Pardon me, my excellent friend. I’m in love with learning. Country places and trees do not wish to teach me anything, but human beings in the city do. But you seem to have discovered a drug to entice me to walk outside the city (Socrates, in Phaedrus, 7).
Introduction
The divide of a man from the nature represents lots of amenities of city life. On the other hand, get involved with business of city life a man loses connection with the roots of essence, namely countryside. This dichotomy is emphasized by the eminent statement of Socrates in Phaedrus and ideas of H. G. Wells in The Island of Dr. Moreau. This dilemma concerns the issue of man and nature, business of city and relief of country. In fact, the idea stated by Socrates thousands years ago and repeated by Agamben and Wells deserves to be evaluated in detail.
Socrates Idea
First of all, Socrates directly outlines the benefits which an individual can achieve living in the city and in the country. Knowledge and harmony are two alternatives which are related to the city and to nature outside it respectively. The philosophical position of one of the greatest luminary of all times corresponds to the significance of the city. It is the place where culture, science, and education on the whole find their beginning. It is the centre for social, economical, and political relations. The growth of the nation stands on the activity of its cities. In ancient times Socrates did not hesitate to mention this very feature.
Herbert Wells View
Herbert Wells provides the significance of country for the protagonist of his book. Dr. Moreau loses inner balance when being outside the country, regardless the fact of his cruel experiments: “The doctor was simply howled out of the country” (Wells 29). He seems to lose his ability to create out of the place where the nature subtly touches upon the fibres of creative mind. This philosophical assumption represents a background for the significance to make no divides with nature. The example of Dr. Moreau emphasizes the role of the country, as the source for inspiration.
Differences between Socrates’ and Wells’ points
On the other hand, such point of view contradicts the position of Socrates. This philosopher believed that the divide between a man and the nature lies in the rejection to follow the way of a civilized world. However, he cannot but agree that there is an invisible thread between a human being and the wilds. It is seen at the place where Socrates compares the nature and the atmosphere of the country with a drug. Humans are separated from animals because of their more active way of development at least in three directions: social, cultural, political. This makes the distance between creatures of instincts (animals) and creatures of Reason (human beings).
Conclusion
All in all, the antinomy between humanity and the world of the nature and animals, particularly, represents the discussion about universal truths. The significance of city life becomes prior when looking at the perspectives of progress. On the other hand, people need to have inner relation to the nature. There should be an awareness of how to make a supposed divide reduced. Unfortunately, it is a matter of long discussion. People are more apt at complicating life than at improving it. Hence, the separation between men and animals seems to be constant in the contemporary world.
Works cited
Plato. Phaedrus. London: Forgotten Books, 1972.
Wells, Herbert George. The Island of Dr. Moreau. London: 1st World Publishing, 2004.
Socrates was a philosopher who lived between the years 469 and 399 B.C.E. He is one of the few men who created an image for himself as a man fully committed to the virtue of truth. His critical reasoning and the way he lived his life has a major influence on western philosophy to date. He was a renowned soldier who also served diligently in politics before retiring to work as a stonemason to look after his family.
Main body
Looking at the Greek’s understanding of virtue we realize that virtue varies from one individual to another since they describe it as a skill. But for Socrates, virtue ought to be similar for everyone at all times and place for that is what real virtue is all about. Meno believes that virtue is actually the unending urge for good deeds but Socrates seems to differ with this point of argument. He argues that considering different people possess different levels of virtue then it has to vary amongst different people (Jowett 2). He goes ahead to mention that, it is very normal all around the world for anyone to want his or her believes to be regarded as good. This is because no one would want what is regarded as bad whether knowingly or unknowingly. The difference in character as seen in different people is a result of differing knowledge possessed by different people. Socrates believes that when a person acquires knowledge on what is right then the outcome is the desire to act on it (Jowett 13).
Another thinker in the name of Aristotle, later on, came to disapprove this argument by Socrates bringing to our attention the different events where the weakness of will affects our moral judgment. At this point Socrates redirects the dialogue asking the question; how is one supposed to know what virtue is? He raises a dilemma on the dialogue with many questions to ponder on, on the aspect of knowledge. For example, “How can an individual learn what he does not know?” He goes further ahead to mention that this could be because this individual already has the information concerning what he is looking for and therefore he does not need to look further. Or maybe he is not aware of what he is looking for and therefore may not know even when he finds it. Socrates, therefore, does not respond to Meno’s question about how virtue is acquired because he tries to make us believe that it is hard for us to learn anything about virtue.
