\/>��西方人文思想經典選讀
圖書在版編目（ＣＩＰ）數據西方人文思想經典選讀: 漢文、英文 \/ 祖大慶主編.
—南京: 南京大學出版社, 2021.1
ISBN 9787305241734Ⅰ. ①西…Ⅱ. ①祖…Ⅲ. ①思想史西方國家高
等學校教材漢、英Ⅳ. ①B5中國版本圖書館CIP數據核字(2020)第271178號出版發行南京大學出版社
社址南京市漢口路22號郵編 210093
出版人金鑫榮書名西方人文思想經典選讀
主編祖大慶
責任編輯裴維維聯係方式02583596997照排南京紫藤製版印務中心
印刷江蘇揚中印刷有限公司
開本787×10921／16印張12.25字數330千
版次2021年1月第1版2021年1月第1次印刷
ISBN9787305241734
定價39.00元網址http:\/\/www.njupco.com
官方微博http:\/\/weibo.com\/njupco
官方微信njupress
銷售熱線（025）83594756
版權所有，侵權必究
凡購買南大版圖書，如有印裝質量問題，請與所購
圖書銷售部門聯係調換西方人文思想經典選讀前言
隨著我國高等學校英語教育的快速發展，長期以來英語專業貫徹的“以技能為導向”的課程建設與教學理念已經暴露出很多問題，諸如英語專業學生知識麵狹窄、思辨能力偏弱、綜合素質欠缺等。《高等學校英語專業本科教學質量國家標準》強調，英語專業主要以英語語言、英語文學和英語國家的社會文化等為學習和研究對象，教學過程強調實踐和應用，人才培養突出人文素質教育，注重開闊學生的國際視野。《普通高等學校本科英語類專業教學指南》指出英語專業核心課程應設置體現人文屬性的課程，如西方文明史、中國文化概要等。順應“國標”的要求，從2016年開始，“西方人文思想經典”被正式確立為中國礦業大學外國語言文化學院英語專業的必修課。同時，該課程被越來越多的國內高校英語專業納入培養方案，作為專業必修課，成為英語專業人文通識教育的重要組成部分。不僅如此，在國內眾多綜合性大學，西方人文思想經典閱讀之類的課程也被納入全校通識課程體係。本教材的編寫與出版正是為了滿足上述的教學之需。
《西方人文思想經典選讀》是為通過了英語專業四級、大學英語六級考試或者具有同等水平的學生編寫的一部依托專業知識內容， 訓練學生的語言綜合運用能力，擴展學生的知識麵，提高學生的多元文化意識，提升學生綜合素質的英語教材。這本教材充分利用語言與思想之間的密切關係，分主題引導英語專業學生深度閱讀並理解西方人文思想典籍，一方麵幫助學生提高篇章理解能力，在更高層次夯實英語專業學生“聽說讀寫譯”的語言基本功，提升語言綜合運用能力；另一方麵幫助學生拓寬其在西方文化、哲學、美學等人文社會科學領域內的知識，增加英語專業學生對西方文化和人文脈絡的總體把握，幫助學生了解西方文明的發展曆程，掌握不同曆史時期的重要人文思想，運用所學知識理性分析西方文明，並對西方文明和東方文明進行比較與思辨。通過思想對比與文化反思、融彙並對比東西方的思想精華，從而拓展文化視野，提升人文素養和邏輯思辨能力、跨文化交際能力和人文素養。
本教材共11章，包括: 希臘文化、羅馬文化、文藝複興、人文主義、科學革命、法國啟蒙運動、美國啟蒙運動、自由主義、進化論、社會主義與共產主義、存在主義。
本教材各單元的主要設計內容是：
1. 每一章前麵有本章的整體導讀，介紹與本章內容相關的曆史與文化背景。
2. 每一篇選文前都配有導讀（Prereading），介紹選文作者的生平、學術貢獻、代表著作、主要思想與觀點等內容。
3. 每一篇選文之後設計了幫助學生理解選文的拓展性思考題（Questions）， 可以在課堂討論和提問時使用。
4. 每一章之後設計了綜合性思考題（Questions for further reflection）， 可以在學生做小組陳述（Presentation）或者組織討論（Leading the discussion）時使用。
本書建議采用課堂精講、小組討論、公開辯論等授課形式，以細讀和討論為主，鼓勵學生全程參與。課程閱讀量大、內容思想性強，語言有難度，研究性強，故要求學生課前閱讀做好預習， 課堂積極參與，課後研究，討論和論文必須獨立完成。
本書每個單元的教學安排建議如下：
1. 介紹本單元的教學內容。
2. 相關曆史背景簡述。
3. 2—3組學生分別就本單元閱讀內容向全班做彙報，回答其他同學和老師的提問。每位同學對presentation進行評分。
4. 教師就關鍵內容做進一步闡釋。
5. 一組同學（2—3人）組織課後問題討論，其他同學和老師進一步提問或討論。
6. 全班自由提問、討論。
作業： 每位學生必須參加彙報，參與課堂討論，撰寫每一章節的response paper和期末課程論文，考察其思辨能力和學術寫作能力。
用英語開設西方人文思想經典、西方文明史等人文通識課程，能夠強化英語專業的學科內涵，豐富英語專業的思想內容，彰顯英語專業自身的品質與價值。我們並不是站在現代人的高度，帶著現代人的傲慢之態來解讀經典著作，而是以虔敬的心情對經典文本進行理解、詮釋、研究，與古往今來之聖賢促膝交談，希望通過詮釋這些蘊藏著豐富文化資源的原著，獲得智慧性的啟迪，這也是本教材出版的意義。Contents
Chapter 1Greek Culture \/ 希臘文化 1
The Apology \/ 申辯篇2
The Republic \/ 理想國9
Chapter 2Roman Culture \/ 羅馬文化17
On Friendship \/ 談友誼19
Meditations \/ 沉思錄24
Chapter 3The Renaissance \/ 文藝複興31
In Praise of Folly \/ 愚人頌32
Oration on the Dignity of Man \/ 論人的尊嚴39
Chapter 4Humanism \/ 人文主義47
Critique of Pure Reason \/ 純粹理性批判48
A Treatise of Human Nature \/ 人性論58
Chapter 5Scientific Revolution \/ 科學革命65
Words \/ 人類理解新論66
Novum Organum \/ 新工具71
Chapter 6French Enlightenment \/ 法國啟蒙運動80
Philosophical Letters \/ 哲學信件81
The Social Contract \/ 社會契約論89
Chapter 7American Enlightenment \/ 美國啟蒙運動98
The Age of Reason & Rights of Man \/ 《理性時代》和《人權宣言》99
The Declaration of Independence \/ 獨立宣言108
Chapter 8Liberalism \/ 自由主義114
The Wealth of Nations \/ 國富論115
On Liberty \/ 論自由128
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific \/ 社會主義：烏托邦與科學（曆史唯物主義）
133
Chapter 9Evolutionism \/ 進化論149
On the Origin of Species \/ 物種起源151
Chapter 10Socialism and Communism \/ 社會主義和共產主義156
Critique of the Gotha Programme \/ 哥達綱領批判157
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific \/ 社會主義：烏托邦與科學（辨證法）165
Chapter 11Existentialism \/ 存在主義174
Existentialism Is a Humanism \/ 存在主義是一種人道主義177
Being and Time \/ 存在與時間182目 錄
第一章希臘文化1
申辯篇2
理想國9
第二章羅馬文化19
談友誼24
沉思錄31
第三章文藝複興32
愚人頌39
論人的尊嚴47
第四章人文主義47
純粹理性批判48
人性論58
第五章科學革命65
人類理解新論66
新工具71
第六章法國啟蒙運動80
哲學信件81
社會契約論89
第七章美國啟蒙運動98
《理性時代》和《人權宣言》99
獨立宣言108
第八章自由主義114
國富論115
論自由128
社會主義：烏托邦與科學（曆史唯物主義）133
第九章進化論149
物種起源151
第十章社會主義和共產主義156
哥達綱領批判157
社會主義：烏托邦與科學（辨證法）165
第十一章存在主義174
存在主義是一種人道主義177
存在與時間182
西方人文思想經典選讀Chapter 1Greek CultureChapter 1Greek Culture
Greece has a history of thousands of years， and therefore， its culture developed and evolved throughout this period. Starting during the Ancient Era in Mycenae and Classical Greece， the culture further developed during the Byzantine Era， before falling under Ottoman and Venetian rule.
