The Socratic Way

The Socratic WayThe Socratic Way

BeginningsBeginnings

PhilosophyPhilosophy What is it?What is it?

It’s hard to sayIt’s hard to say I’ll approach this obliquelyI’ll approach this obliquely

Began in the West with the Greeks Began in the West with the Greeks (about 500 BC)(about 500 BC)

The ‘love of wisdom’The ‘love of wisdom’ We begin real philosophy with We begin real philosophy with

Socrates (496-399BC)Socrates (496-399BC)

Socratic MethodSocratic Method

Socrates wrote nothingSocrates wrote nothing Spent his life talking in the Athenian Spent his life talking in the Athenian

town squaretown square Plato wrote down his dialoguesPlato wrote down his dialogues

The early ones have Socrates’s ideasThe early ones have Socrates’s ideas The later ones have Plato’s thoughtsThe later ones have Plato’s thoughts

He claimed to know nothingHe claimed to know nothing He thought seeking truth had to He thought seeking truth had to

be a collaborative effortbe a collaborative effort


Begin by claiming ignorance of some Begin by claiming ignorance of some issueissue

Seek enlightenment from a person Seek enlightenment from a person who knowswho knows

Show that they Show that they don’tdon’t know know End by having a better idea of what End by having a better idea of what

is to be knownis to be known


ElenchusElenchus Socrates asks Socrates asks allall the questions. the questions. The interlocutor must answer every question.The interlocutor must answer every question. A definition or principle is sought from the A definition or principle is sought from the

interlocutor.interlocutor. Socrates seeks clarification, gaining assent Socrates seeks clarification, gaining assent

for various propositions.for various propositions. These propositions are used to show that the These propositions are used to show that the

proposed definition or principle is proposed definition or principle is unsatisfactory.unsatisfactory.

EuthyphroEuthyphro

Socrates meets Euthyphro on the way to Socrates meets Euthyphro on the way to the law courtsthe law courts Euthyphro is going to prosecute his father for Euthyphro is going to prosecute his father for

unlawfully causing death – a capital crimeunlawfully causing death – a capital crime His father had mistreated a slave to the point that His father had mistreated a slave to the point that

he diedhe died Euthyphro thinks it is the right and pious thing to Euthyphro thinks it is the right and pious thing to

do to prosecute in such casesdo to prosecute in such cases Socrates is going to be tried for impietySocrates is going to be tried for impiety

He thinks this is a good time to have a He thinks this is a good time to have a philosophical discussion on pietyphilosophical discussion on piety

EuthyphroEuthyphro

Soc.Soc. Do you know enough about piety to Do you know enough about piety to be sure that bringing an action against be sure that bringing an action against your father is not itself impious? your father is not itself impious?

Euth.Euth. Yes, I have an exact knowledge of Yes, I have an exact knowledge of all such matters.all such matters.

Soc.Soc. Is piety in every action always the same? and impiety just whatever is impious?. .

Euth.Euth. Yes Yes

EuthyphroEuthyphro

Euth.Euth. Piety is doing what I’m doing and Piety is doing what I’m doing and prosecuting my father. After all, Zeus prosecuting my father. After all, Zeus punished his father Cronus (who’d also punished his father Cronus (who’d also punished his father Uranus)punished his father Uranus)

Soc.Soc. But aren’t there also other pious But aren’t there also other pious actions?actions?

Euth.Euth. Yes Yes

Soc.Soc. I don’t want a list of some pious I don’t want a list of some pious actions: I want to know what principle actions: I want to know what principle makes them pious. makes them pious.

EuthyphroEuthyphro

Euth.Euth. The principle is this: piety is what The principle is this: piety is what the gods love and impiety is what they the gods love and impiety is what they hate.hate.

Soc.Soc. OK. So let’s think about that. OK. So let’s think about that. Do the gods quarrel amongst themselves?Do the gods quarrel amongst themselves?

Euth.Euth. Yes Yes

Soc.Soc. And what sort of differences give rise And what sort of differences give rise to the sort of long-lasting quarrels that to the sort of long-lasting quarrels that the gods have? the gods have?

EuthyphroEuthyphro

Soc.Soc. I say that that sort of dispute I say that that sort of dispute arises when we differ over what is arises when we differ over what is just or good or honourable: any other just or good or honourable: any other questions we can eventually resolvequestions we can eventually resolve

Euth.Euth. Sure Sure

Soc.Soc. And the gods’ quarrels must also And the gods’ quarrels must also be like thisbe like this

Euth.Euth. That seems to be true That seems to be true

EuthyphroEuthyphro

Soc.Soc. And doesn’t everyone love what And doesn’t everyone love what they deem just and noble and hate the they deem just and noble and hate the unjust and ignoble?unjust and ignoble?

Euth.Euth. Yes Yes

Soc.Soc. Then some things will be both loved Then some things will be both loved by the gods and hated by the gods?by the gods and hated by the gods?