When Socrates was in prison awaiting execution, his friends came up with a plan to help him escape but instead he decided not to follow it up. He was a man ready to face execution rather than abandon his philosophical beliefs (Taylor 124). He looks calm and collected even in the face of his death (Taylor 126). Crito argues that helping Socrates run away from the arms of law would help him achieve his life obligations of ensuring his friends’ reputations are preserved. Socrates strongly dismisses this argument claiming that what matters is the opinion of that person with the relevant knowledge and not that of the general majority. He says that the truth should be the only factor to consider in any decision-making process and therefore everyone should engage the right moral standards in trying to do this. Socrates’ argument applies to him alone considering that we are living in a democratic world where the majority seems to carry the day every time. Democracy can either work against you or for you depending on the numbers that oppose or propose to you.
In the apology, Socrates argues that People should never at any time do wrong even if they are wronged by others. He claims that it is never to disobey the state and therefore nobody should ever think about disobeying this institution (Tredennick 33). Acting right at any moment should be guided by the moral standards set within a society. For this reason, I totally disagree with the argument that people should never disobey the state. The argument is applicable only when the moral standards set within a society approve the actions of a state and disapproves of the actions of an individual.
If ordered by the authorities in our country to do something, before obeying it is your responsibility as a citizen to weigh the impacts of this action on the moral standards of our society before we do it. Personally, I feel that moral standards must always be upheld at any time and therefore if the action is immoral you are justified to disobey. In a job contract, it is a responsibility of an individual to act as per the agreements of the contract while on the other hand, nobody signs a contract with a state.
Socrates’ defense in the apology looks more of a failure than a success considering that Crito is not convinced. The argument that Socrates should not run away from prison but instead face his death to show obedience to the state seems valid to Crito as long as the sentence is totally based on the truth. As long as Socrates’ friends still believe in his innocence than his argument still remains unconvincing to them and therefore a failure. Crito tries to compare the situation of complete obedience to a state to that of a parent and a child. It is wrong for children to disobey their parents, but when they grow old enough to know what is wrong and right, they have the responsibility to question what is wrong. Likewise, the state can never be right every time and therefore people have to rise up and take action whenever necessary.
According to Plato, knowledge is acquired by looking at past experiences that had a direct or even indirect influence on an individual’s life. This argument explains the Socratic dialect concerning knowledge acquisition. He explains that the purpose of learning is not all about offering new information but instead revealing what we already knew from past experiences.
Conclusion
Socrates’ life offers a lot of teaching that can positively apply in our lives today. He offers us a life teaching in truth and how it should be used in making ethical judgments. His mistakes provide an insight into the impacts of every decision-making process with regard to our lives. It should therefore be everyone’s desire to make the right decisions every time and be guided by moral values.
These are the two vices that lead to Socrates’ current predicament. This may be viewed to be ironic as a large part of the play deals with Socrates giving his views about this and emerging to the reader’s judgment as innocent. After the final monologue in which Socrates tells Crito that the voices in his conscience have been urging him against going against the state and the laid down laws, it becomes rather clear that he is indeed not to blame and that it is Crito who is in the wrong for urging him on.
This paper will regard the three premises discussed in the play and we will seek to evaluate whether the premises laid down by Socrates do indeed concur with the conclusions he makes and if these conclusions can in any way contrast with Crito’s viewpoint.
Premises
Socrates believes he owes the government his obedience. He is of the view that retaliating a wrong with another wrong, which would escape, will not correct the wrong already done by the law which is being falsely accused consequences of his escape would be worse than staying in jail. We will first look into the explanation of each of these premises with regards to his reasoning. His current predicament does not worry him much; “and now that this fortune has come upon me,” It is also made clear in his unperturbed slumber when Crito comes to his cell. The fact that he owes his government obedience is made clear in his monologue in which he observes that it is the government that gave him life educating him and enabling his progenitors to marry. He also observes that he took a contract that was implied by choosing to remain in his country thereby proof that he will abide by the laws laid out by the state. As to why he believes in this premise is the repercussions he highlights in his monologue. He is of the view that he will be giving the government arsenal against him should he choose to escape as he would be in no position to answer the questions posed to him were he to be caught escaping and he would be running from a government that has brought him thus far. He considers that once you wrong the government it is threefold.
From the onset, it is clear that Socrates makes use of reason as opposed to making decisions offhandedly. This brings us to our second premise. He queries Crito on whether it is right to make amends of one who has wronged you by adding further wrong. To this, Crito answers in the negative. He gives the analogy of a trainee and a trainer in gymnastics implying that one should only hold regard to one authority when making decisions. Not the voices of the multitude that he claims view revenge as morality. Repercussions of his escape are the third premise and this he delineates in the monologue. He weighs the pros and cons of escaping and the scale is tipped to the latter. Due to his selfless nature, he is of the view that he would even harm his friends by his escape causing them to go through forced exile and lose property they have worked for all their life. Friends like Simmias of Theban and Crito. He would also forever live with the notion that he is a traitor of his country.
Whether he owes his government allegiance is made crystal during his monologue that is written in the form of a trial. He is of the view that by agreeing to stay in the country he bound himself to an “implied contract”. To break the laws that bind the contract would be to err threefold. It would be disobedience against the parents, the authors of his education, and the laws that bind the contract and that were agreed to if not implied by citizenship. It is therefore a true premise as there is no escape from the law that binds you to your country. And in so doing we see the logic between the premise and the conclusion.
