The Word and the Wager: How Plato Named and Claimed Philosophy | Ep. 8 pt 1
About This Episode
Where did the word “philosopher” come from — and who got to decide what it meant? In Episode 8, Part 1 of Notions of Progress, we trace the moment Plato took a word that had begun as a mocking label and transformed it into an institutional claim. Prof. Christopher Moore’s Calling Philosophers Names (Princeton University Press, 2020) shows us how the coining of philosophos was not a neutral act of description but a polemical move — one that drew a sharp line between those who merely acquired knowledge and those who pursued wisdom as a lifelong orientation. Drawing on three of Plato’s dialogues — the Meno, the Phaedrus, and the Gorgias — the episode asks what it meant to found a school on that claim and what that founding bet risked. Prof. W.K.C. Guthrie’s historical account of the early Academy situates the institutional stakes. The episode traces the distinction between episteme — genuine knowledge — and doxa — mere opinion — as the intellectual fault line on which Plato’s entire wager rests. This is the first of three episodes tracing the founding of the Academy, from the naming of philosophy through the institution’s mechanics to Aristotle’s departure and the first test of the founding bet.
——————————————————————
Show Notes & Timestamps
- 00:00 — Introduction to Plato’s Philosophical Journey
- 02:18 — The Birth of the Academy and Its Claims
- 04:17 — The Evolution of the Term ‘Philosophos’
- 07:57 — The Distinction Between Episteme and Doxa
- 11:51 — Plato’s Selective Approach to Knowledge
- 12:52 — Aristotle’s Departure and Philosophical Expansion
- 13:33 — Recap
——————————————————————
Key Concepts & Terms
Philosophos (phil-OH-soh-foss) — lover of wisdom
As Moore demonstrates across pre-Platonic and Platonic sources, the word did not emerge as a neutral description. It circulated as a mildly mocking label before Plato claimed it, narrowed it, and redefined its referent entirely. In Moore’s reading, Plato’s decision about who counts as a philosophos is simultaneously a decision about what kind of knowledge matters and who is capable of it. The naming of the discipline was the first move in the founding of the Academy.
Episteme (ep-ISS-teh-may) — genuine knowledge
Stable, reasoned knowledge — as distinct from opinion — and the object the Academy was founded to produce and transmit. The Meno’s conclusion — that the virtuous statesman operates by true opinion, not knowledge — is the challenge the Academy was built to answer. If doxa cannot be systematically taught or institutionally transmitted, only episteme justifies the existence of a philosophical school. Guthrie’s commentary situates this distinction as Plato’s foundational move against both the Sophists and the democratic assumption of broadly equal political capacity.
Doxa (DOX-ah) — opinion or true belief
Distinguished from episteme in the Meno. The virtuous statesman operates by true opinion, not knowledge — like a poet who produces fine things without being able to say why. The Sophist educational programme produces doxa, not episteme — and doxa cannot be systematically taught or institutionally transmitted. Plato’s point is that true opinion, however reliable in practice, will not hold under examination.
Technē
(tek-NAY) — craft or genuine expertise
The central spine of the series from Episodes 5–8. A genuine technē
has a determinate subject matter, aims at the genuine good of its object, and can give a rational account of itself. The Sophists claimed rhetoric was a technē
; Plato argued in the Gorgias that it was not — it is a knack (empeiria), producing persuasion without understanding why. The Academy’s founding claim was that philosophy met the genuine standards of technē
and exceeded them, because its object was not persuasion but truth.
——————————————————————
Fascinating Historical Insights
A Philosopher Was Originally a Term of Mockery
Before Plato, the word philosophos was not a badge of honour. As Moore traces across pre-Platonic sources, the term circulated as a mildly pejorative description — someone suspiciously over-interested in ideas, impractical, unworldly. Plato’s intervention was to take this floating, slightly comic label and claim it entirely: stripping away its mocking connotations, redefining the word’s referent, and making it describe something altogether more serious. The episode shows how this terminological move was simultaneously a philosophical argument and a political act.
The Academy’s Founding Claim Was Unprecedented in the Ancient World
What Plato built was not a school in the conventional Sophist sense — a travelling teacher offering instruction for fees. It was a fixed, sustained community of inquiry organised around a shared method and the explicit claim that genuine knowledge, as distinct from opinion, was achievable and transmissible across generations. As Guthrie’s account of the early Academy makes clear, no institution in the ancient world had previously staked its existence on quite this claim. The Academy’s founding was an assertion that philosophy could accumulate: that the next generation could begin where the last left off.