Euth.Euth. Yes Yes

Soc.Soc. Aha! So you agree that some things Aha! So you agree that some things are both pious and impious!are both pious and impious!

EuthyphroEuthyphro

But: a contradiction can never be But: a contradiction can never be truetrue Nothing can be a thing loved by the Nothing can be a thing loved by the

gods and at the same time a thing not gods and at the same time a thing not loved by the gods.loved by the gods.

And: any proposition that yields a And: any proposition that yields a contradiction must be falsecontradiction must be false

Therefore: piety can’t be ‘what is Therefore: piety can’t be ‘what is loved by the gods’loved by the gods’

AporiaAporia

This argument doesn’t tell us what This argument doesn’t tell us what piety is; only what it is notpiety is; only what it is not

This is typical of Socrates’s This is typical of Socrates’s argumentsarguments

We are left in a state of indecision We are left in a state of indecision and perplexity – which the Greeks and perplexity – which the Greeks called called aporiaaporia The Socratic style is called The Socratic style is called aporeticaporetic

Philosophical ReflexivismPhilosophical Reflexivism

What’s the process in that argumentWhat’s the process in that argument1.1. Find Euthyphro, who claims to Find Euthyphro, who claims to knowknow what what

piety ispiety is

2.2. Get a Get a definitiondefinition of pietyof piety

3.3. Derive Derive consequencesconsequences from this definitionfrom this definition

4.4. Identify a Identify a falsehoodfalsehood (contradiction) in the (contradiction) in the consequencesconsequences

5.5. ConcludeConclude that the definition must be falsethat the definition must be false

6.6. Conclude finally Euthyphro Conclude finally Euthyphro didn’t knowdidn’t know what piety waswhat piety was


That argument depended on an That argument depended on an assumption that if you know what piety assumption that if you know what piety is then you can give a definition of it.is then you can give a definition of it.

That assumption was typical for That assumption was typical for Socrates: If you say you know what X Socrates: If you say you know what X is, then you can define Xis, then you can define X

But is it a good assumption?But is it a good assumption? How might Euthyphro have continued the How might Euthyphro have continued the

argument?argument?

Euthyphro’s replyEuthyphro’s reply

Euth.Euth. You say I don’t know what piety You say I don’t know what piety is, so you clearly have an idea of is, so you clearly have an idea of what it is to know something. Do what it is to know something. Do tell.tell.

Soc.Soc. Surely: to know something is to Surely: to know something is to be able to define itbe able to define it

Euth.Euth. And this applies to everything? And this applies to everything?

Soc.Soc. Of course! Of course!


Euth.Euth. Well, we’ll see about that. I ask Well, we’ll see about that. I ask you to look now at that man with the you to look now at that man with the shiny head who is buying figs.shiny head who is buying figs.

Soc.Soc. That’s Cephalus. Ha ha. He’s bald. That’s Cephalus. Ha ha. He’s bald.

Euth.Euth. Bald? But I’m sure I can see a Bald? But I’m sure I can see a couple of hairs there.couple of hairs there.

Soc.Soc. Not enough though. He’s Not enough though. He’s definitely bald.definitely bald.


Euth.Euth. If I added one more hair to his If I added one more hair to his head would he still be bald?head would he still be bald?

Soc.Soc. Yes. Yes.

Euth.Euth. So a single hair doesn’t make the So a single hair doesn’t make the difference between baldness and non-difference between baldness and non-baldness. OK, so what if I then added baldness. OK, so what if I then added one more hairone more hair

Soc.Soc. I think I get your point. I think I get your point.

Euth.Euth. Which is? Which is?


Soc.Soc. Since I can’t tell you how many hairs Since I can’t tell you how many hairs make a bald man non-bald, I can’t define make a bald man non-bald, I can’t define baldness, so I don’t know what baldness is.baldness, so I don’t know what baldness is.

Euth.Euth. Almost! But I think we Almost! But I think we dodo know what know what baldness is. My real point is that there are baldness is. My real point is that there are lots of words like ‘bald’ that we use but lots of words like ‘bald’ that we use but can’tcan’t define. define.

Soc.Soc. Ah, and so you reject my assumption Ah, and so you reject my assumption that to know what baldness is to know its that to know what baldness is to know its definition. definition.


That argument is an application of That argument is an application of Socrates’s method Socrates’s method toto Socrates’s method. Socrates’s method. A sort of A sort of meta-elenchusmeta-elenchus!!

This sort of self analysis – reflexivity – is This sort of self analysis – reflexivity – is typical of philosophytypical of philosophy

The philosophizing mind never simply thinks about an object, it always, while thinking about any object, thinks also about its thought about that object. Philosophy may thus be called thought of the second degree, thought about thought.


Could we take reflexivity as being Could we take reflexivity as being definitive of philosophy?definitive of philosophy? No. Consider mathematics, history, No. Consider mathematics, history,

sociologysociology If we can’t define philosophy, does If we can’t define philosophy, does

that mean we can’t know what it is?that mean we can’t know what it is? What do you think?What do you think?

Documents

The Socratic Way