Ancient Greece is considered the cradle of Western culture， democratic values and free speech. The civilization of the ancient Greeks was the foundationhead of Western culture. The Ancient Greeks made significant breakthroughs in many fields of science and philosophy， and they also developed important cultural means of expression， such as poetry， history， and drama. Socrates， Plato， and Aristotle established the foundations of Western philosophy. Herodotus and Thucydides created the discipline of history. Our literary forms are largely derived from Greek poetry and drama. Greek notions of harmony， proportion， and beauty have remained the touchstones for all subsequent Western art. A rational inquiry， so important to modern science， was conceived in ancient Greece. Many political terms are of Greek origin， and so are our concepts of the rights and duties of citizenship， especially as they were conceived in Athens， the first great democracy. Athens gave the idea of democracy to the Western world. Especially during their classical period， the Greeks raised and debated the fundamental questions about the purpose of human existence， the structure about human society， and the nature of the universe that have concerned Western thinkers ever since. In architecture， buildings fall under one of three categories or orders， based on their aesthetics， the Doric， the Ionic and the Corinthian order. These orders were later adopted by the Romans and were adapted to their tastes， introducing new traits and ornaments and creating their own architectural orders. The Greek language， which is a member of the IndoEuropean family， emerged during the prehistoric Mycenaean civilization as the Linear B script and evolved to form the Attic Greek， which is very close to Modern Greek.
Greek literature is particularly rich and extends over almost three millennia. Its first recorded works， which are also the first in Western culture， are the epic poems of Homer and Hesiod during the 8th century BC. The Fables of Aesop were written two centuries later； theatrical plays were also first created in Ancient Greece， along with the development of the scientific means of recording history， as can be noted in the works of Herodotus and Thucydides. All of the above， along with many other literary works， had a remarkable contribution in the development of literature in Europe in general.
During the antiquity， philosophical and scientific thinking developed considerably in Greece， by such important scholars as Thales， Democritus， Hippocrates， Thales of Miletus， Aristotle and Archimedes. The list is endless and the contribution of these personalities to the development of philosophy and science is immense.
Spanning over three millennia and receiving the influence of numerous other cultures and mentalities through the ages， the Greek culture is truly multifaceted and unique in nature.
The ApologySocratesPrereading
The philosophy of ancient Greece reached its highest level of achievement in the works of Socrates， Plato， and Aristotle. The influence of these men on the culture of the Western world can scarcely be overestimated. Each of them made significant contributions to philosophy， and it would be difficult to determine to which one of them we are most indebted. All three were original thinkers and great teachers. In point of time， Socrates was the one who appeared first. Plato became the most distinguished of his pupils， and Aristotle in turn received instruction from Plato. Both Plato and Aristotle were prolific writers， and what we know about them has been derived chiefly from their published works. In contrast to them， Socrates left no writings at all. Consequently， what information we have concerning him comes from the testimony of others who were associated with him and who were influenced both by the moral quality of his living and the significance of the ideas that he expounded.
Although Socrates left no written records concerning himself， it is possible to reconstruct a fairly accurate account of his life from the writings of his Greek contemporaries. Aristophanes caricatured him in a work called The Clouds. Xenophon in his Memorabilia expressed high praise for Socrates， with special reference to the method that he advocated for selecting the rulers of a state. Plato， to whom we are most indebted for information about Socrates， made him the chief character in many of his famous dialogs. It is generally assumed that in Platos earlier dialogs， the speeches attributed to Socrates are historical in the sense that they reproduce what Socrates actually said in the conversations he held with fellow Athenians. In the later dialogs， there is reason to believe that， at least in some instances， Plato was setting forth his own ideas by putting them into the mouth of Socrates. To what extent this was done is something that cannot be known with certainty.
