perhaps, did not appeal to Plato. I am not convinced of this possibility, but I am open to it.

In the meantime I have translated the first portion of the relevant dialogue.

Socrates:
Quickly, good man, we will become better men. For consider such a thing: Regarding the holy, is the holy what is loved by the gods, or that what is loved by them is holy?

Euthyphro:
I do not know what you mean, Socrates.

Socrates:
But I will attempt to say it more clearly. We speak a certain way of “something being carried and something carrying it” and “something being lead and something leading” and “something being seen and something seeing” and you know that they are different from each other in all such things and in this way they differ?

Euthyphro:
I think I am learning.

Socrates:
So also is there something loved and the thing different from it, the thing doing the loving?

Euthyphro:
How could it not be so?

Socrates:
Tell me, whether the thing that is carried is a carried thing because it is carried, or because of something else?

Euthyphro:
No, but because it is carried.

Socrates:
And the thing lead because it is lead, and the thing seen because it is seen?

Euthyphro:
Entirely.

Socrates:
And not because it is a “seen thing”, and because of this, it is seen, but the opposite, it is seen, and through this it is a “seen thing”…

Σωκράτης
τάχ᾽, ὠγαθέ, βέλτιον εἰσόμεθα. ἐννόησον γὰρ τὸ τοιόνδε: ἆρα τὸ ὅσιον ὅτι ὅσιόν ἐστιν φιλεῖται ὑπὸ τῶν θεῶν, ἢ ὅτι φιλεῖται ὅσιόν ἐστιν;

Εὐθύφρων
οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅτι λέγεις, ὦ Σώκρατες.

Σωκράτης
ἀλλ᾽ ἐγὼ πειράσομαι σαφέστερον φράσαι. λέγομέν τι φερόμενον καὶ φέρον καὶ ἀγόμενον καὶ ἄγον καὶ ὁρώμενον καὶ ὁρῶν καὶ πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα μανθάνεις ὅτι ἕτερα ἀλλήλων ἐστὶ καὶ ᾗ ἕτερα;

Εὐθύφρων
ἔγωγέ μοι δοκῶ μανθάνειν.

Σωκράτης
οὐκοῦν καὶ φιλούμενόν τί ἐστιν καὶ τούτου ἕτερον τὸ φιλοῦν;

Εὐθύφρων
πῶς γὰρ οὔ;

Σωκράτης
λέγε δή μοι, πότερον τὸ φερόμενον διότι φέρεται φερόμενόν ἐστιν, ἢ δι᾽ ἄλλο τι;

Εὐθύφρων
οὔκ, ἀλλὰ διὰ τοῦτο.

Σωκράτης
καὶ τὸ ἀγόμενον δὴ διότι ἄγεται, καὶ τὸ ὁρώμενον διότι ὁρᾶται;

Εὐθύφρων
πάνυ γε.

Σωκράτης
οὐκ ἄρα διότι ὁρώμενόν γέ ἐστιν, διὰ τοῦτο ὁρᾶται, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἐναντίον διότι ὁρᾶται, διὰ τοῦτο ὁρώμενον…
Euthyphro 10A-B