Upload to Google Docs

The fourth chapter of Socrates: A Very Short Introduction, C.C.W Taylor writes about the methods of argument and doctrines in Plato’s Apology and his twelve dialogues. He tells us most of his dialogues have common features. These features are characterization, definition, ethics, and the Sophists. Socrates is usually characterized in the dialogues not as a teacher, but as an inquirer of the person’s beliefs and wisdom. A feature which is found in most of the dialogues is definition, where questions such as what is temperance, what is holiness, what is courage, and what is a one virtue. These definitions are discussed respectively in the dialogues, Laches, Charmides, Hippias Major, Meno and, Protagoras. Another feature Taylor discusses is ethics, which answers practical ethical problems like how someone should live as discussed in Crito, Gorgias and Euthydemus and finally the views of the sophist versus those of Socrates.

We start out with the characterization of why did Socrates disavow wisdom? When the oracle of Delphi answered no to the question was anyone wiser than Socrates, he was puzzled. Since this occurs in the Apology and is written as a defense for Socrates, could it be that this was intended to set the ground work for a defensive argument against the accusation that he was corrupting the youth of Athens? Since one had to have knowledge to be a teacher and since wisdom is knowledge, if one didn’t have wisdom he couldn’t have the knowledge to teach, therefore he could not corrupt the youth of Athens. This would be the reason he went out to prove he wasn’t the wisest of men. Taylor explains that in the Apology, Socrates admits craftsmen have wisdom. With this wisdom, one of the humans and not the complete or divine wisdom which only god can have, they would be able to teach others their craft but limited to their craft. The sophists, on the other hand, claimed they had the expertise to teach others all they needed to know to have a successful life. Socrates did not accept this claim from the Sophists for he believed they lacked the systematic learning it would take to acquire this skill.

This is not ‘Socratic irony’ or what the author describes as ‘pretending ignorance for dialectical purposes’. The Apology does not claim Socrates used dialectics to disavow knowledge, but he uses questioning to break down what a person thinks he knows in a way to dispute his claims of knowledge. This would make a person a non-expert indicating he only knows some things, but not like an expert who has expansive knowledge. These experts we are told, lack the moral expertise, as this expertise is only possessed by the god.

Socrates clearly sees the ideal knowledge pattern, but although he claims some knowledge, he does not have the ideal knowledge. In my thinking, if this is true, then how does Socrates know what questions to ask to dispute a person’s claim to knowledge? To me, it makes sense that ‘complete knowledge’ is needed to break down a person’s view of his knowledge. Taylor concludes this section by saying although Socrates questioning reveals non-expert knowledge, not all non-expert knowledge is achieved by this method but gives no evidence on how this non-expert knowledge is obtained.

Taylor tells us Socrates quest for expertise is the reason for his interest in definitions. To fully understand a subject one has to know what the subject is, thus the question ‘What is such-and-such appears in several of Plato’s writings. In the dialogue The Charmides, the question of whether Charmides has self-control cannot be answered until self-control is defined. This became known as the Socratic fallacy. Another example is from the dialogue Hippias Major, there Socrates is conversing about what is fine and what is disgraceful when someone who was described as rude asked Socrates how he would know when something is fine or disgraceful. When Socrates and Hippias failed to define fine, Socrates thought to himself what if any of my speeches or action which I thought were fine may not have been since I didn’t know when something is fine. In which he concluded some cases cannot be settled if the what if a question cannot be answered. Finally, in this section, another variety of questions is discussed this time with the addition of a possessor. For example, from the dialogue Meno, does Meno have any property cannot be answered if one does not know Meno is and if one can identify the subject it is no means point towards a definition. The author ties this all together by saying, ‘The search for definitions, then, is the search of expertise, and the possessor of expertise possesses a theory of the subject-matter of that expertise, in addition, a grasp of its nature which delivers answers to further questions.

Ethics is another feature used in the dialogues. In Protagoras, Plato depicts Socrates as not quite having the expertise of the subject matter of goodness, but does have the general knowledge of it. Socrates as it appears went from a questioner to somewhat to a theorist, although not an expert one. The theory as I read it is the success in life is having the knowledge of what’s best for oneself. If he has this knowledge he is successful and will be motivated to acquire the good things of life. If one fails at this, it’s because he has a learning defect and not motivated. Success would be to have the best balance of pleasure over distress and if one did do wrong it’s because he made a mistake in assuming what would bring the most pleasure. Therefore, goodness is what guarantees overall success in life by motivation with knowledge of what’s best for oneself.  

In Apology and Crito, obedience and justice, forms of morality, are displayed when Socrates choose not to escape prison. This led to the thesis that no one willingly does wrong and should be linked with the motivational thesis in order to live a good life in accordance with morality.

Taylor tells us about another theory called the Unity of the Virtues. A comparative example is the senses of a human body are distinct, for example, one may have good hearing, but poor eyesight. One may conclude the same holds true for individual virtues, one may be obedient but may be quick to judge. Plato’s Socrates doesn’t conclude this and claims all the virtues are one in the same and part of total virtue because each virtue is knowledge and knowledge led by motivation are what will apply the right conduct to a certain area of life.

Socrates was at odds with the Sophists as their views were diametrically opposed as Taylor describes it as, ‘a clash between genuine philosophy and its counterfeit’. He uses the dialogues of Gorgias, Protagoras, Euthydemus, and Republic to back his views. He tells us the word sophist originally meant sage or expert and became associated with two itinerant intellectuals Protagoras and Hippias. Plato describes Hippias as a learned man with the little capacity for following an argument and Protagoras as an intellectual, but pompous and complacent figure that gets confused when he loses an argument.

Some sophists were known to be adept at argumentative trickery such as Euthydemus and Dionysodorus. Others, such as Callias and Thrasymachus adept on attacks of morality. Plato does not put all sophist in this class, in Protagoras the sophists are teachers of life as a continuation to traditional education with a promotion of virtue and self-control, but Plato’s Socrates is bothered by the sophist disinterest of religious belief and argues that atheism leads to immorality and looks for ways to suppress it. The sophist thinking of Thrasymachus however, is of the view human nature just like other animals tend to maximize self-interest and restricting these will restrict their happiness by trying to make others happy who abide by morality. Socrates, on the other hand, believed sophist were dangerous, not because they were promoting atheism or immorality, but because they believed they were experts on how one should live. I’ll close with the take away being the purpose of philosophy is to seek the good by first acquiring knowledge of what the good is as opposed to rhetoric where the aim is to please the desire without having the knowledge of the morality of that desire.

Questions:

What is your opinion on what would be the difference in not having knowledge and expressing one’s belief? Would one have to have knowledge in order to form a belief? As I was formulating this question it appears that partial knowledge would be sufficient in having a belief and having knowledge would be having the expertise. Your thoughts?