SOCRATES AND THE MEANING OF PHILOSOPHY - Essay Example

? To Think or Not To Think: Socrates and the Meaning of Philosophy number TA Word count excluding and reference list: 2597 To Think or Not To Think: Socrates and the Meaning of Philosophy Instead of begging for his life through appeals to pity, Socrates tells the jury: “…whatever you do, know that I shall never alter my ways, not even if I have to die many times” (Plato, n.d., p.15). Socrates is the kind of man who will die for what he thinks is right. Plato’s Apology describes Socrates’ identity and philosophy through narrating his trial. Socrates dies for his philosophy because he knows that he is doing the right thing for society, not just for himself, where his interest is simply helping others to know the truth. He does the right thing for a society that needs a “gadfly” which will stir it to constant self-assessment (Plato, n.d., p.16). In the first section of the paper, I explain Socrates’ philosophy, specifically irony, method, and ethos, and how Socrates’ statement, “The unexamined life is not worth living,” is related to these three components. In the second section, I reflect on what I think philosophy is and why it is important. Socrates’ philosophy uses irony and logical methods to promote ethos, or the character of a good man with a good life, and his philosophy helps me define philosophy as the study of general and specific problems that can help people live a good life. Socrates’ philosophy is sometimes called Socratic irony, where the irony is that when a philosopher starts with the admission of his own ignorance, he actually exposes the ignorance of others. In Apology, Socrates criticizes the Sophists for using logos without examining the ethical value and consequences of their arguments. He says: “…but I know that their persuasive words almost made me forget who I was – such was the effect of them; and yet they have hardly spoken a word of truth” (Plato, n.d., p.3). He alludes to Sophists because they can be tremendously persuasive enough that some people overlook the weaknesses of their arguments. Forgetting oneself refers to forgetting one’s ability to think critically in response to the persuasive tactics of the Sophists. The verbal irony is that Socrates is not affected at all by the Sophists. Instead, the more that he talks to them, the more he exposes their ignorance through exposing the fallacies of their arguments. Socrates uses verbal irony to highlight that Sophists are not after the truth, and yet they ironically sound truthful to others who do not examine their lives anymore. Moreover, one of the greatest ironies in his philosophy is his argument on wisdom. Socrates does not claim to know everything, and yet by saying he does not know anything, he is wiser than the rest because it opens him to knowing more. He is right to compare himself to a “gadfly” because he exists for the main purpose of stirring the Greek society. He is like a gadfly that aims to stir the society which is “like a great and noble steed who is tardy in his motions owing to his very size, and requires to be stirred into life” (Plato, n.d., p.16). When the prophecy says that Socrates is the wisest of all, it does not mean that Socrates holds the most knowledge of all fields, but that he is open to learning more through his critical and inquisitive approach to learning. As a gadfly, he is ironically a small being in society in terms of wealth and social connections, and yet, he has the ability to stimulate deep philosophical questions amongst his people. Another example of irony comes from Socrates’ accusers. They accuse someone of something that they know little of. Socrates provides the example of Meletus. He says that Meletus is the “doer of evil,” wherein “the evil is that he makes a joke of a serious matter, and is too ready at bringing other men to trial from a pretended zeal and interest about matters in which he really never had the smallest interest” (Plato, n.d., p.9). Socrates shows verbal irony because he is not the doer of evil, but his accuser is for showing opposition for something he does not fully know. Socrates proceeds to situational irony. He asks Meletus if he thinks greatly about the improvement of the youth. When asked who their improver should be, if not Socrates, Meletus could not answer, to which Socrates retorts: “But is not this rather disgraceful, and a very considerable proof of what I was saying, that you have no interest in the matter?” (Plato, n.d., p.9). Indeed, it is ironic that Meletus claims to know what is good for the youth, but he cannot immediately name anyone who can help the youth in becoming better people. Socrates prods Meletus further for him to answer, until the latter reveals that everyone can improve the youth but the former. This logic brings Socrates to another irony, when he demonstrates that if he does intentional evil to others, the latter might have harmed him already. Yet, the only person that harms him is Meletus, who cannot claim that he is corrupted by Socrates, or else, this will turn him into a deteriorated man, an unfit source of