Callicles

« whether his depiction of animal predators is correct.

Do they really pursue individual interests to the total exclusion of group conventions? And if such apparent 'conventions' are simply a manifestation of their 'nature' , does this not dissolve the antithesis on which Callicles relies? It is also unclear whether human aggression is as natural as Callicles claims (he implies that everyone would imitate the superman if they could).

Some would argue that, although we all possess egoistic drives, they only develop into ruthlessly competitive behaviour when encouraged by society.

The only 'natural' aspect of the aggressive superman might be that it is natural to absorb social conventions, for good or ill.

This, however, would only demonstrate again that Callicles' required antithesis between nature and culture is false. Nor does he appear to have thought through what a society run by supermen would be like.

How would they behave towards each other? Or would a single superman emerge from each community? And presumably the laws made by such supermen would have to command Callicles' respect.

In disparaging man-made nomoi , he simply assumes a democratic framework.

(The relation between Callicles' contemptuous dismissal of the majority and his democratic aspirations is an intriguing question in itself.) Despite these and other inconsistencies and philosophic shortcomings, Callicles is an important figure.

There is evidence that he was a strong influence on Nietzsche and it is not difficult to see why.

He challenges us to reconsider the origins and nature of social 'morality' and makes a vigorous bid for the possibility of self-directed virtues.

He raises pertinent questions about the nature of 'manliness' and the relative merits of the active and the contemplative life.

Above all, he forces us to reflect on the issues of personal identity and freedom, on which all his arguments depend.. »