In justification of the second premise, two wrongs do not make a right according to Socrates. Crito tries to show Socrates the value of his life but Socrates counters this by asking him if the body that is destroyed by evil and disease is more valuable than the soul. He retaliates when Crito asks him to listen to the multitude that is planning his escape. He asks Crito if it is in listening to the multitude that the trainer gets to learn or by giving a keen ear to those other than the trainer. It is in line with this that asks whether revenging for being falsely accused by the government through escape that he regains his conscience that he is indeed lacking in fault. This premise we may evaluate as true considering he is not above the law and consequences of retaliation would be but an effort to grasp the wind. There is a logical conclusion to the argument as he is able to agree with Crito that evil cannot be fought with evil.
His selflessness is portrayed in the final premise when in his monologue he views that the law must come first before family and children. He acting as both the prosecutor and the plaintiff tries to make sense of the repercussions of his actions. His family may suffer if he escapes and his friends may suffer too. Throughout the play, Socrates’ arguments do seem to have a premise and indeed a logical conclusion and this is made clear in the fact that though Crito sticks to his argument for escape, Socrates is, in fact, able to logically conclude all arguments for the purpose of their being true to purpose. Though the irony of impiety and corruption the two offenses Socrates is sentenced for persisting through to the end, there is a logical sequence of arguments that enlightens the reader to the truth.
According to Socrates, it is the man who does not know himself who cannot accurately judge his own capabilities and his own unique path to the greatest good based on accurate use of his strengths and knowledge of his weaknesses. Socrates takes this another step by suggesting that knowledge of oneself will instruct from within regarding those things which are good (moral and ethical) and those things which are not. He suggests this by claiming that things that are good will make us feel happy inside while things that are bad will be immediately recognizable to the man who knows himself because these actions will cause internal degradation and spiritual deterioration that will be immediately apparent. Socrates offers his own history as an example of coming to know oneself and of finding true wisdom and knowledge. As he recaps within his defense speech in Plato’s Apology, after being told by the oracle that he was the wisest man alive, Socrates insists he did not allow this distinction to go to his head. Instead, he went to the streets and began questioning those individuals he had always considered wiser than himself (Xenophon, 1990).
In each case, he found that even among those who possessed a little wisdom tended to take that knowledge to the outer extremes and assume they knew everything there was worth knowing, without any further examination. “At last I went to the artisans, for 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” (Apology: 947). From his account, it becomes possible to deduce that Socrates’ definition of wisdom entails not only knowledge, but also the knowledge of what one does not know. “I am called wise, for my hearers always imagine that I myself possess the wisdom which I find 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” (Apology: 947).
Descartes
Descartes, who was both a mathematician and a philosopher, presented his ideas regarding how to combine mathematical concepts to the human thought process in his book, Discourse on Method. His goal in doing this was to find a means of attaining perfect certainty of philosophical concepts. To begin with, he bases knowledge not on what is thought to be known, but instead insists that one must call into question everything one thinks one knows that have been learned through the senses of the body. As it is presented, Descartes gives four main rules of logic that must be addressed. The first of these is that one can only accept as true those things that are clearly and distinctly known to be true. Things can be clearly and distinctly known to be true by breaking down the problem under investigation into as many parts as are considered necessary to fully solve the issue.
The third rule is that the logical process must proceed step by step from the simplest and easiest portion of the problem to clearly and distinctly know and progress in order of difficulty to the more complex. Finally, in order to be sure nothing has been omitted, Descartes instructs that one should always take an open view to the problem so other possibilities or seemingly unrelated issues might be considered. Reading through these steps, the linkage of thought to mathematical methods of analysis can be clearly traced. Although his most famous statement, I think therefore I am, rests to a large degree upon the sense that he is still thinking, the very fact that this sense still exists is proof for Descartes that there must be something in existence to realize the sense and therefore he, as a thinking entity, must exist. This simple-sounding statement is the result of a discourse in which Descartes calls into question all of the assumptions he’s come to know as a result of the philosophical thought of his day. “I had long before remarked that … it is sometimes necessary to adopt, as if above doubt, opinions which we discern to be highly uncertain” (Descartes, 2001). Through this questioning process, he demonstrates how thought, not observation is really the right foundation for knowledge and established what is today known as the Cartesian method.
Summaries
In these summaries, it can be seen that these two philosophers, although usually placed on opposite extremes from each other by today’s standards, actually shared many common beliefs. Both Socrates and Descartes felt that the only way to find true knowledge was not by a search through the external physical forces of nature, but was instead through a systematic, clearly defined internal search through one’s own inner being. They accomplished this internal search, and suggested others do so as well, through a process of questioning that served to call doubt onto all things.