Socrates was born in the city of Athens in 469 BC. He was the son of poor parents， his father being a sculptor and his mother a midwife. Early in life， he took up the occupation of his father and continued in it for a relatively brief period of time. Later he volunteered for service as a soldier in the Peloponnesian War. In the campaigns in which he fought， he showed himself to be a brave and loyal member of the fighting force. After his retirement from the army， most of his adult life was spent in response to what he believed to be a divine command to devote his time and energies to the pursuit of wisdom. It was in this connection that he felt called upon to examine himself by questioning other men. Accordingly， it was his custom to engage in conversation with all sorts and conditions of men and women on the streets， in the marketplace， or wherever it was convenient for them to meet. Their discussions covered a wide range of subjects， including such topics as love， marriage， politics， war， friendship， poetry， religion， science， government， and morals. The method that Socrates used in these discussions is known as dialectic. It consisted of conversations， the purpose of which was to bring to light the implications involved in different points of view and thus to expose the errors that they contained. He had a keen mind and was quick to discover the fallacies in an argument， and he was skillful in steering the conversations toward the very heart of the matter.
With regard to his personal appearance， it is said that Socrates was most unattractive. It is reported that he was short， stout， snubnosed， and careless about his dress. However， these peculiarities were quickly forgotten by those who listened to his conversations. As soon as he began to speak， his listeners were charmed by his wit， his good humor， and his kindly disposition. His brilliant discourses， which covered a wide range of subjects， brought admiration and respect on the part of those who participated in the conversations with him. He was especially concerned with the subject of moral conduct. He not only talked about the virtues that are an essential part of the good life， but he exemplified in his own living the virtues that he taught others should seek for themselves. For example， he possessed to a remarkable degree the virtue of selfcontrol. He never boasted of his own achievements. He was humble and intellectually honest. He was magnanimous in his attitude toward others. He was noble in character， frugal in his living， and a person of great endurance.
He is remembered not only for the quality of his living but for the content of his teachings. He believed that the most important topic that can occupy the mind is the meaning of the good life. He had no quarrel with the physicists and natural scientists of his day， who were trying to obtain a descriptive account of the way things are and the laws that govern their behavior. Important as this type of information might be， it was a matter of far greater significance to understand the meaning of human life and the way that people ought to live. The physical sciences do not reveal anything concerning the purpose for which things exist， nor do they tell us anything about the nature of goodness. They do not reveal what is good or bad， nor do they distinguish between what is morally right and wrong. A far more important type of inquiry has to do with knowledge of what constitutes the good life.
Although he rejected the popular conceptions of the Greek gods and their relation to human beings， Socrates believed that a divine providence had to do with the creation of the world and， further， that the purpose toward which it was directed was the achievement of the good life on the part of human beings. Man was something more than a physical organism. His body was the dwelling place of the soul， and what happens to the soul was vastly more important than what happens to the body.
An epitome of Socrates moral philosophy can be expressed briefly in the statement “Virtue is knowledge.” Virtues， he taught， are acquired through a fulfillment of the purpose for which one exists. In the case of a human， this would mean the harmonious development of the elements found in human nature and would apply to life as a whole rather than just the present moment or the immediate future. The knowledge to which this statement refers is something more than an awareness of facts concerning the order of the material universe. It involves an understanding of the soul in relation to the good life. It was Socrates conviction that ignorance concerning the good life was the chief cause of the evil that people do. He did not believe that anyone would knowingly do that which was harmful to oneself. Virtue alone is capable of bringing satisfaction to the soul. Although this is the goal toward which everyone strives， not everyone reaches it. Their failures are due to the fact that they do not know what will bring lasting satisfaction. They pursue sensuous pleasures， material wealth， public esteem， and similar goals， thinking that these will bring about the greatest amount of happiness. When any one or all of these goals has been reached， they discover that objectives of this type do not bring about peace of mind， nor do they meet the demands of ones true or real self. It is only through the proper development of the mind in its pursuit of truth， beauty， and goodness that the goal and purpose of human life can be achieved.
With reference to the trial and death of Socrates， there are four dialogs that are especially relevant. They are The Euthyphro， The Apology， The Crito， and The Phaedo. The Apology is believed to be the most authentic account that has been preserved of Socrates defense of himself as it was presented before the Athenian Council after he had been charged with being a corrupter of the youth and one who refuses to accept the popular beliefs concerning the gods of the city of Athens. It is generally regarded as the most authentic account on record of what Socrates actually said as he appeared before his judges. The Apology is in essential harmony with the references to the trial that occur in Platos other dialogs and also with the account given in Xenophons Memorabilia. It appears to record， in many instances， the exact words used by Socrates while making his speech in defense of himself. To be sure， the words were not recorded at the time they were spoken， but we know that Plato was present at the trial， and hence we may conclude that the account given in The Apology contains the words of Socrates as they were remembered by Plato. However， we should bear in mind that Plato had been both a pupil and an ardent admirer of Socrates， and for this reason his version of the trial may have been somewhat biased in favor of the one whom he regarded as a truly great hero. At any rate， we may be fairly certain that， even though Socrates has been to some extent idealized by his pupil， the account given represents what Plato believed to be true about his teacher. It is also possible that Socrates defense of himself was even stronger than what has been reported.
The contents of the dialog include a number of different parts. The first one consists of an introductory statement that Socrates makes concerning the manner of his speaking. This is followed by an account of the specific accusations made with reference to his life and daily activities. Socrates replies at some length to each of the charges brought against him. After making his defense， an account is given of his attempt at mitigation of the penalty imposed on him. Finally， Socrates makes a prophetic rebuke of the judges for supposing they will live at ease and with an untroubled conscience after pronouncing sentence as a penalty for his crimes.
Now lets read the text and reflect on the questions that follow.
Text
How you， O Athenians， have been affected by my accusers， I cannot tell； but I know that they almost made me forget who I was—so persuasively did they speak； and yet they have hardly uttered a word of truth. But of the many falsehoods told by them， there was one which quite amazed me；I mean when they said that you should be upon your guard and not allow yourselves to be deceived by the force of my eloquence. To say this， when they were certain to be detected as soon as I opened my lips and proved myself to be anything but a great speaker， did indeed appear to me most shameless—unless by the force of eloquence they mean the force of truth； for if such is their meaning， I admit that I am eloquent. But in how different a way from theirs! Well， as I was saying， they have scarcely spoken the truth at all； but from me you shall hear the whole truth: not， however， delivered after their manner in a set oration duly ornamented with words and phrases. No， by heaven! But I shall use the words and arguments which occur to me at the moment； for I am confident in the justice of my cause (Or， I am certain that I am right in taking this course): at my time of life I ought not to be appearing before you， O men of Athens， in the character of a juvenile orator—let no one expect it of me. And I must beg of you to grant me a favor:—If I defend myself in my accustomed manner， and you hear me using the words which I have been in the habit of using in the agora， at the tables of the moneychangers， or anywhere else， I would ask you not to be surprised， and not to interrupt me on this account. For I am more than seventy years of age， and appearing now for the first time in a court of law， I am quite a stranger to the language of the place； and therefore I would have you regard me as if I were really a stranger， whom you would excuse if he spoke in his native tongue， and after the fashion of his country:—Am I making an unfair request of you? Never mind the manner， which may or may not be good； but think only of the truth of my words， and give heed to that: let the speaker speak truly and the judge decide justly.