Aristotle Was at the Academy for Twenty Years — and Then Left
Aristotle arrived at the Academy as a young man and remained for twenty years, until Plato’s death. His departure — and his subsequent founding of the Lyceum — is one of the most consequential intellectual events in ancient history. The episode treats this not as a biographical footnote but as the first serious test of the Academy’s founding bet. If philosophical knowledge genuinely accumulates across generations, Aristotle’s twenty years should have produced a philosophical heir. That he left instead and built something different is the question Episode 10 will address directly.
Episteme and Doxa: A Philosophical Argument Against Democracy
Plato’s insistence that episteme is categorically different from doxa was not merely an epistemological position. It was a claim about who is capable of governing. The Sophists had argued that political skill was a form of expertise acquirable by any citizen willing to learn rhetoric. Plato’s distinction cuts against this entirely: if most people operate at the level of opinion and only the philosophically trained can attain genuine knowledge, the democratic premise — that citizens are broadly equal in their capacity for political judgment — is philosophically undermined. The founding of the Academy was, among other things, a counter-argument to Athenian democracy.
——————————————————————
Resources & Further Reading
Primary Sources
- Plato. Meno, 87c–100b. The teachability argument and its aporetic conclusion. Cooper–Hackett translation recommended.
- Plato. Phaedrus. The soul’s orientation toward wisdom and the distinction between genuine and imitative rhetoric. Cooper–Hackett translation.
- Plato. Gorgias, 447a–527e. The full dialogue: rhetoric on trial, the Polus episode, the Callicles section, and the eschatological myth. Cooper–Hackett translation.
Works Discussed
- Moore, Christopher. Calling Philosophers Names: On the Origin of a Discipline. Princeton University Press, 2020. The primary anchor for Episode 8. Moore traces the etymology and early history of philosophos across pre-Platonic and Platonic sources, demonstrating that Plato’s terminological decisions encoded a philosophical and political programme.
- Guthrie, W.K.C. A History of Greek Philosophy, Vol. IV. Cambridge University Press, 1975. Guthrie’s historical account of the early dialogues and the Academy’s founding situates the institutional stakes of Episode 8’s argument.
Further Context
- Kerferd, G.B. The Sophistic Movement. Cambridge University Press, 1981. The authoritative account of the Sophist tradition whose horizontal model of civic progress Episode 8 explicitly rejects. Essential background for understanding what Plato was arguing against.
- Retz, Tyson. Progress and the Scale of History. Cambridge University Press, 2022. The series anchor. See Episodes 3–4 for the full framework.
——————————————————————
Related Episodes
- Episode 5: The Sophists — Human Agency, Technē, and the First Theory of Civic Progress. Establishes the Sophist framework and the horizontal model of cumulative progress that Episode 8 rejects.
- Episode 6: Plato vs. the Sophists, Part 1 — The Cave, Recollection, and the Case Against Cumulative Knowledge. The first two pillars of Plato’s counter-argument.
- Episode 7: Plato vs. the Sophists, Part 2 — Rhetoric, Power, and the Making of Callicles. The direct bridge to Episode 8.
- Episodes 3–4: Five Faces of Progress — Prof. Tyson Retz. The taxonomic framework applied across the series.
——————————————————————
Coming Up Next
Episode 9 turns from the naming of philosophy to its institutionalisation. Where Episode 8 asked what the founding bet was, Episode 9 asks how the Academy actually worked — its pedagogy, its method of succession, and the problem Plato may not have solved before his death. Prof. Werner Jaeger’s Paideia, Vol. II anchors the episode’s account of what it meant to build an institution around the transmission of philosophical knowledge.
——————————————————————
Listen & Subscribe
00:00 - Introduction to Plato's Philosophical Journey
02:18 - The Birth of the Academy and Its Claims
04:17 - The Evolution of the Term 'Philosophos'
07:57 - The Distinction Between Episteme and Doxa
11:51 - Plato's Selective Approach to Knowledge
12:52 - Aristotle's Departure and Philosophical Expansion
13:33 - Recap
0:03 Hi, welcome to Notions of Progress, the show that traces ideas of progress from antiquity to the age of AI. In our last episode, Plato followed this sophist educational program to its logical conclusion, and he found Calakles waiting at the end of it. A man fully formed by rhetoric, unconstrained by any philosophical grounding, and convinced that natural superiority not only permits domination, but actually demands it. Plato's argument was that this outcome was not a bug, but a feature. It is what the sophist approach is designed to produce. Today, Plato responds not with another argument, but with an institution.