This was done not with the intention of confusing things, but instead to be sure one was starting on their path to knowledge standing on a ‘clear and distinct’ platform that took into consideration all the available possibilities. Each philosopher placed importance on exploring the possibilities, or variables, and keeping an open mind rather than relying on assumed knowledge that hadn’t been fully investigated. For each, this insistence caused problems. The Socratic method of endless questioning for clear definitions and taking in increasingly complex scenarios and possibilities had a tendency to render all conversation essentially meaningless. The Cartesian method of doubt, despite disavowing any information brought to the mind by the senses only, nevertheless had to fall back on information brought by the senses to reach any form of meaningful conclusion.
Although there are several similarities between Socrates’ and Descartes’ approaches, these two methods are more often contrasted than they are compared. This is perhaps because Descartes himself rejected the methods of the old school, which had been founded upon the methods of Socrates. This was because, even though Socrates’ belief was that one needed to look within oneself to find true knowledge, the method by which one found out what was inside was reached by examining what was outside. He relied upon the senses and external examples as a means of exploring the inner being. Further, the senses were given the final say in determining what was right and true, not the mind.
This is starkly contrasted against Descartes’ assertion that the only way of knowing whether something is true and right is through the logical processes of mindful thinking and intelligent doubt. In addition, the way in which each man approached his questioning seems to move in opposite directions. Socrates, in attempting to question all that was assumed knowledge, tended to expand his sphere of inquiry to very complex degrees, eventually ending a conversation quite far away from where he started while not truly coming to any conclusions regarding the original question. Thus, he worked from the inside out along what he demonstrated was one of many spokes. Descartes took his original question and attempted to work his way in, breaking the question into smaller, reasonable sections that could then be followed to their basic truth. While Descartes attempted to base all his knowledge on logic, he was obliged to acknowledge the senses. While Socrates attempted to base all his knowledge on the senses, he relied upon logic to lead the way to true and right feeling.
Works Cited
Descartes, R. Discourse on Method. Vol. XXXIV, Part 1. The Harvard Classics. New York: P.F. Collier & Son, 1909–14; Bartleby.com, 2001. Web.
The story, “Equal opportunity” provides the reader with an opportunity to understand the difficulties faced by the poor in their day-to-day life. Through the main character, ‘Socrates’ the author elaborates the life of a poor man who finds it difficult to reintegrate back into normal social life after a lengthy period in Indiana prison. Socrates presents a number of character traits that reflect the life of many people in modern day society. This paper however focuses on three major character traits, namely, determination, remorsefulness and courageousness.
Socrates reflects the day-to-day life of a poor man who is determined to live on. Despite the insults, abuses, and neglect, the poor man lives on. Socrates is determined and despite constantly being denied a job at Santa Monica supermarket, he does not give up and keeps going to the same place hoping that the supervisor will finally give up and give him the job (Smolensky 1). He represents a group of people in society who are ready and willing to struggle hard in order to get what they believe they deserve. He tells the supervisor that he needs the job in order to pay for the phone. This is despite being informed that he needs the phone as a pre-qualification for the job. This is an indescribable level of determination. Most people would have given up easily and sought other possible places. Generally, he believes that his status is not incapacitated. This is perhaps the kind of determination that keeps many poor people within the society, moving. His determination lands him a job at the supermarket as the security men put it, the manager wants to “give guys a chance (Mosley 86).” The job is directly a product of his determination.
Socrates also stands out as a representation of bravery amongst the poor people. He applies for a job as a packer and delivery man at a Santa Monica supermarket but he is rejected based on his appearance (poverty). However, he does not simply accept it as cowardly. He stands up against the supervisor, even when he has been threatened with a possible arrest. He expresses his opinion as he deems it appropriate. He knows that his rejection is not about qualification and neither is it a result of the alleged phone he doesn’t have but has more to do with his social status. His voice, reflects the voice of many poor men within the society who are crying for equal access to opportunities as their wealthy and well known counterparts. It is not just about the strength to do a job but rather the qualification. He stands out for the many people who have good qualifications but are unable to get jobs, just because of their status within society. He expresses bravery by standing against the status quo until he gets the job that would enable him live righteously. His belief in bravery is well summarized when says to Darryl, “You stood up for yourself…. That’s all a black man could do (Mosley 81).”
Remorse is a character greatly expressed by Socrates. He is deeply affected by the life he has lived from childhood. He believes that if many children got the right guidance, perhaps they wouldn’t just end up like he has done. He is affected by the fact they lost their house many years ago and the many times they had to go hungry. He regrets the fact that upon reaching his teen, rather than salvage the two women who loved her most form such misery; he took to drinking and aimless wondering which caused them a lot of pain. Ending up in prison denied him the opportunity to apologize to his mother for the wrongs he had done (Smolensky 1). He is remorseful and feels that he owes his deceased mother, a righteous life. It is the remorse in him that makes him embark on a job search that would allow him to lead a righteous life. However, reintegration back into society is difficult as the society is not willing to fully accept him back into their midst. His remorse helps him advise Darryl who incidentally has killed another boy and does not know what to do. He tells him, ‘As long as you live you could do something (82).’He wants to save other children who are affected by drugs just like he was years back.