And first， I have to reply to the older charges and to my first accusers， and then I will go on to the later ones. For of old I have had many accusers， who have accused me falsely to you during many years； and I am more afraid of them than of Anytus and his associates， who are dangerous， too， in their own way. But far more dangerous are the others， who began when you were children， and took possession of your minds with their falsehoods， telling of one Socrates， a wise man， who speculated about the heaven above， and searched into the earth beneath， and made the worse appear the better cause. The disseminators of this tale are the accusers whom I dread； for their hearers are apt to fancy that such enquirers do not believe in the existence of the gods. And they are many， and their charges against me are of ancient date， and they were made by them in the days when you were more impressible than you are now—in childhood， or it may have been in youth—and the cause when heard went by default， for there was none to answer. And hardest of all， I do not know and cannot tell the names of my accusers； unless in the chance case of a Comic poet. All who from envy and malice have persuaded you—some of them having first convinced themselves—all this class of men are most difficult to deal with； for I cannot have them up here， and crossexamine them， and therefore I must simply fight with shadows in my own defence， and argue when there is no one who answers. I will ask you then to assume with me， as I was saying， that my opponents are of two kinds: one recent， the other ancient； and I hope that you will see the propriety of my answering the latter first， for these accusations you heard long before the others， and much oftener.
Well， then， I must make my defence， and endeavour to clear away in a short time， a slander which has lasted a long time. May I succeed， if to succeed be for my good and yours， or likely to avail me in my cause! The task is not an easy one； I quite understand the nature of it. And so leaving the event with God， in obedience to the law I will now make my defence.
I will begin at the beginning， and ask what is the accusation which has given rise to the slander of me， and in fact has encouraged Meletus to proof this charge against me. Well， what do the slanderers say? They shall be my prosecutors， and I will sum up their words in an affidavit: “Socrates is an evildoer， and a curious person， who searches into things under the earth and in heaven， and he makes the worse appear the better cause； and he teaches the aforesaid doctrines to others.” Such is the nature of the accusation: it is just what you have yourselves seen in the comedy of Aristophanes (Aristoph， Clouds)， who has introduced a man whom he calls Socrates， going about and saying that he walks in air， and talking a deal of nonsense concerning matters of which I do not pretend to know either much or little—not that I mean to speak disparagingly of any one who is a student of natural philosophy. I should be very sorry if Meletus could bring so grave a charge against me. But the simple truth is， O Athenians， that I have nothing to do with physical speculations. Very many of those here present are witnesses to the truth of this， and to them I appeal. Speak then， you who have heard me， and tell your neighbours whether any of you have ever known me hold forth in few words or in many upon such matters ... You hear their answer. And from what they say of this part of the charge you will be able to judge of the truth of the rest.
As little foundation is there for the report that I am a teacher， and take money； this accusation has no more truth in it than the other. Although， if a man were really able to instruct mankind， to receive money for giving instruction would， in my opinion， be an honor to him. There is Gorgias of Leontium， and Prodicus of Ceos， and Hippias of Elis， who go the round of the cities， and are able to persuade the young men to leave their own citizens by whom they might be taught for nothing， and come to them whom they not only pay， but are thankful if they may be allowed to pay them. There is at this time a Parian philosopher residing in Athens， of whom I have heard； and I came to hear of him in this way:— I came across a man who has spent a world of money on the Sophists， Callias， the son of Hipponicus， and knowing that he had sons， I asked him: “Callias，” I said， “if your two sons were foals or calves， there would be no difficulty in finding some one to put over them； we should hire a trainer of horses， or a farmer probably， who would improve and perfect them in their own proper virtue and excellence； but as they are human beings， whom are you thinking of placing over them? Is there any one who understands human and political virtue? You must have thought about the matter， for you have sons； is there any one?” “There is，” he said. “Who is he?” said I， “and of what country? and what does he charge?” “Evenus the Parian，” he replied， “he is the man， and his charge is five minae.” Happy is Evenus， I said to myself， if he really has this wisdom， and teaches at such a moderate charge. Had I the same， I should have been very proud and conceited； but the truth is that I have no knowledge of the kind.
I dare say， Athenians， that some one among you will reply， “Yes， Socrates， but what is the origin of these accusations which are brought against you； there must have been something strange which you have been doing? All these rumours and this talk about you would never have arisen if you had been like other men: tell us， then，what is the cause of them， for we should be sorry to judge hastily of you.” Now I regard this as a fair challenge， and I will endeavour to explain to you the reason why I am called wise and have such an evil fame. Please to attend then. And although some of you may think that I am joking， I declare that I will tell you the entire truth. Men of Athens， this reputation of mine has come of a certain sort of wisdom which I possess. If you ask me what kind of wisdom， I reply， wisdom such as may perhaps be attained by man， for to that extent I am inclined to believe that I am wise； whereas the persons of whom I was speaking have a superhuman wisdom which I may fail to describe， because I have it not myself； and he who says that I have， speaks falsely， and is taking away my character. And here， O men of Athens， I must beg you not to interrupt me， even if I seem to say something extravagant. For the word which I will speak is not mine. I will refer you to a witness who is worthy of credit； that witness shall be the God of Delphi—he will tell you about my wisdom， if I have any， and of what sort it is. You must have known Chaerephon； he was early a friend of mine， and also a friend of yours， for he shared in the recent exile of the people， and returned with you. Well， Chaerephon， as you know， was very impetuous in all his doings， and he went to Delphi and boldly asked the oracle to tell him whether—as I was saying， I must beg you not to interrupt—he asked the oracle to tell him whether anyone was wiser than I was， and the Pythian prophetess answered， that there was no man wiser. Chaerephon is dead himself； but his brother， who is in court， will confirm the truth of what I am saying.