0:44 And to build it, Professor Christopher Moore shows us he first had to rescue a word, philosophos, from its connotation of mockery and remake its meaning entirely. This is the first of three episodes following that Plato's project from its origins to its first great test. We begin with the term, philosophia, follow with the institution, and conclude with what happens when Aristotle, the institution's most gifted student, decides to leave. Upon completions of this series, we will have an anatomical picture of how a philosophical institution is born, how it sustains itself, and plans a seed that history has never quite managed to uproot.
1:27 By the end of this episode, we will have covered the following. Why Plato had to coin the term philosopher and what that act of naming was staking out. What kind of institute the academy was and what it was claiming about knowledge and human progress. How Plato's model of progress differ from the Sophists Where the sophists spread skill outward to as many citizens as possible, Plato, on the other hand, wagered on a small community ascending towards the truth that no single generation could reach alone. Scholars call this the horizontal and Plato's the vertical model of progress.
2:11 And lastly, what Plato wagered when he founded the academy and what that bet actually cost. During this episode, we will reference the following terms, some of which you have seen before. Philosophos, the word Plato coins and deploys, literally means lover of wisdom. But as Professor Christopher Moore shows us, its origins are more pointed than that translation actually suggests. Episteme, which means general knowledge as opposed to opinion or persuasion as we discussed in the last episode. This was the standard the academy was built to uphold. And the academy, the institution Plato founded around 387 BCE.
2:56 This wasn't a school in the modern sense, but it was a tight circle of minds formed through a shared method, an attempt to produce through philosophy a kind of human being that politics alone could not. So why does it matter that Plato remade the term philosophia? As it turns out, it matters considerably. The Academy was not just a place of learning, it was a claim about what genuine human progress looks like and who is capable of it. The ideas of that institution outlasted him by nine century in its original form, reshaping the neo-Platonists of later antiquity, Islamic philosophy, and Christian theology by Augustine.
3:37 And it did not stop there. The question at its core, whether a small, intensely trained circle of minds can preserve and transmit something that the world at large is not equipped to receive, and it still remains. So basically, this particular series of episodes, it signals a new type of beginning. Because now we are no longer looking at just literary claims. We will be discussing over the next three episodes the fact that philosophy has worked its way into a process, an institution, and into a long-lasting idea, into truly something that has become an idea of progress. To understand what Plato built, we need to start with the word.
4:21 Not what it came to mean, but what it originally was. Professor Christopher Moore's Calling Philosophers Names opens with a striking claim. That the word philosophos, which philosophy instructors often translate today as lover of wisdom, began, Professor Moore argues, as something closer to a taunt. A label that was applied to those who repeatedly and presumptuously tried to join the ranks of the sophi. The wise, the recognized sages and wise advisors of the Greek world. The word philosophos on this reading was akin to like a sage wannabe. Like we said, it was kind of like a backhanded insult. Moore draws a deliberately modern and interesting comparison.
5:04 The cases of the Quakers, the Shakers, and queer activism notes follow the same pattern. A term at first distasteful gets appropriated. and eventually turned into the foundation of a tight-knit social enterprise. Philosophos, he argues, followed precisely that arc. Appropriation alone, however, does not build an institution. Something more deliberate was required, and Plato ,Moore shows us made two distinct moves. The first was linguistic. Across four dialogues, the Phaedrus, the Lysis, the Symposium, and the Republic, Plato recast the term philosophers as lover of wisdom.
5:48 But here more is explicit. The gloss caught on not because it recovered a historical truth about that word, but because it sounded good. Moore argues that this practice endures to this day. The term philosophy is currently taught to mean the love of wisdom, which unwittingly vindicates that fourth century BCE linguistic move that Plato did. And the second move was a bit deeper. Plato did not simply rename an existing practice. He defended it. His claim, Moore argues, was that philosophy was not a new invention, but the only activity that had ever genuinely delivered what it promised, a practice of conversation.
6:31 capable of conducting a human being toward virtue, knowledge, and flourishing. So why the academy? Why an institution at all? The answer Moore suggests lies in a single and significant event, the trial and execution of Socrates in 399 BCE. Socrates had spent his life pursuing genuine knowledge through sustained rigorous conversation. He charged no fees, He claimed no expertise, but he simply asked questions until the answers collapsed under their own weight. And then Athens killed him for it.
7:13 Moore observes that the death of Socrates coincides almost exactly with the sudden proliferation of the word philosophos, interestingly, across Athenian culture. Professor E.R. Dodds in his landmark study of the Gorgias argues, that the dialogue is more than Plato's defense of Socrates. It is Plato's own personal declaration, his decision to forgo political career and instead open a school of philosophy. The Academy follows directly from that moment. Plato's attempt to give the practice Socrates had embodied both a name, it could stand and a structure that could sustain it.