In general, Socrates’ character is a direct mirror of typical poor men who are victimized by appearance. Most employers for instance, want job seekers to be neat and presentable not realizing that to be neat, one has to have a job and hence cash that can sustain the same. He stands out as the voice of the oppressed in a bid to salvage the little that is left of their lives. More importantly, he reflects the will and hence determination that drives poor men through with life even when things are so tough. Despite the oppression, there reaches a time when a poor man is so pressed and demands what his rightful his. Socrates is therefore a mirror reflection of modern day society. His character mirrors the forgotten classes who have to work hard and toil for everything they earn. For this class, living a righteous life calls for determination, commitment and bravery.
References
Mosley, Walter. Always Outnumbered, Always Outgunned: Equal Opportunities. Washington DC: Washington Square Press.
Smolensky, Ira. “Equal Opportunity.” Magill’s Survey of American Literature, Revised Edition. Salem Press, 2007. Web.
During his trial at Athens, Socrates said, “Unexamined life is not worthy living” (Baggini). Socrates was tried in court for having encouraged his students to challenge the accepted beliefs or traditions in society (Stern 16). The court gave Socrates several options to choose from, to go in exile, remain silent, or face execution (Stern 18). Socrates chooses to be hanged instead of running away or being silent. He argues that there is no point in living without awareness of what is around you by questioning (Stern 30). Socrates made a decision to be hanged since he believed that living a life where one could not evaluate the world and look for ways of making it better was not worth living. Because of his decision, Socrates was sentenced to death (Stern 30).
Main Body
By saying that “unexamined life is not worthy living”, Socrates was referring to freedom, a state of making choices about your surrounding, a state of choosing your destination, having the freedom to criticize issues, setting your goals in life, and deciding whether what you are doing is right or wrong (Baggini). In general, Socrates was referring to individuals having the opportunity to understand or know themselves. An examined life is taking control of your life.
To Socrates, life imprisonment would make his life not worth living. This would take his freedom away; he would not have an opportunity to decide what was right or wrong for him (Stern 15). He would no longer examine his environment, nobody would assess his ideas, and neither would he determine his destination. Examining once life is an opportunity to acquire freedom. Having a chance to examine your own life presents you with opportunities to control your life and choose your destiny.
In very simple terms, the unexamined life is a situation in which an individual is not open to question what is around them and what they do (Stern 13). Living unexamined life is living a life, which is not unique, a life that does not reveal new perspectives or ideas; it is a life that has not been appreciated by others in any way (Baggini).
ConclusionIn addition, it is important for individuals to know what is right and wrong in their life. For instance, individuals need to identify their success and failures as well as the reason for the kind of life that they live (Baggini). Socrates chooses death over a confined life because he believed in self-evaluation and knowledge. His choice of death rather than running away or silence is a message that we should appreciate what we believe in rather than living the way other people do or want us to live (Stern 20).
Works Cited
Stern, Paul. Socratic rationalism and political philosophy: An interpretation of Plato’s. New York: Sunny Press, 1993. Print.
The development of philosophical thought becomes possible due to the activity of courageous people that are not afraid of challenging long-term traditions and views of life. Socrates, one of the most famous Greek thinkers, is an example of an individual who revolutionized philosophy and stayed committed to his principles in any circumstances. His key contributions to the field include the Socratic Method that facilitates the critical analysis of hypotheses, ideas about morality and wrongdoing, and the concepts of immortal soul and preexistence.
Socrates’s Life and Career
Many centuries have passed since the birth of Socrates, but he is still regarded as a source of wisdom and an inspirational figure in the world of philosophy. Socrates was born in Athens circa 469 BC and died in 399 BC at the age of seventy (D’Angour 5). Some popular myths state that Socrates came from an economically disadvantaged background and had limited educational opportunities.
However, based on the common themes found in his disciples’ works, Socrates was a son of relatively well-off parents and grew up being surrounded by the Athenian elite of the time (D’Angour 12). As a child, Socrates dreamed about becoming a strong warrior or a successful politician, and years later, he had a chance to demonstrate his talent in military arts (D’Angour 12). In addition to that, he had other gifts that contributed to the popularity of his philosophical views.
Being a teenager and then a young man, Socrates always had a thirst for knowledge and worked hard to develop new skills. He learned a lot from the best music teachers and political advisors, including Damon, and practiced the art of singing and playing the lyre (D’Angour 13). Additionally, it is presumed that at a young age, Socrates was trained to follow the trade of his father and become a stonemason (D’Angour 12).
