The Socratic technique is a negative strategy for gradually disproving unwanted theories, leaving you with the most logical one. It aims to make the individual examine their own beliefs and challenge the legitimacy of such convictions. The beliefs of Socrates, separate from those of Plato, are hard to define as little in the way of solid proof exists to separate the two. Others contend that he had his own hypotheses and beliefs.
It is therefore difficult to isolate Socrates and his work from that of Plato and necessary to always keep in mind that the work of Socrates could actually be attributable to Plato and vice versa. The issue is further confounded because Socrates was famous for posing questions and not supplying an answer, preferring others to form their own conclusions.
A significant number of the beliefs generally credited to Socrates are deliberately confusing because they present ideas which, at first, appear contradictory. These are called paradoxes. Socrates believed that people should strive for goodness rather than material interests such as wealth.
He encouraged others to focus more on companionship and making connections with other people because he felt this was the ideal path for individuals to come together as a group. He bears this idea out when he calmly accepts his own death sentence.
Rather than fleeing to live a life alone and in exile, he accepts his punishment from society for going against the general beliefs of the population. Socrates focused on ethics and morality in many of his teachings. These ideals spoke to the essential characteristics that an individual should possess, chief of which were philosophical or scholarly excellence. Irvine contends that as a direct result of his belief in Athenian majority rule, Socrates was happy to acknowledge the decision of his fellow citizens.
Our own jury system, democratic in its own way, is more carefully circumscribed by legal provisions, and less likely to engage in politically or publicly motivated trials.
It needs no reminder that our modern system is not immune to trends in public opinion, and it may occasionally condemn the innocent and set the guilty free, under the spell of public mood. The responsiveness of the jury to public opinion may be considered a democratic manifestation, as the jurors respond to or represent the wider society, but this need not coincide with objective justice—as it did not in the trial of Socrates. Still, modern democracy would not condemn a Socrates to death, however unpopular he might have been.
Yet it must be remembered that, if the Athenian democracy stands accused of a judicial murder, this must not be seen as a justification of, say, the Spartan regime, which was authoritarian and in some respects totalitarian. For in Sparta Socrates would not have been likely to pursue his avocation till the age of seventy. Indeed, he would be unlikely to be what he was in a society which hardly produced prominent men of reflection, writers and artists. If in Athens the mills of injustice ground slowly, in Sparta they had no opportunity to encounter men of free spirit.
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. These are the opening words of the Apology.
There is more in this opening statement than meets the eye. Ostensibly, it is almost a standard gambit to a disputation, but actually Socrates alludes here to a core distinction between his intellectual pursuit and that of his accusers. They belong to the class of rhetoricians, closely related to the sophists, who perfected the art of speech as a means to success in politics and public life. As in democratic procedures, it is the force of persuasion that is the way to success.
Some went even so far as to argue that there is no objective truth, truth being what is the interest of the contender for power. Socrates rejects such an approach. Truth is the ultimate object of intellectual inquiry—truth simple and unadorned, to be sought with strict logical rules and not in flowery and persuasive talk.
A geometric theorem is logically proven and not ascertained by an eloquent speech. Such is the way for seeking truth in other domains. The intellectual argument is not about scoring a point, or winning in a contest, but about the quest of truth.
This is the essence of philosophy, the love and pursuit of wisdom. A philosopher is he who dedicates his life to such a pursuit. He is a man apart from the clever manipulators of words, seeking a personal advantage, or engaging in discussion for ulterior motives.
Socrates does not underestimate the actual influence and the social power of such manipulators. Indeed, he admits to be sure, with pungent irony—that his accusers, who are such people, almost made him forget who he was.
It is this powerful weapon of the gift of the gab, which he looks at with concern and apprehension, for it leads people astray from the search of truth to the quest of success, with no regard for truth. Is there a lesson here for what transpires in our modern democratic society? Are we engaged in search of truth, or rather looking for ways to make friends and influence people?
Do we in our jury trials look for truth, or does each side try to move heaven and earth to forward its case, using emotional appeal, histrionics, playing on ethnic sentiments, smearing and glorifying, in order to win? If truth wins, it is not necessarily for the right reason. And what about the political contest? Are the speeches of the contenders for power—from the presidential to the local—directed by the search of truth, or by the quest to find favor with the voters irrespective of the convictions of the candidate for office, if he retains any?
Are not the modern contenders for political power counselled, guided, driven, by professional public-opinion advisers, the born-again sophists? In ancient Athens the economic activity did not involve efforts to market the commodities to the consumers.
What was produced—rarely in excess—was easily consumed. In our days of bountiful production and fierce competition the art of persuasion has also spilled into the economic domain.
