Name: Mark Howard
MQ Student Number: 41827228
Open Universities Australia Student Number: 254015
Unit of Study: PHI130
Assignment Number: Assessment Task 2
What is the aim of the Socratic dialectic? What method does it use to reach this aim? Use an example taken from the Reader ("Apology of Socrates), or another text by Plato, as a case study.
Socratic dialectic is a process of inquiry through cross-examination. Typically in Plato's dialogues this involves looking at the line of reason which leads to a conclusion with dialectic uncovering fallacies and tearing asunder beliefs formed by individuals and previously perceived as truth.
This essay looks at the method and aim of the technique with reference to 'The Apology', 'Crito', and 'The Republic' by Plato.
Socratic dialectic as with other forms of dialectic begins with a claim that someone believes to be true. From this point the line of inquiry follows two distinct processes; analysis, and synthesis.
Analysis begins by breaking down the claim and looking for implicit (or non-stated) propositions and premises within the claim[1] (particularly those people are unaware of making) before examining the points one by one[2].
In 'Crito' this is illustrated by Crito's claim that Socrates should escape his fate of execution.
Socrates breaks the argument down, firstly by confirming with Crito that justice is the agreed path for men to follow[3], and then by seeking to determine whether it is just for him to escape or not[4].
To ensure a clear line of reasoning they confirm that men should never act unjustly, even to the point that it is wrong to repay injustice with injustice[5]. Socrates goes on to determine that man should abide by any just agreement that he makes[6].
After clarification of the argument and its related propositions comes synthesis, whereby the propositions are put back together with a new conclusion that contradicts the first.
In the above argument it was so far clarified that justice is good, injustice is bad, injustice should never be repaid with injustice and to fall back on any just agreement would be unjust.
Socrates points out that by contenting with and using the facilities of the state, he had implicitly agreed to follow Athenian laws and government regardless of outcome and injustice[7]; to escape would be to fall back on his agreement with the state and to repay injustice with injustice[8].
Thus the new conclusion becomes the opposite of that first stipulated; Socrates should not escape his fate of execution.
So what is the ultimate aim of dialectic? Socrates is charged in 'The Apology' with an ability to “make the weaker argument destroy the stronger”[9], but this semantic explanation seems too simplistic a purpose. When he is accused of teaching the Athenian youth to question accepted truths[10], well then we seem to uncover something of more substance.
“Good opinions are those of the wise and bad ones those of the foolish”[11] he says, and Socratic dialectic is the path to forming good opinions.
It was Socrates' (good?) opinion that everything should be questioned, and that your beliefs should be questioned forever[12]. If to practice philosophy means to question all subjects for justified reasons always[13] then it is no wonder Socrates is considered the founder of western philosophy.
But why question everything always?
What Socrates discovered after the Oracle of Delphi made its prophecy[14] was that many people think they know something (and too often everything) when in reality they know little or nothing[15], an example cited and empathised by most people is that of death – we feel certain we should fear it, yet know nothing about it. Inquiry tells us it will be either void and nothing (therefore irrelevant to us), or wonderful bliss of the afterlife (and therefore something to excite about).
While his reputation was one of wisdom, and at first something he strongly disagreed with, through inquiry and dialectic he understood this wisdom – and that it was only a limited form of human wisdom[16].
Socrates realised that although individuals had knowledge he did not, they were no wiser than he because he was less misguided than other human beings – he recognised errors in his beliefs, applying rationale and dialectic where other people continued on with unreasoned and fallacious opinions about everything.
He purged his beliefs of in-correctness through dialectic, making that knowledge purer – perhaps explaining the proclamation that he was wise because he knew he was not wise.
Building on from this if we take the proposition that people claiming they have wisdom are claiming they are good, then in questioning moral virtues and ensuring that what we hold true about them is not incorrect through dialectic, we are in fact leading a more moral and good life as our morality and goodness becomes purified (catharsis?).
So dialectic becomes even more, it becomes a path to morality – which fits into Socrates desire for us to inquire upon the perfection and understanding of our souls[17].
Indeed, later on in Book IV of 'The Republic', the virtue of justice (in the individual) is defined as order of the tripartite soul, with reason (or rationale) subordinating the other unruly constituents of appetite and spirit (emotion)[18] - we can see how far the uses of dialectic fly when applied by the philosopher.
With dialectic Socrates implores us to honour the God at Delphi in knowing ourselves, inquiring upon ourselves to discover who we are and what we can hold true (for now).
In knowing himself we can see how dialectic brought Socrates to the true and just answer when questioning whether to escape or not in 'Crito'.
Escaping might have seemed the right thing to do, but by questioning his own motives and the virtue implicit to each decision, it becomes clear the opposite is true – it illustrates how unexpected conclusions can be reasoned through inquiring upon oneself, and tallies in with the idea that virtue is knowledge of oneself, while knowledge is virtue[19].
Dialectic, while appearing a merely semantic device to win arguments, holds far more value when applied to the purposes of philosophy as Socrates most successfully did, and encourages us to do so in our own lives. While it allows to to purify our knowledge of unreasoned and incorrect conclusions about the world and what Socrates considers our limited human wisdom. It also provides an avenue for us to purify the knowledge we have of ourselves and our own souls.
Ultimately this is the most important task we can apply ourselves to, and as Socrates most eloquently puts it “life without this sort of examination is not worth living”[20]
BIBLIOGRAPHY
PHI130, Lecture 4: Socrates, Jean-Philippe Deranty, Files 1 to 4
Plato, Apology of Socrates, in The last days of Socrates, trans. by H. Tredennick (London: Penguin, 1969),
Plato, Crito, in The Dialogues of Plato, trans. By F.J. Church (New York: Bantam, 2006)
Plato, The Republic, trans. By D. Lee (London: Penguin, 2007)
[1] PHI130 Lecture Notes, File 3: Dialectic as philosophical method
[2] Plato, Apology of Socrates, in The last days of Socrates, trans. by H. Tredennick (London: Penguin, 1969) pp.54
[3] Plato, Crito, in The Dialogues of Plato, trans. By F.J. Church (New York: Bantam, 2006) pp.35-37
[4] Plato, Crito op.cit., pp.37
[5] Plato, Crito op.cit., pp.38-39
[6] Plato, Crito op.cit., pp.39
[7] Plato, Crito op.cit., pp.41-42
[8] Plato, Crito op.cit., pp.44
[9] Plato, Apology op.cit., pp.46
[10] PHI130 Lecture Notes, File 1: Socrates' life
[11] Plato, Crito op.cit., pp. 35
[12] PHI130 Lecture Notes, File 3: Dialectic as philosophical method
[13] PHI130 Lecture Notes, File 3: Dialectic as philosophical method
[14] Plato, Apology op.cit., pp. 49
[15] Plato, Apology op.cit., pp. 53
[16] Plato, Apology op.cit., pp. 49
[17] Plato, Apology op.cit., pp.61
[18] Plato, The Republic, trans. By D. Lee (London: Penguin, 2007) pp.149-154 (Book IV: 441c-444e)
[19] PHI130 Lecture Notes, File 4: Dialectic and morality
[20] Plato, Apology op.cit., pp.72
No comments:
Post a Comment