His earliest participation in armed conflicts was around 447 BC, when one of the most known battles of the Peloponnesian War, the Battle of Coronea, was fought (D’Angour 5). During his service, he gained the reputation of a polemist that could not be beaten in an argument and did not care about material possessions. Unlike other philosophers, he did not produce written works to express his principles of life.
Due to his self-righteousness and the ability to find the best words to defeat his opponents verbally, Socrates was a character of some comic plays that aimed to expose his mistakes and exaggerate them. For instance, in 423 BC, Aristophanes caricatured him in the play titled Clouds (Moore 534). In this literary work, the philosopher is portrayed as a person who teaches a young man to distort the truth to reach his own goals. In particular, the student learns how to use the art of rhetoric to tire money-lenders with idle talk and distract them from his debts (Moore 534). Therefore, the critics of Socrates depicted him as a sophist and an unprincipled teacher.
Socrates’s fidelity to his principles admired many of his peers and cost him a life. His death was related to political reasons since after the Thirty Tyrants came to power, the situation in the state changed drastically (Saxonhouse 17). In 399 BC, after the Tyrants’ defeat, Socrates was accused of supporting anti-democratic views and corrupting young people in Athens and placed on trial (D’Angour 6; Saxonhouse 17). In Plato’s Apology describing the events, Socrates is presented as a shameless person who gives a speech to prove his wisdom instead of invoking people’s mercy (Saxonhouse 18). As a result, the court found him guilty of blasphemy and erosion of value and traditions, and the philosopher was executed by poison.
Ideas and Contributions to Philosophy
The Socratic Method, Moral Knowledge, and Wrongdoing
Socrates was extremely different from other philosophers of the time since he did not produce writings to immortalize his key ideas. The so-called Socratic Method of inquiry is among the key contributions that he made to the philosophical thought of the next centuries, especially moral philosophy. Socrates was one of the first thinkers focusing on the notions of morality and immorality, and the discussed method outlines the steps to be made when evaluating moral concepts (Boghossian and Lindsay 246). Based on Plato’s works, the dialectic method used by Socrates has five stages, with “wonder” being the first one (Boghossian and Lindsay 246).
During this stage, a question for discussion is offered, and it usually refers to the definition of some abstract concept or its social importance (Boghossian and Lindsay 246). Then, the stage of a hypothesis takes place, and a philosopher provides his first answer to be evaluated and supported later.
The third step needed to implement the Socratic Method into practice can be regarded as the representation of the deep meaning and innovative nature of this approach to arguments. It is called the elenchus or the argument of refutation and involves a series of questions from the facilitator that highlight the answer’s potential flaws (Boghossian and Lindsay 246). Also, these questions are to point at the circumstances in which the hypothesis becomes inconclusive. After “surviving the elenctic process,” the answer does not necessarily become knowledge, but the elenchus allows checking its quality and defeasibility (Boghossian and Lindsay 246). Thus, a hypothesis can be accepted and become a new principle only if it cannot be disproved.
Next, the fourth stage depends on the outcomes of the elenchus. If the hypothesis has been destroyed, the process is to start again with a different answer to the same question. If it has not been undermined, it is necessary to end the conversation or introduce additional elenctic questions to make conclusions on the hypothesis (Boghossian and Lindsay 246). Finally, to implement the fifth stage, all participants are to revise their beliefs and apply new moral knowledge to their lives and actions.
The critical approach to evaluating other people’s views made Socrates the key contributor to Western philosophy. During the pre-Socratic period, prominent thinkers focused on retrieving the arche or the source of everything, but they did not have a system helping to assess hypotheses (Georgoulas 143; Kenny 24). The method used by Socrates changed the perception of arguments and laid the foundations for critical thinking in philosophy, thus replacing the previously used ways of confirming beliefs (Kenny 24). Also, the method was applicable to sensitive topics and principles to guide one’s life.
Due to that, Socrates contributed to the development of moral philosophy or a set of theories aimed at distinguishing between right and wrong actions (Kenny 25). Therefore, the willingness to take hypotheses critically to check if they present knowledge is among the key principles that made Socrates a great thinker of his time.
Socrates’s important contributions to Western philosophy also include his attempts to connect moral knowledge and wrongdoing. He believed that the willingness to commit harmful actions always stemmed from the absence of knowledge helping to evaluate intentions and their consequences (Kenny 25). According to this principle, all people want to live a happy life. They can do the wrong things only unintentionally, just because they have no idea what is right in some situations (Kenny 25). Consequently, they need instruction instead of punishment in order to understand their mistakes (Kenny 25). This idea contributed to the discussion of human nature and inspired other thinkers to offer their opinions on rationalism in ethics.
Mind, Body, and Preexistence
Apart from the mentioned concepts, Socrates facilitated further evolution of philosophy by offering a new perspective on physical and immaterial things related to human experience. During the pre-Socratic era, the distinction between the physical and non-physical components of living creatures did not receive much attention (Georgoulas 138). The philosopher being discussed was among the first thinkers to regard the soul and the body as two separate entities that are interconnected (Kenny 32). Based on his ideas, unlike the body, the human soul is immaterial and immortal (Kenny 32).