They do not offer us the true information about the worth and benefit of the product, but prefer to present it in all its attractions, whether intrinsic, incidental, or even invented. A medicine is advertised claiming its benefits intrinsic worth , its popularity incidental , the happy smiles of its assorted users invented.
One need not adduce examples of other commodities—automobiles, toothpaste, air travel, pizza, etc. The point is that the focus of advertising is not to inform the potential buyers about the true and accurate worth of the commodity or the service, but to convince them to buy it, whether it be useful, partially useful, useless, or even harmful as in the case of cigarettes.
Callias, 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 proper virtue and excellence; but as they are human beings, whom are you thinking to place over them?
Is there any one who understands human and political virtue? It is in the course of the speech that Socrates, alleging his own lack of qualification as a teacher, introduces the anecdote of his conversation with Callias, the father of two sons, for whom he was eager to provide good education.
Characteristically, Socrates poses the question in a provocative way, insinuating the difficulty of the problem by an analegous, but not quite similar, example: The education of children compared and contrasted with the cultivation of animals. The example may be startling in its simplicity, and perhaps offensive in its apparent crudeness: Who, after all, thinks of his sons as foals or calves?
Yet, it is such simple examples that may stir people to think about the root of the problem. For just as the trainer of horses is bent on improving them, so there ought to be someone capable of improving young human beings. Or is there? Socrates is not sure, or at least does not offer any recommendation, but he wants to make Callias think about the issue, and then try for a cogent answer, which may well be much more complex than finding a trainer for horses.
Implicit to the Socratic query is the assumption that human beings—not unlike foals and calves — have their own proper virtue and excellence. In other words, the excellence aimed at in a horse—or an automobile, for that matter—is different from the virtue sought in human beings. It would be absurd to look for horselike excellence in man, or for human perfection in horses. Each entity has its own ideal perfection. Such an ideal excellence is potentially in various beings and it has to be brought out by someone who has the knowledge and experience to do it.
It may be a relatively simple and established practice when animals are concerned, but when human beings come into the picture, the issue becomes much more difficult. Socrates does not tell us the answer, but he expects to provoke Callias into an inquiry on this subject. Alas, Callias is a simple-minded fellow and the Socratic question does not puzzle him. Indeed, he has an instant answer: It is Evenus from Paros who is the perfector of human virtue, the fashionable educator.
Socrates hears the answer, but retains his doubts. The problem of the good education has no such simple instant answers. In our own progressive age, we have also ready-made answers about how to solve the problems of education. Or will they? The modern answer misses the central issue of education. It is not information that offers the key to perfection and excellence, whether intellectual or moral.
It is the capacity of individual thinking and judgment that makes a human being in the positive sense of the word. To be sure, information is important; access to the great pool of facts must not be belittled. He had seen so much bad, he wanted to search for something good. Socrates was a firm believer in friendship and community, and common threads between all of mankind. Socrates typically cut a pretty down-trodden figure when he wandered the streets of Athens — he never wore shoes, and sported the same tattered woolen cloak all year round.
He even had the gall to suggest to Athenians that they might be better themselves pursuing well-being rather than wealth — words that ring truer than ever in consumerist modern society.
Check Related Content. Socrates lived and breathed his philosophies — however much they were scorned, ridiculed, laughed at or feared — and he ultimately died by them. He could have renounced his beliefs, and made a groveling defence during his trial — but he chose instead to stand tall to the last and accept his punishment , even turning down an opportunity to escape.
There was undoubtedly a degree of recklessness and martyrdom to Socrates death, but the lesson it teaches us about standing up for what we believe in to the very end remains powerful and enduring.
You are commenting using your WordPress. You are commenting using your Google account. You are commenting using your Twitter account. You are commenting using your Facebook account. Notify me of new comments via email. Subscribe for fascinating stories connecting the past to the present.
The Athenian philosopher Plato c. In his written dialogues he conveyed and expanded on the ideas and techniques of his teacher Socrates. The Academy he The Greek philosopher Aristotle B. Though overshadowed in classical times by the work of his teacher Plato, from late antiquity The so-called golden age of Athenian culture flourished under the leadership of Pericles B. Pericles transformed his The warrior Achilles is one of the great heroes of Greek mythology.
One of the greatest ancient historians, Thucydides c. Known for his philosophical interests, Marcus Aurelius was one of the most respected emperors in Roman history. He was born into a wealthy and politically prominent family. Growing up, Marcus Aurelius was a dedicated student, learning Latin and Greek. But his greatest The two most powerful city-states in ancient Greece, Athens and Sparta, went to war with each other from to B.
0コメント