truth. The dramatic irony is that the accuser is indeed the doer of evil, specifically the doer of evil against Socrates. Aside from irony, Socrates’ philosophy includes the use of several methods, which can be collectively called as the Socratic Method, which can help people examine and improve their ideas and beliefs. These methods assist people in studying their lives, so that they can find the truth through deep analysis and reflection. Socrates uses conversational and definitional methods to determine the truth about people’s ideas. In Apology, he narrates several examples, as if in conversation. An example is telling a story about teachers who get paid for educating others, such as Evenus the Parian, who educated Callias the son of Hipponicus (Plato, n.d., p.5). Through this story, he defines what a paid teacher is, and he is not one of them. Instead, Socrates emphasizes that he admires teachers who get paid for sharing their wisdom. He uses irony to say that he cannot get paid because to begin with, he does not have enough wisdom to warrant such payment. Aside from these methods, Socrates uses deduction. For those who appreciate his methods, they think that he is a wise man. One of the allegations against him is centered on his wisdom. These enemies say that “[He] is an evil-doer, 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” (Plato, n.d., pp.4-5). The logic can be deduced as this: 1) All that Socrates says is truthful because he is wise; 2) Socrates says something; therefore, 3) this statement is truthful. Socrates does not claim that he knows the truth, but instead, he says that he has some wisdom in knowing the truth. In saying this, he deflects the allegation that he harbors access to all truths. Another method of Socrates is induction. Induction is a useful method because it uses experience to draw potential conclusions. He differentiates ancient and recent accusations, where in explaining each, he asserts their effect on the jury. Ancient accusations, he says, are compelling because they were directed at the jury during their youth: “…they made them in days when you were impressible - in childhood, or perhaps in youth - and the cause when heard went by default, for there was none to answer” (Plato, n.d., p.4). The induction comes from the thinking that since these arguments were made during the vulnerable stages of the jury’s life, they are more likely to believe them and to develop prejudice against Socrates. Socrates is asking the jury to examine their thoughts about him to expose potential prejudice, and hopefully, when acknowledged, this prejudice can be dismantled. One more example is the allegation that Socrates is teaching others to not believe in God because he is an atheist. Using induction, he proves to the jury that he has some belief in God. He tells Meletus: “[No one will believe] you that the same man can believe in divine and superhuman things, and yet not believe that there are gods and demigods and heroes” (Plato, n.d., p.13). Because Socrates believes in spiritual and divine agencies, it is not true that he does not believe in gods and demigods, and it also follows that he is not an atheist. Through irony and the Socratic Method, Socrates urges people to develop their ethos, so that they can cultivate the habits and characters that will lead them to a good life, a good life that comes from their soul, not from the misleading eloquence of others. Socrates says: “The unexamined life is not worth living.” He persuades people to develop their ethos, so that they will not be blind followers to sophisticated orators. Socrates emphasizes the most important aim of humans, the improvement of their soul. He says: “For I do nothing but go about persuading you all, old and young alike, not to take thought for your persons and your properties, but first and chiefly to care about the greatest improvement of the soul” (Plato, n.d., p.15). Indeed, this aim is the utmost of all aspirations that Socrates dies for it. He does not flinch in saying that he would rather die, but he would not change his ways. Socrates shows that ethos is a meaningful end of a good life. This paper proceeds to the second part that analyzes and responds to Rauhut, who claims that philosophy is the study of “open questions,” and I respond that in part, I agree with Rauhut that philosophy is the study of “open questions,” but these questions must be answered through logical means, if not always scientific processes. Before I proceed in discussing my answer, I want to define philosophy. Philosophy is the study of general and specific problems, and some of them are related to finding the truth about knowledge, reality, values, and existence. Philosophy starts with meaningful questions and these questions are meaningful to those who feel that the answers mean something important to them. An example is a Christian who wants to determine the truth about God’s existence. The question, “Does God exist?” is a meaningful question for her. These open questions can go on and on, where the Socratic Method can be used in clarifying definitions of concepts, so that