In the philosopher’s opinion, the soul presents the initial source of life and exists even before a person’s birth (Kenny 32). These ideas highlighted the superiority of the soul over the body and provided the basis for further discussions of life, death, and immortality in philosophy.
Conclusion
To sum it up, Socrates was a philosopher that used the approaches to thinking and evaluating arguments that were innovative at the time. Being a master of rhetoric and a talented warrior, he increased the perceived importance of critical thinking by applying the Socratic Method or the elenchus during conversations with his disciples. Together with the method, his ideas concerning morality and wrongdoing as a result of ignorance also changed the philosophy and set the path for its evolution.
Works Cited
Boghossian, Peter, and James Lindsay. “The Socratic Method, Defeasibility, and Doxastic Responsibility.” Educational Philosophy and Theory, vol. 50, no. 3, 2018, pp. 244-253.
D’Angour, Armand. Socrates in Love: The Making of a Philosopher. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2019.
Georgoulas, Stratos. The Origins of Radical Criminology. Palgrave Macmillan, 2018.
Kenny, Anthony. An Illustrated Brief History of Western Philosophy. 20th ed., Wiley-Blackwell, 2018.
Moore, Christopher. “Socrates and Self-Knowledge in Aristophanes’ Clouds.” The Classical Quarterly, vol. 65, no. 2, 2015, pp. 534-551.
Saxonhouse, Arlene W. “A Shameless Socrates on Trial in Democratic Athens.” Readings of Plato’s Apology of Socrates: Defending the Philosophical Life, edited by Vivil Valvik Haraldsen et al., Lexington Books, 2018, pp. 17-36.
The perception of the self, according to Socrates explains the nature of man and the rationale on which man thinks. Socrates believed that, man is a product of his thoughts. Socrates questioned the way we attach importance to what people say without understanding the principle of individual thinking.
The capacity of a man is a product of the self in him; this formed the basis of Socrates argument. He emphasized that; man must believe in his or her principles and should not follow the wagon effect of the society. We find ourselves in situations that will require our careful examination, but we often accept what people say on the issue. Socrates proposed that logical thoughts would be more productive than accepting a patterned way of doing things.
The product of logical thinking is a patterned thought which is not influenced by the majority. To further his arguments, Socrates proposed a method of logical thinking. He believed that this would help each person evaluate his or her actions and thoughts based on the strength of logical thinking (Noe 4).
Critically examine people’s comment and assumption: The common belief should be subjected to examination. The belief that it pays to work hard or that marriage makes a man responsible.
Put forward a reversal to these statements: It is true that the society follows fashioned assumptions. One should be able to find a reversal to these assumptions. Provide a proof that man can be responsible without being married, and show that hard work do not always pay in the end. These reversals to a patterned way of life will help an individual build his or her confidence.
There are no credible statements than yours: When you are able to fine the reversals to the statements, you will conclude that many statements and assumptions are misleading. This will help you build your confidence in logical thinking.
Formulate your statements from observations: The examination of logical thinking will provide the basis of new statements. Marriage can make a responsible man live happily and wrong work is different from hard work.
Develop yourself: Make it a habit to always examine the statements of people and find the reversal to those statements.
The strength of a man is weighed by his actions and statements; this is the defining principle on which we must stand. Socrates argued that philosophy can be analyzed not only by the elites, but by the common man. The ability to make a statement devoid of what people think or say is a product of self.
Socrates emphasized that the human soul is immortal and is a product of different perceptions. Socrates believed that the human soul exists in two forms; the transformation realm and the constant position. The evil in the human mind is a product of the benefits he or she imagined. An individual will act based on his or her perceived thoughts which is based on what good he or she will derive from the action (Noe 3).
In conclusion, we are what we think of ourselves and we must act accordingly. Socrates provided examples to show that philosophical thinking can be done even by the common man. Logical thinking is the ability to examine each statement independently not minding the opinion of the majority.
The most significant part of Socrates’s life was the constant search for the truth. His goal was to ask Athens the right questions in order to make them realize their beliefs and mostly to examine different viewpoints, looking for objective truth. Although it seemed that he did the research in favor of society’s benefit, he was brought to trial on two grounds: corrupting the young minds and not worshiping the city’s gods (West & Plato, 1979). Looking deeply at Socrates’ life, the vital quote provoking discussions to the present day is, “I know that I know nothing.” It is called “the Socratic paradox,” and there are some bullet points illustrating my complete agreement with his position reflected in Plato’s Apology.
