1.Introduction
My aim here is to discuss the philosophical use of the terms âsophiaâ and âepistÄmÄâ in relation to one another from their earliest occurrences through Aristotle. I begin with pre-philosophical use for this will help to explain the philosophersâ employment and adaptation of the terms.
2.Pre-philosophical uses of âsophiÄâ
In philosophical contexts the originally Ionic noun âsophiÄâ, later Attic âsophiaâ, is standardly translated as âwisdomâ, the adjective âsophosâ as âwiseâ. But this will not do for the earliest, pre-philosophical use (cf. Snell 1924: 1â20; Gauthier and Jolif 1959: 479â89; Gladigow 1965; Meier 1970). In eighth- and seventh-century poetry âsophiÄâ means âskillâ, âsophosâ âskilledâ or âskilfulâ.1 As we will see, wisdom is skill; but in the early poets the skills denoted by these terms are not forms of wisdom.
Formal semanticists have noted that âskillâ, âskilfulâ, and âskilledâ are semantically incomplete terms in the sense that a person who has skill or is skilful isnât skilful simpliciter, but in a particular domain. Compare âcitizenâ, which is semantically incomplete in a distinct, but related way: one is not a citizen simpliciter, but of a particular political body.
There are various theories of such semantic incompleteness. In the case of âskilfulâ one view is that in its so-called logical, as opposed to surface grammatical, form the predicate contains a domain variable whose value is supplied by context (be it linguistic or extralinguistic). So the logical form of âx is skilfulâ may be represented as:
SKILFUL(s)(x) where the variable s stands for a domain of skill.
For example, a father may say of his artistic son and musical daughter: âHe is skilful and she is too.â Here the first instance of âskilfulâ takes art for the domain of s, the second music.
In its earliest uses âsophiÄâ and âsophosâ range over such domains of skill as carpentry, navigation, and charioteering. Consider the following examples from Homer, Archilochos, and Alcman:
From about the sixth century, we find instances of âsophiÄâ that denote poetic skill, for instance, in the following verses of Solon (640â558): âOne man earns his living by his hands in the works of Athena and the master of many crafts Hephaestus; another, through his learning in the gifts of the Olympian Muses, knows the measure of the lovely skill (himertÄs sophiÄs)â (fr. 13.49â52). A number of editors have suggested that the noun is so used in the following fragment of Sappho (c. 630â570): âI do not imagine that any girl who has looked on the sunâs light will have such skill (sophia) at any future timeâ (fr. 60 Snell). Certainly by the fifth century âsophiÄâ is frequently used to denote poetic skill (cf. Barmeyer 1968: 155â62), for example, in Pindar: âMay you may plant your feet on high so long as you live, and may I may consort with victors for all my days and be foremost in skill (sophiÄ) among the Hellenes in every landâ (Olympic Ode 1.115â17).
Also in the sixth century we first find âsophiÄâ used to denote personal or social skills. Particularly fascinating examples occur in the Theognidea. For instance, the following two passages liken quality of character to coins and accordingly the skills required to discern and control character and quality:
Deception of gold or silver, Cyrnus, is easily endured;
and it is easy for a skilful (sophos) man to disclose.
But if it has escaped notice that the mind of a friend is false
and that his heart holds deceit,
god has made this most deceptive for mortals. (1.120)
Cunning men know gold and silver in the fire.
And wine has exposed the mind of a man,
when he has drunk too much, when he has taken drink beyond measure,
so that it puts to shame one who before was sophos. (1.502)
To my ear âskilfulâ sounds slightly awkward as a rendition of âsophosâ in the second passage. âSelf-controlledâ or âdiscerningâ is more natural. Nonetheless the author is evidently conceptualizing self-control or discernment as a skill, an ability to govern oneâs social conduct.
It may be questioned whether the sixth-century use of âsophiÄâ to denote personal or social skill is in fact a semantic development. An alternative view is that âsophiÄâ always included these domains, but that the extant record merely happens to lack evidence of such employment.
The following considerations encourage the thesis that the use of âsophiÄâ to denote personal and social skill is a genuine semantic development. One is a sort of argument from silence. In the earliest Archaic poetry, which is replete with references to personal and social skills, âsophiÄâ and âsophosâ are never so used. For instance, Homer never describes Nestor, Odysseus, or Aeneas as âsophosâ.
A second consideration relates to the passages of the Theognidea just cited: there âsophiÄâ appears to be deliberately transposed from a non-social to a social domain. Compare the following use of âsophosâ from a late-sixth- or early-fifth-century Boeotian grave stele:
Here the conjunction of a non-social skill horsemanship and guest-friendship a social skill appears deliberately and poetically zeugmatic. Loosely related are the following sixth-century verses in which Anacreon employs equestrian skill as a metaphor for sexual skill:
Thracian filly, why so sharply shy away?
Do you think I know nothing sophon?
Be assured, Iâd put your bit on smartly,
hold the reins and run you round the limits of the course.
But for now you graze the meadows, frisk and play,
for want of any experienced riding man. (fr. 88 Snell)3
Assume, then, that the semantic development did occur. Possibly, one factor contributing to the development was the increasingly common use of âsophiÄâ to denote poetic skill. Some aspects of ancient poetry are relatively technical; others, particularly those pertaining to the content of poetry, involve personal and social thought. Given the prevalent use of âsophiÄâ to denote poetic skill, the ubiquitous coincidence of these two aspects may have contributed to the semantic shift precisely through their association.
Phrases such as âwise carpenterâ and âwise charioteerâ are odd or nonsensical. Not so âwise poetâ. The reason is that poetry can express personal or social thought that satisfies the following two conditions:
G The thought is ethical or moral or at least constitutes or promotes human goodness;
H The thought consists in a deep understanding of humanity.
I am suggesting then that wisdom is precisely this: personal or social skill that satisfies conditions G and H.
A word on the disjunction in G. Consider the peculiarity of: âHe is wise, but unethicalâ or âShe is wise, but immoralâ. So wisdom is ethical or moral. However, what we call âethicsâ as it relates to ancient Greek philosophy is eudaimonistic. Eudaimonia is a life that goes well for the agent. It is an open question whether or to what extent such a life is good for others. For instance, consider Thrasymachusâ question in Republic I: Is justness an excellence (aretÄ)? Again it is an open question whether, in case such a life is in some way good for others, it more precisely involves respect for the autonomy of others and recognition of their equal worth. But if for character or action to be ethical or moral it must be concerned with the welfare of, respect the autonomy of, or recognize the equal worth of others, and if âwisdomâ is an ethical or moral term, then it is doubtful that Greek eudaimonism is ethical or moral and so whether âsophiÄâ can ever strictly be rendered as âwisdomâ.
Granted this, I will conveniently and stipulatively employ the terms âwisdomâ and âwiseâ in what I will call a ârelativisticâ sense. By ârelativisticâ I mean to acknowledge the variety of conceptions of human goodness and good human lives among philosophers and across cultures and to admit a sense of âwisdomâ as the skill that, in addition to satisfying condition H, constitutes human goodness or promotes good human life, however such goodness is conceived. According to this relativistic sense a self-regarding and self-benefitting skill may be constitutive of wisdom. For example, if, as some have argued, Epicureanism is psychologically egoistic, then the skill required to pursue and maintain Epicurusâ hedonistic eudaimonia is a case in point.
Regarding condition H, the following inference does not appear to be valid: âShe is ethical or moral or is a good person or aims to promotes good human life, therefore she is wise.â The reason the inference fails, ...