7:53 So what kind of progress does philosophy claim? To understand what made the academy's claim distinctive, we need to understand the world it was operating in. Professor Tyson Retz, whom we interviewed in a previous episode, argues that the ancient world did not conceive of progress as modern civilizations do, as purposeful action directed forward along a historical timeline toward a better future. Instead, what mattered was available vertically. This was the new twist. Truth, wisdom, and the perfection of the soul were not things to be built across time. They were, as Retz puts it, available vertically to any individual of time through contemplation of what was eternal.
8:41 Applying RETS' framework, we might say this Sophists model was one of breadth. Spread across many, as many citizens as possible, and the polis improves. Progress is wide, immediate, and democratic. Plato's Academy, however, mapped onto the exact same framework, points in a different direction entirely, not outward processes of population, but upward, across each generation building on and correcting the last. Plato's founding bet also rested on a distinction that Professor Klasco traces carefully across the dialogues, one that cuts to the heart of what the Academy was actually claiming.
9:25 And this is important. On one side, episteme, genuine knowledge, the kind that can give a full account of itself and would stand sustained questioning. On the other side, the term doxa, which we discussed in previous episodes, which equates to opinion and correct belief. As Professor Klasko reads the Republic and the Menno, only the philosophers undergo the rigorous education required to glimpse the perfect forms and attain genuine knowledge. Everyone else, including those formed by the Sophists operates on the level of correct opinion at best. That would be doxa.
10:08 As Klasko argues, true opinions have a tendency not to stay with us. They're ephemeral. They could be forgotten, cast aside, or removed through persuasion. They are not anchored. So this distinction between opinion and genuine knowledge It matters. A community pursuing episteme, as Plato pushed for, can correct its errors and move closer to the truth. A community built on doxa persuades itself, generation after generation, that it already knows what it actually does not.
10:49 That founding supposition carried across, and scholars have traced exactly where it falls. Professor Klasko, in his study of Plato's political theory, draws a sharp distinction between what Socrates believed and what Plato actually built. Socrates, as Klasko reads the early dialogues, addressed his mission to everybody, without exception. His presupposition was that every citizen had the rational capacity to be awakened. But Plato broke from that. As Klasko argues, the epistemology of the middle dialogues that Plato had created had abandoned Socrates' egalitarianism entirely.
11:33 Knowledge of the forms was accessible only to the highly gifted few and only then after years and years of intensive study. Professor Julia Annas in her reading of the Republic reaches the same conclusion. that genuine philosophical knowledge is difficult and not open to all, and Plato kept it as the prerogative of a highly trained few. The Academy on this reading was not a democratic institution at all. It was a selective one, and the bet it placed that progress towards truth requires a small, intensely formed circle was purchased at the cost of everyone outside it.
12:20 This is a fundamental difference between Plato and the Southist that we draw upon here. So the person who would set a new course was Aristotle. He spent 20 years in the academy before leaving to found his own school, the Lyceum, in 335 BCE. That departure is where we're going to go in the next episode. It is worth pausing, however, on what more identifies as Aristotle's distinctive contribution to the idea of philosophy as a cumulative enterprise. Whereas Plato built a tight circle of inquiry directed towards a single version of truth, Aristotle, as Moore reads him, expanded the circle outward.
13:03 Progress in philosophy on Aristotle's account requires bringing to bear everything of relevance from every prior thinker, not just the ideas of one's immediate interlocutors, that vertical ascension that we talked about. That is a different kind of wager, and it raises the question the next episode will take up. What happens to a founding bet when one of its most gifted students places a different one? So in this episode, we have followed a single word, philosophos, from its implied meaning of mockery to that of an institution. We have seen how Plato rescued it, remade it, and built around in the ancient world's most deliberate claim that directed philosophical inquiry constitutes genuine human progress.
13:53 And we have seen what that claim cost. A selective, hierarchical institution, that purchased its vertical ascent toward truth at the price of everyone it excluded. For those who want to go a little bit further, the Curator's Frame blog for this podcast lays out the full reading list and the sources that we discussed today. And on Substack this week, I'm putting one question to readers that Klasco and Professor Annas both raised but answered differently. When an institution is built on the conviction that genuine knowledge is available only to the few, what does that offer to everyone else?
14:34 Klasko's answer and Professor Annas' answer are not the same. The link is in the show notes. Thanks for listening.