Socrates does not understand why the Oracle at Delphi claims that he is the wisest man in Greece’s metropolis. It indicates that, while finding out others’ professional knowledge by asking philosophical questions, Socrates tried to define whether the people were wise or whether they considered themselves as ones (West & Plato, 1979). Thus, their distinguishing feature was the firm belief that the Athenians’ bright minds claimed themselves as indeed wise. However, the human brain is not able to accommodate all the knowledge of the world, and only the person who realizes that is definitely the wisest.
Indeed, this position may seem a bit senseless to ordinary people. However, the more profound investigation of Plato’s work and the demonstrative examples will shed light on Socrates’s mindset. First, asking proper questions was not teaching, but recollecting youngsters’ knowledge because they already had it. In other words, Socrates was carrying out the gods’ will as he maintained that he is a devotee (as he believed in supernatural beings) because he had neither the intentions nor the knowledge to corrupt the young (West & Plato, 1979). Then, when Socrates’ life was at stake, he believed that the death penalty must have been the will of the gods and assured the jury that death is a blessing. According to Plato (1979), there is a Constructive Dilemma: if death is like a dreamless sleep or a relocation to another place, then death is a blessing in both cases. Consequently, though Socrates searches for truth led him to his eventual death, it worth living.
The reason why Socrates did not appeal to the Assembly for mercy is that he was sincerely convinced of his life goal to practice philosophy. An individual ought to be acquitted not out of pity in a court of law judges because they judge an innocent man according to the law (West & Plato, 1979). Nevertheless, Socrates distinguished two ways of persuading the juries by a defendant. The first option is to apply emotional or rhetorical tricks such as logos, ethos, and pathos. The second option is to affect them through philosophical dialectic, which he used in the court himself. For instance, he draws the jury to the conclusion that exile is a perfect punishment for him, but various people would have to tolerate his conversation (West & Plato, 1979). Therefore, Socrates said, “It would be a fine life at my age to be driven out of one city after another.” Finally, Socrates was always able to refute any definition while answering the question because the polemic came to the contradictory outcome.
Moreover, if Socrates had appealed for mercy, it would undermine his commitment to being a critical thinker. He stood up for this believes and provided the argumentative and logically structured defense. Socrates was not afraid of death, because he faced with a choice between death (which might not be evil) or disobeying God’s mission (which is precisely evil). Thus, everything stated above proves that Socrates is not only a great philosopher and critical thinker but also the wisest person of ancient times.
Reference
West T. G., & Plato. (1979). Plato’s Apology of Socrates: An interpretation, with a new translation. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press.
Written by Plato, the famous philosopher, Meno is the title of a dialogue between two characters, Meno and Socrates. Virtue is the subject matter of the conversation. Meno begins the talk by posing a question to Socrates of whether a virtue can be acquired. This is not the only question Meno asks but in all the cases, he fails to begin by defining the basis of his questions. For instance, he cannot begin by addressing the key term, virtue. This is what Socrates wants to know first and in turn, he poses the question back to Meno. This, among other reasons, explains why Socrates does not respond directly to Meno’s question about how virtue is acquired.
Why?
Commencing the conversation with a general, rather than a specific question induces nervousness to Socrates. Any standard person in such a situation can be interested in knowing why the question is open and not specific. It can be mistaken for a trick of capturing the mind of a person. Socrates is concerned with the idea behind the question. That Meno does not explain his motives preceding it makes Socrates return it to him. Socrates now becomes the interviewer and not the reverse.
Their difference forces Socrates to suggest that they address the issue of virtue but differently from how Meno wants it. He dances into this tune. He claims that a virtue is a variable that relies much on gender, age, literacy, among other factors. Citing an example of men, who ought to lead their families providing the basic requirements and women taking care of the head and the children, Socrates rejects it. He posits that there should be a virtue portrayed by all people regardless of the aforementioned factors. The question goes back to Meno when he is required to identify this virtue. It is noticeable that Socrates does not suggest a comment on whether Meno’s claims were true.
Socrates’ rejection of the notion that virtues are dependent variables tempts Meno to conclude that all people possess similar virtues. He provides the illustration of their capacity to lead claiming that this prevails among all people no matter their differences. Socrates views it as too general saying that it is not leading that matters but the way it is done. He throws the question back demanding to know whether leading well is common in relation to captives and the liberated people. He declares him as one led by many instead of one, or else too open rather than specific which is his area of interest.
Sticking to the subject of virtue, Meno introduces a third party, Gorgias, though not live in the discussion, which is conversant with the field of virtues. He demands to know from Socrates how Gorgias treated a virtue. Socrates claims to have forgotten but when he asks him whether he knew it, Meno said he did, only for Socrates to order him to exclude Gorgias from the discussion and provide him with the meaning of a virtue from Gorgias point of view.
Conclusion
The fact that Socrates knows all the answers to Meno’s questions stands out clear throughout the dialogue. The questions asked are too general from Socrates point of view. Though dead, Plato’s lesson is still alive, holding that people ought to be specific rather than broad when handling their issues. This provides the reason why Socrates fails to respond directly to Meno’s questions.