Why do I mention this? Because I am going to explain to you why I have such an evil name. When I heard the answer， I said to myself， “What can the god mean?” “and what is the interpretation of his riddle?” for I know that I have no wisdom， small or great. What then can he mean when he says that I am the wisest of men? And yet he is a god， and cannot lie； that would be against his nature. After long consideration， I thought of a method of trying the question. I reflected that if I could only find a man wiser than myself， then I might go to the god with a refutation in my hand. I should say to him， “Here is a man who is wiser than I am； but you said that I was the wisest.” Accordingly I went to one who had the reputation of wisdom， and observed him—his name I need not mention； he was a politician whom I selected for examination—and the result was as follows: When I began to talk with him， I could not help thinking that he was not really wise， although he was thought wise by many， and still wiser by himself； and thereupon I tried to explain to him that he thought himself wise， but was not really wise； and the consequence was that he hated me， and his enmity was shared by several who were present and heard me. So I left him， saying to myself， as I went away: Well， although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good， I am better off than he is—for he knows nothing， and thinks that he knows； I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular， then， I seem to have slightly the advantage of him. Then I went to another who had still higher pretensions to wisdom， and my conclusion was exactly the same. Whereupon I made another enemy of him， and of many others besides him.
...
At last I went to the artisans. I was conscious that I knew nothing at all， as I may say， and I was sure that they knew many fine things； and here I was not mistaken， for they did know many things of which I was ignorant， and in this they certainly were wiser than I was. But I observed that even the good artisans fell into the same error as the poets；—because they were good workmen they thought that they also knew all sorts of high matters， and this defect in them overshadowed their wisdom； and therefore I asked myself on behalf of the oracle， whether I would like to be as I was， neither having their knowledge nor their ignorance， or like them in both； and I made answer to myself and to the oracle that I was better off as I was.
This inquisition has led to my having many enemies of the worst and most dangerous kind， and has given occasion also to many calumnies. And I am called wise， for my hearers always imagine that I myself possess the wisdom which I find wanting in others: but the truth is， O men of Athens， that God only is wise； and by his answer he intends to show that the wisdom of men is worth little or nothing； he is not speaking of Socrates， he is only using my name by way of illustration， as if he said， He， O men， is the wisest， who， like Socrates， knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing. And so I go about the world， obedient to the god， and search and make enquiry into the wisdom of any one， whether citizen or stranger， who appears to be wise； and if he is not wise， then in vindication of the oracle I show him that he is not wise； and my occupation quite absorbs me， and I have no time to give either to any public matter of interest or to any concern of my own， but I am in utter poverty by reason of my devotion to the god.
There is another thing:—young men of the richer classes， who have not much to do， come about me of their own accord； they like to hear the pretenders examined， and they often imitate me， and proceed to examine others； there are plenty of persons， as they quickly discover， who think that they know something， but really know little or nothing； and then those who are examined by them instead of being angry with themselves are angry with me: This confounded Socrates， they say； this villainous misleader of youth! —and then if somebody asks them， Why， what evil does he practise or teach? they do not know， and cannot tell； but in order that they may not appear to be at a loss， they repeat the readymade charges which are used against all philosophers about teaching things up in the clouds and under the earth， and having no gods， and making the worse appear the better cause； for they do not like to confess that their pretence of knowledge has been detected—which is the truth； and as they are numerous and ambitious and energetic， and are drawn up in battle array and have persuasive tongues， they have filled your ears with their loud and inveterate calumnies. And this is the reason why my three accusers， Meletus and Anytus and Lycon， have set upon me； Meletus， who has a quarrel with me on behalf of the poets； Anytus， on behalf of the craftsmen and politicians； Lycon， on behalf of the rhetoricians； and as I said at the beginning， I cannot expect to get rid of such a mass of calumny all in a moment. And this， O men of Athens， is the truth and the whole truth； I have concealed nothing， I have dissembled nothing. And yet， I know that my plainness of speech makes them hate me， and what is their hatred but a proof that I am speaking the truth? Hence has arisen the prejudice against me； and this is the reason of it， as you will find out either in this or in any future enquiry.
Questions
1. Socrates states that he will reply to two kinds of accusation brought against him. What were they， and why did he find it so difficult to deal with the first one?
2. How did Socrates reconcile the statement made by the oracle at Delphi that he was the wisest man in Athens with his own admittance of ignorance?
3. How did Socrates account for the popular prejudice that led so many people to be suspicious of him and his work?
4. What， according to Meletus， was the crime of which Socrates was accused? What do you think was the real reason why Meletus was opposed to Socrates?
5. How did Socrates reply to the charge that he was a corrupter of the youth? What was it that led people to think he was guilty?
6. Why did Socrates reject many of the popular beliefs concerning the Athenian gods? Was Socrates an atheist? Give reasons for your answer.
7. Why did Socrates believe it would be wrong for him to escape? Did he believe all laws authorized by the state should be obeyed?
8. How did Socrates reconcile his position about obedience to the laws of the state with his conviction that it is morally right to disobey laws that are unjust? Distinguish moral and legal rights.
The RepublicPlatoPrereading
Among those who were influenced by the life and teachings of Socrates， no one has done more to perpetuate his memory than Plato， who has long been recognized as one of the greatest philosophers of ancient Greece and one of the most profound thinkers of all time. Plato was too young to have been one of Socrates most intimate friends. It was not until the last seven or eight years of Socrates life that Plato came under his influence， but those years made a lasting impression on his life and determined to a large extent the future course of his life. In his later years， Plato is reported to have said， “I thank God that I was born Greek and not barbarian， free and not slave， male and not female， but above all that I was born in the age of Socrates.”
Owing to the fact that he was ill at the time， Plato was not present when a group of Socrates friends came to the prison for their last visit with him. However， he had been so deeply impressed by the moral quality of Socrates teachings and his devotion to the cause of truth and justice that he determined to perpetuate his memory by writing a series of biographical dialogs in which his true character would be brought to light. Even after Platos own thought had matured， he continued to make Socrates the protagonist of his dialogs. The result has been such a blending of views that in several instances it is difficult， if not impossible， to tell where the actual historical Socrates leaves off and Platos own thought begins.
Plato was born in the city of Athens in the year 427 BC. He died in the year 347 BC. He came from an aristocratic family that for a long time had been identified with leadership in Athens. His father， Ariston， was a descendant of King Codrus， and his mother， whose name was Perictione， claimed to have been descended from the famous lawgiver Solon. As a boy， he was named Aristocles， but because of his broad shoulders and forehead he was called Plato， and it is by this name that he has become known to posterity. During his youth， he gained distinction as an athlete and was also recognized for his extraordinary mental abilities. In addition to his achievements along these lines， his social standing and connections would have made him an outstanding individual in any career he might have entered.
