Hello. I was wandering about the licence supported by Callicles. Is it that he didn’t see the contradiction of total freedom meaning that one could do anything? Did he, on the other hand, have a refutation for my freedom ending where it crosses withthe freedom of another man? Did he even discuss this point? I wonder if he was saying that the phusis was total licence… that is that it is our nature to do whatever we want but that this bumps up against reality and so, as a consequence, law is created.
Law isnt natural for this reason but my question is this: Was he actually criticising law as being against nature? Did he hold this “natural” way of being of man as superior to the law abiding way of life? I wonder if this was rather just an observation.
Take a child for example. Every one of them is capable and inclined to be “naughty” most of the time. It is only after being smacked and told off a million times that we, as children, start to get the message of what we can and can’t do. It is only the fact that we are in the company of others that right and wrong outside of what actually hurts us has any meaning at all. So anyway… Sorry to ramble… I wonder if he saw law… albeit slave morality, as “just the way it is… but necessary” or if he actually saw it as something contemptable. Would he prescribe a “return to nature” as it were?
Good course by the way.
Brendan