the premises and conclusions are clearer and more persuasive. Philosophy is concerned of these concepts and their methods of definitions. I argue that the significance of philosophy is in thinking about thinking and thinking about our thoughts. It is the pursuit of answers to ceaseless open questions that uncover what people know and how they know what they know, so that they can question knowledge for its truth and relevance in their lives. Open questions help people open their minds to questions that will otherwise be unanswered because they are so embroiled in their daily lives that they no longer examine it. Furthermore, I argue that philosophy pertains to asking and answering questions that can help people have a meaningful life. Socrates is right that “The unexamined life is not worth living,” because if someone else holds these answers, then people are merely slaves to the definitions and interests of others. I argue that philosophy is about examining life, so that it becomes worth living. Life becomes worth living because it comes from choices that are made from one’s innermost conviction, where the conviction comes from reasonable beliefs and ideas. Life becomes worth living because it is lived for one’s own personal goals, and not the imposed norms and goals of others. I will proceed to explaining my points of agreement and disagreement with Rauhut. I agree with Rauhut that philosophy is the study of “open questions.” Open questions refer to understanding the nature of knowledge and reality, and how they can be known. Asking is followed by methods of answering, and these methods must not only lead to more unanswered questions, but also to valid answers. Scientific processes or the scientific method is a good way of answering some philosophical questions. For instance, what is the truth? The truth about something particular, such as who killed President John F. Kennedy, can be attained through scientific processes. Evidence can be gathered and logic can be applied on the evidence to find out his killer. The truth is based on tangible evidence for this case. Because of ethical concerns or lack of evidence, among other issues, however, not all questions can be answered through experiments or scientific processes, but they can be explored through logic. One of the open questions that I have wrestled with is that if God is perfectly good and powerful, why is there so much suffering in this world? This is one of the questions that cannot be answered scientifically, such as asking God as a witness, since I cannot interview Him. Instead, I have to use logic to answer this question. I will choose inductive reasoning, which goes like this: 1) God is all powerful and He is powerful enough to give people the power to shape their lives and identities through free will; 2) God is good but He does not want to force people to be good. Instead, He wants people to have the free will to choose good over evil; 3) People have free will, so they can choose to do right or bad things; 4) Right things can prevent suffering; 5) Bad things can lead to suffering; 6) Some people use their free will to choose bad things, and these actions lead to the suffering of others, sometimes, even their own; and therefore, 7) Even if God is all-powerful and all-good, He cannot stop suffering, not because He does not want to and He does not have the power to do so, but because He allows people to make choices for themselves. Philosophy helps me clarify assumptions and concepts. It helps me open my mind to finding arguments that are logically consistent because they are logically possible. It is possible for suffering to exist in this world because God has given people the gift of free will. Their free will can lead to suffering, but at the same time, it gives them the power to also relieve and to prevent this suffering. So indeed, God is all-good. He can choose to make people who are slaves to His “logic,” but instead, he makes people who can make their own choices and to suffer or enjoy the consequences of these choices. Socrates has a philosophy that is simple, but arrestingly difficult to practice because not all people are willing to give time and energy in finding the truth, including the truth that can help them become better human beings. He asks people to use his methods in improving their ethos, an endeavor that requires both thinking about ideas and beliefs and thinking about the thinking that produced these ideas and beliefs. The hardest step may be beginning with the reality that people do not know truly know what they know, and to find out what is true after all. I argue that philosophy is an action of sustained analytical and critical thinking, thus, it requires thinking in ways that may attack one’s most fundamental ideas and beliefs. I argue that philosophy may seem like a pile of endless questions in a sea of skepticism, but in its core, it only wants the truth that people can believe, live for, and die for. Reference Plato. (n.d.). Apology. Trans. Benjamin Jowett. Retrieved from http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/plato/apology.pdf Read More