He lived during a critical period of Greek history. His youth saw the decline and fall of Athenian power but not of Athenian genius. His early education began under the supervision of private tutors who were well known for their professional skills. Under their guidance， he received instruction in the elementary disciplines， such as gymnastics， music， reading， writing， and the study of numbers. After reaching the age of eighteen or thereabouts， he spent two years in military training， which placed considerable emphasis on physical exercises and the proper care of the body. This training was followed by a more advanced period of study in which he gained familiarity with several of the more prominent schools of Greek philosophy， which gave him an opportunity to become acquainted with many of the Sophists， who were the recognized professional teachers of that time. Finally， Plato spent about seven or eight years as a pupil of Socrates. This experience influenced him， not only to devote the rest of his life to philosophy， but to carry on his career in the spirit and under the guidance of his beloved teacher.
Because Socrates had been put to death under the auspices of the Athenian government， Plato believed that it would not be safe for him to remain in the city and thus expose himself to the same kind of treatment. It was well known that Plato had been one of Socrates followers and that he was most sympathetic toward the ideas that his teacher had proclaimed. So long as these ideas were regarded as harmful to the state， anyone who subscribed to them would be in danger. For this reason， Plato left the city of Athens for a time and journeyed to a number of different places， where he hoped to become better acquainted with the leaders of a number of philosophical movements. At first he went to Megara， where he carried on conversations with Euclid， the famous mathematician. Later， he made extensive journeys to Egypt， Cyrene， Crete， and southern Italy. These excursions gave him an opportunity to become better acquainted with the leaders of each of the schools founded， respectively， by Pythagoras， Heraclitus， and the Eleatic philosophers.
When Plato was approximately forty years of age， he undertook an experiment in government. From his early youth he had been interested in political affairs. From his associations with Socrates and from his own observations， he had arrived at certain convictions concerning the proper qualifications for those whose duty was to govern the state. He believed that only those persons who possessed intellectual as well as moral qualities should be entrusted with the power to rule over others. Eventually， the opportunity came to him to put his philosophy into practice. At Syracuse， on the coast of the island of Sicily， a friend and pupil by the name of Dion urged him to undertake the education of Dionysius， the tyrant of Syracuse. Dionysius appeared to be willing to take instruction from Plato， which would make it possible for Platos theory of government to be tried out under actual conditions. The experiment was not a success， for Dionysius was not an apt pupil， and when Plato rebuked him for his stupidity， the tyrant retaliated by having Plato put in chains and sentenced to death. Dion used his influence to get the sentence changed. The result was that Platos life was spared but at the price of being made a slave. Soon afterward Anniceris， a member of the Cyrenaic school of philosophy， came to Syracuse and purchased Platos freedom， thus allowing him to return to Athens.
After returning to Athens， Plato established his school， an institution that came to be known as the Academy. It continued for a period of more than eight centuries as a center for the study and evaluation of Platonic philosophy. With the establishment of the Academy， Plato devoted most of his time to teaching and the writing of dialogs. Fortunately， these dialogs have been preserved， and they constitute the chief source of the information we have concerning the various aspects of his philosophy.
The Republic is arguably the most popular and most widely taught of Platos writings. Although it contains its dramatic moments and it employs certain literary devices， it is not a play， a novel， a story； it is not， in a strict sense， an essay. It is a kind of extended conversation that embraces a central argument， an argument that is advanced by the proponent of the argument， Socrates. The Republic may be seen as a kind of debate， a fitting description for most of the Dialogues.
The Republic of Plato is the longest of his works with the exception of the Laws， and is certainly the greatest of them. No other Dialogue of Plato has the same largeness of view and the same perfection of style； no other shows an equal knowledge of the world， or contains more of those thoughts which are new as well as old， and not of one age only but of all. Nowhere in Plato is there a deeper irony or a greater wealth of humor or imagery， or more dramatic power. Nor in any other of his writings is the attempt made to interweave life and speculation， or to connect politics with philosophy. The Republic is the center around which the other Dialogues may be grouped； here philosophy reaches the highest point (especially in Books Ⅴ， Ⅵ， Ⅶ) to which ancient thinkers ever attained. Plato among the Greeks， like Bacon among the moderns， was the first who conceived a method of knowledge， although neither of them always distinguished the bare outline or form from the substance of truth； and both of them had to be content with an abstraction of science which was not yet realized. He was the greatest metaphysical genius whom the world has seen； and in him， more than in any other ancient thinker， the germs of future knowledge are contained. The sciences of logic and psychology， which have supplied so many instruments of thought to afterages， are based upon the analyses of Socrates and Plato. The principles of definition， the law of contradiction， the fallacy of arguing in a circle， the distinction between the essence and accidents of a thing or notion， between means and ends， between causes and conditions； also the division of the mind into the rational， concupiscent， and irascible elements， or of pleasures and desires into necessary and unnecessary—these and other great forms of thought are all of them to be found in The Republic， and were probably first invented by Plato.
The division into books， like all similar divisions， is probably later than the age of Plato. The natural divisions are five in number—(1) Book I and the first half of Book II down to the paragraph beginning， “I had always admired the genius of Glaucon and Adeimantus，” which is introductory； the first book containing a refutation of the popular and sophistical notions of justice， and concluding， like some of the earlier Dialogues， without arriving at any definite result. To this is appended a restatement of the nature of justice according to common opinion， and an answer is demanded to the question—what is justice， stripped of appearances? The second division (2) includes the remainder of the second and the whole of the third and fourth books， which are mainly occupied with the construction of the first State and the first education. The third division (3) consists of the fifth， sixth， and seventh books， in which philosophy rather than justice is the subject of enquiry， and the second State is constructed on principles of communism and ruled by philosophers， and the contemplation of the idea of good takes the place of the social and political virtues. In the eighth and ninth books (4) the perversions of States and of the individuals who correspond to them are reviewed in succession； and the nature of pleasure and the principle of tyranny are further analyzed in the individual man. The tenth book (5) is the conclusion of the whole， in which the relations of philosophy to poetry are finally determined， and the happiness of the citizens in this life， which has now been assured， is crowned by the vision of another.
Now lets read the text and reflect on the questions that follow.
Text
AND now， I said， let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened:—Behold! human beings living in a underground den， which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den； here they have been from their childhood， and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move， and can only see before them， being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance， and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way； and you will see， if you look， a low wall built along the way， like the screen which marionette players have in front of them， over which they show the puppets.
I see.
And do you see， I said， men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels， and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials， which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking， others silent.
You have shown me a strange image， and they are strange prisoners.
Like ourselves， I replied； and they see only their own shadows， or the shadows of one another， which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?
True， he said； how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?
And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows?
Yes， he said.
And if they were able to converse with one another， would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them?
Very true.
The prisoners would mistake the shadows for realities. And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other side， would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passersby spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow?
No question， he replied.
To them， I said， the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images.
That is certain.
And now look again， and see what will naturally follow if the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first， when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light， he will suffer sharp pains； the glare will distress him， and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows； and then conceive some one saying to him， that what he saw before was an illusion， but that now， when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence， he has a clearer vision，—what will be his reply? And when released， they would still persist in maintaining the superior truth of the shadows. And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them，—will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?
...
Nothing extraordinary in the philosopher being unable to see in the dark， and is there anything surprising in one who passes from divine contemplations to the evil state of man， misbehaving himself in a ridiculous manner； if， while his eyes are blinking and before he has become accustomed to the surrounding darkness， he is compelled to fight in courts of law， or in other places， about the images or the shadows of images of justice， and is endeavoring to meet the conceptions of those who have never yet seen absolute justice?
Anything but surprising， he replied.
The eyes may be blinded in two ways， by excess or by defect of light. Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments of the eyes are of two kinds， and arise from two causes， either from coming out of the light or from going into the light， which is true of the minds eye， quite as much as of the bodily eye； and he who remembers this when he sees any one whose vision is perplexed and weak， will not be too ready to laugh； he will first ask whether that soul of man has come out of the brighter life， and is unable to see because unaccustomed to the dark， or having turned from darkness to the day is dazzled by excess of light. And he will count the one happy in his condition and state of being， and he will pity the other； or， if he have a mind to laugh at the soul which comes from below into the light， there will be more reason in this than in the laugh which greets him who returns from above out of the light into the den.
That， he said， is a very just distinction.
The conversion of the soul is the turning round of the eye from darkness to light. But then， if I am right， certain professors of education must be wrong when they say that they can put a knowledge into the soul which was not there before， like sight into blind eyes.
They undoubtedly say this， he replied.
Whereas， our argument shows that the power and capacity of learning exists in the soul already； and that just as the eye was unable to turn from darkness to light without the whole body， so too the instrument of knowledge can only by the movement of the whole soul be turned from the world of becoming into that of being， and learn by degrees to endure the sight of being， and of the brightest and best of being， or in other words， of the good.
Very true.
And must there not be some art which will effect conversion in the easiest and quickest manner； not implanting the faculty of sight， for that exists already， but has been turned in the wrong direction， and is looking away from the truth?
Yes， he said， such an art may be presumed.
The virtue of wisdom has a divine power which may be turned either towards good or towards evil. And whereas the other socalled virtues of the soul seem to be akin to bodily qualities， for even when they are not originally innate they can be implanted later by habit and exercise， the virtue of wisdom more than anything else contains a divine element which always remains， and by this conversion is rendered useful and profitable； or， on the other hand， hurtful and useless. Did you never observe the narrow intelligence flashing from the keen eye of a clever rogue—how eager he is， how clearly his paltry soul sees the way to his end； he is the reverse of blind， but his keen eyesight is forced into the service of evil， and he is mischievous in proportion to his cleverness?
Very true， he said.
But what if there had been a circumcision of such natures in the days of their youth； and they had been severed from those sensual pleasures， such as eating and drinking， which， like leaden weights， were attached to them at their birth， and which drag them down and turn the vision of their souls upon the things that are below—if， I say， they had been released from these impediments and turned in the opposite direction， the very same faculty in them would have seen the truth as keenly as they see what their eyes are turned to now.
Very likely.
Neither the uneducated nor the overeducated will be good servants of the State. Yes， I said； and there is another thing which is likely， or rather a necessary inference from what has preceded， that neither the uneducated and uninformed of the truth， nor yet those who never make an end of their education， will be able ministers of State； not the former， because they have no single aim of duty which is the rule of all their actions， private as well as public； nor the latter， because they will not act at all except upon compulsion， fancying that they are already dwelling apart in the islands of the blest.
Very true， he replied.
Then， I said， the business of us who are the founders of the State will be to compel the best minds to attain that knowledge which we have already shown to be the greatest of all—they must continue to ascend until they arrive at the good； but when they have ascended and seen enough we must not allow them to do as they do now.
What do you mean?
Men should ascend to the upper world， but they should also return to the lower. I mean that they remain in the upper world: but this must not be allowed； they must be made to descend again among the prisoners in the den， and partake of their labors and honors， whether they are worth having or not.
But is not this unjust?he said； ought we to give them a worse life， when they might have a better?
You have again forgotten， my friend， I said， the intention of the legislator， who did not aim at making any one class in the State happy above the rest； the happiness was to be in the whole State， and he held the citizens together by persuasion and necessity， making them benefactors of the State， and therefore benefactors of one another； to this end he created them， not to please themselves， but to be his instruments in binding up the State.
...
No question.
Who then are those whom we shall compel to be guardians? Surely they will be the men who are wisest about affairs of State， and by whom the State is best administered， and who at the same time have other honors and another and a better life than that of politics?
They are the men， and I will choose them， he replied.
And now shall we consider in what way such guardians will be produced， and how they are to be brought from darkness to light，—as some are said to have ascended from the world below to the gods?
By all means， he replied.
Questions
1. What is the main argument in Platos Republic， Book Ⅶ?
2. What is the conventional interpretation of “Allegory of the Cave” in Platos Republic?
3. How does one better understand Platos “Myth of the Cave”?
4. In Platos “Allegory of the Cave，” in what types of activities are the prisoners engaged?
5. How does the allegory of the cave relate to the theory of form?
6. How do the doctrines of Determinism and Free Will contrast， and how does one use either Determinism or Free Will to interpret Platos myth?
Questions for Further Reflection
1. Why is ancient Greek Civilization the cradle of Western Civilization? How is it different from other ancient civilizations in the world?
2. Why was Socrates sentenced to death? Why did Plato criticize democracy?
3. How was Plato significant in Western Civilization? How were his wittings influential on societies: Ethics, Politics, The Republic, Symposium and Socrates dialogues?
4. How would you explain Aristotle views on pleasure with reference to the ethics and Platos view on pleasure?
5. As a towering figure in ancient Greek philosophy, Why did Aristotle fail to anticipate the great success of Alexander?
References and Further Reading
1. Aristotle.（1999）. Metaphysics. （Joe Sachs，trans.). Santa Fe：Green Lion Press.
2. Aristotle.（2002）. Nicomachean Ethics. （Joe Sachs，trans.). Focus Philosophical Library， Pullins Press.
3. Aristotle.（2006） On the Soul. （Joe Sachs，trans.). Santa Fe：Green Lion Press.
4. Aristotle.（2006）. Poetics. （Joe Sachs，trans.). Newburyport， M.A.: Focus Philosophical Library\/ Pullins Press.
5. Aristotle.（1995）. Physics. （Joe Sachs，trans.). Piscataway，N.J.：Rutgers U. P.
6. Benson， H. H. (ed.).（1992）. Essays on the Philosophy of Socrates. New York: Oxford University Press.
7. Brickhouse， T. C. & Smith, N. D.（1994）. Platos Socrates. New York: Oxford University Press.
8. Brickhouse， T. C. & Smith, N. D. （2000）. The Philosophy of Socrates. Boulder: Westview.
9. Morrison， D. R.（2012）. The Cambridge Companion to Socrates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. Rudebusch， G.（2009）. Socrates. Malden， MA: WileyBlackwell.Chapter 2Roman CultureChapter 2Roman Culture
According to legend， Ancient Rome was founded by the two brothers， and demigods， Romulus and Remus， on 21 April 753 BCE. The legend claims that in an argument over who would rule the city (or， in another version， where the city would be located)， Romulus killed Remus and named the city after himself.
Originally a small town on the banks of the Tiber， Rome grew in size and strength， early on， through trade. The location of the city provided merchants with an easily navigable waterway on which to traffic their goods. The city was ruled by seven kings， from Romulus to Tarquin， as it grew in size and power. Greek culture and civilization， which came to Rome via Greek colonies to the south， provided the early Romans with a model on which to build their own culture. From the Greeks they borrowed literacy and religion as well as the fundamentals of architecture.
From the start， the Romans showed a talent for borrowing and improving upon the skills and concepts of other cultures. The Kingdom of Rome grew rapidly from a trading town to a prosperous city between the 8th and 6th centuries BCE. When the last of the seven kings of Rome， Tarquin the Proud， was deposed in 509 BCE， his rival for power， Lucius Junius Brutus， reformed the system of government and established the Roman Republic.
In the late 6th century BCE， the small citystate of Rome overthrew the shackles of monarchy and created a republican government that， in theory if not always in practice， represented the wishes of its citizens. From this basis the city would go on to conquer all of the Italian peninsula and large parts of the Mediterraean world and beyond. The Republic and its institutions of government would endure for five centuries， until， wrecked by civil wars， it would transform into a Principate ruled by emperors.
During the early Roman Republic， important new political offices and institutions were created， and old ones were adapted to cope with the changing needs of the state. The two consuls (who had come to replace the king) were primarily generals whose task was to lead Romes armies in war. The Senate， which may have existed under the monarchy and served as an advisory council for the king， now advised both magistrates and the Roman people. During the republic there were two different popular assemblies， the centuriate assembly and the tribal assembly. In 451 BCE Rome received its first written law code， inscribed upon 12 bronze tablets and publicly displayed in the forum. This socalled Law of the Twelve Tables was to form the basis of all subsequent Roman private law.
During the 6th century BCE， Rome became one of the more important states in Latium. Toward the end of the 5th century BCE， the Romans began to expand at the expense of the Etruscan states， possibly propelled by population growth. The ensuing Latin War (340338 BCE) was quickly decided in Romes favour. Rome was now the master of central Italy and spent the next decade pushing forward its frontier through conquest and colonization. The Romans occupied Carthage and eventually destroyed it completely in 146. The Romans organized the conquered peoples into provinces—under the control of appointed governors with absolute power over all nonRoman citizens—and stationed troops in each， ready to exercise appropriate force if necessary. The ensuing period of unrest and revolution marked the transition of Rome from a republic to an empire.
The Roman Empire， at its height， was the most extensive political and social structure in western civilization. By 285 CE the empire had grown too vast to be ruled from the central government at Rome and so was divided by Emperor Diocletian (r. 284305 CE) into a Western and an Eastern Empire. The Roman Empire began when Augustus Caesar (r. 27 BCE14 CE) became the first emperor of Rome and ended， in the west， when the last Roman emperor， Romulus Augustulus (r. 475476 CE)， was deposed by the Germanic King Odoacer (r. 476 493 CE). In the east， it continued as the Byzantine Empire until the death of Constantine XI (r. 14491453 CE) and the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453 CE. The influence of the Roman Empire on western civilization was profound in its lasting contributions to virtually every aspect of western culture.
The inventions and innovations which were generated by the Roman Empire profoundly altered the lives of the ancient people and continue to be used in cultures around the world today. Advancements in the construction of roads and buildings， indoor plumbing， aqueducts， and even fastdrying cement were either invented or improved upon by the Romans. The calendar used in the West derives from the one created by Julius Caesar， and the names of the days of the week (in the romance languages) and months of the year also come from Rome. Even the practice of returning some purchase one finds one does not want come from Rome whose laws made it legal for a consumer to bring back some defective or unwanted merchandise to the seller.
Apartment complexes (known as insula)， public toilets， locks and keys， newspapers， even socks， all were developed by the Romans as were shoes， a postal system (modeled after the Persians)， cosmetics， the magnifying glass， and the concept of satire in literature. During the time of the empire， significant developments were also advanced in the fields of medicine， law， religion， government， and warfare. The Romans were adept at borrowing from， and improving upon those inventions or concepts they found among the indigenous populace of the regions they conquered. It is therefore difficult to say what is an “original” Roman invention and what is an innovation on a preexisting concept， technique， or tool. It can safely be said， however， that the Roman Empire left an enduring legacy which continues to affect the way in which people live in the present day.