Philosophic Inquiry Into Socrates Conception Of Knowledge example essay topic

Socrates and Properties By Characterizing himself -Socrates- as both ignorant and wise, he presents us with one of the most striking paradoxes. Like so many of the other philosophers, is provocative in that its apparent self-contradiction hides an important idea for us readers to discover. Though out this text Socrates ignorance results from his belief that he has no knowledge of moral idea, or moral properties, such as justice, virtue, piety, and beauty. He asserts that, if only he knew the relevant definitions, he would be a moral expert who could answer philosophical questions about moral properties- questions such as is a certain action just? Or is it truly good for a man to be virtuous?

Socrates believes that only someone that is "truly wise" would know these essential definitions and be able to provide such expert answers. It is important to determine whether Socrates does, in fact, accept priority of definition principle and, if he does, whether he is committed to a false and problematic principle that subjects him to catastrophic results. A textual analysis will be a philosophic inquiry into Socrates' conception of knowledge, considering what he believes knowledge to be, how the knowledge of definitions fits into his epistemology, and whether or not his conception of knowledge is philosophical compelling. Socrates does not appear to hold a consistent epistemological view through out the book. The book is timely.

It appears shortly following the death of Gregory Vlastos, who stimulated much of the philosophical interest in this area, and thus at a moment when the future of that interest might be in some doubt. But by offering consistently challenging and novel interpretations, and by arguing clearly and vigorously for their positions with reference both to the texts and to the work of other scholars, the authors guarantee a continuing debate on the topics. It is certainly one of the best introduction's there is to Socratic thought, together with Vlastos's ocrates, Ironist and Moral Philosopher and posthumous companion volume Socratic Studies, Terence Irwin's Plato's Moral Theory, and (for a very different approach) Leo Strauss's long essay 'The Problem of Socrates' in The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism. Some of the authors' more controversial positions are: Socrates does not really have a method at all, though his manner of examining others can produce important negative and positive results; Socrates' profession of ignorance is limited to knowledge which gives real wisdom, and even here he claims to possess knowledge that certain things are true (e.g. suffering is better than injustice), but not to know why or how it is they are true; Socrates' extraordinary claims in the Gorgias concerning what everyone believes and desires (justice and the true good) are consistent with his treatment of akr asia, and present an entirely unified psychological theory; Socrates regards virtue as neither necessary nor sufficient to happiness (this view is unique to the authors); Socrates opposed all disobedience to law, even to law which commanded injustice, and his trial and execution were not motivated by political concerns; the accusations against Socrates at his trial reflect religious prejudices which he represents quite accurately in Plato's Apology.

This paper will try to answer one of may question specific positions and arguments the authors make. I do not see, for example, that the distinction between knowing that certain things are true and knowing why or how it is they are true is all that significant, when applied to moral wisdom, understood as knowledge of the true or ideal virtues: is not knowledge of how each of the beings is equivalent to knowledge of what the definition of each is? I also cannot agree that Socrates would be willing to obey a manifestly unjust law, e.g. to harm an innocent person, and think his action justified on the grounds that not he, but the state was the responsible agent in such a situation, an implication of their interpretation the authors fully acknowledge. All moral knowledge must start with knowledge of definition. The traditional view holds that Socrates' interest in definitions and his skepticism about clams to non-definition ally based moral knowledge come from his belief that a person cannot have knowledge about a moral property unless he first knows the fundamental nature, or definition, of the property. The principle of false is one of the main arguments presented in "Plato's Socrates".

The book, suggests that the principle is false because a person does not need to know the definition of property in order to possess other knowledge; if it were true, would wholly undermine the search for knowledge because other knowledge about a moral property must be gained. The principle is morally harmful because in seeming to put moral knowledge out of human reach, it can lead people to lose interest in moral matters. Socrates does many things and he does them in a remarkable way. In the book it is stated by Brickhouse and Smith that " Socrates' elenchus is not a craft. It is nonetheless true that Socrates does what he does with remarkable and obvious facility". This explains that Socrates method put forth the recognition of his work.

Socrates way of asking questions and leading to answers was achieved by " arguments appear only to demonstrate the inconsistency of the interlocutors' initial moral claim" (page 10). The first chapter of the book goes over how to lead the examined life, Socrates succeeded in discovering that a great many people "think they know something when in fact they know little or nothing" (page 27). Main intake in is that, one needs to practice elenchus oneself to lead an examined life, one needs to have his / her life examined by other. Importantly having enough people who are "equally capable of performing it on them" (page 29). Moving forward, Socrates describes Meno's question as obviously suggesting that his own methods of argument, the dialectic elenchus, is a different, more serious and effective one. Through a series of exchange with Meno who claimed to know what ar te is in the first place, Socrates, in his characteristic disavowal of knowledge are persistent, forces Meno to admit that he is equally at loss.

And only on the basis of this admitted ignorance can they embark on a joint inquiry, and elenchus. That is a good introduction for the main idea in chapter two which discusses the paradox of Socrates, and knowing how something is. Socrates developed the dialectical process for gaining knowledge. This sub-branch concerns the nature and scope of knowledge, that is, does knowledge exist? Can we have knowledge? What does it mean to know the truth and what is truth?

How do we justify our beliefs? He used an inductive method of argumentation in order to develop universal definitions. This was his approach to the truth that would be perfected by Plato. Socrates would examine theories using the dialectic method, which was similar to a conversational pattern with many questions. Socrates would challenge initial hypotheses and examine them for presumptions and assumptions. He regularly used two techniques: He did this in an effort to establish the truth of the hypothesis.

He looked for a coherent and consistent set of ideas; a system of thought. Socrates looked to facts to test the theories. In this way he was somewhat similar to Sir Isaac Newton and modern science. Socrates sought to deduce the consequences of a hypothesis in order to test it thereby. The Sophists raised many questions in order to win debates and to gain power. Socrates did so to pursue truth.

He did not achieve all of what he sought. Plato would go further and develop answers through the implementation of his theory of the Ideal Forms. Socrates genius was in this: he was the first to raise certain basic questions with a clear understanding of what he was doing. The argument here is that Socrates' epistemological view is more sophisticated that is described by philosophers explain it to be. I believe that, instead of the one or two intellectual states that other scholars have ascribed to him, textual and philosophic considerations reveal that he recognizes three intellectual states: expert knowledge, lesser knowledge, and supported belief, further, I believe that he does accept the fundamental criterion for expert knowledge. We need elements from both interpretation to adequately explain how the test represent Socrates' conception of knowledge.

Despite his definition requirement, there are a few passages in the early dialogues where Socrates makes explicit claims to moral knowledge of properties whose definitions he seems not to know. He also shows extreme confidence in a number of positive assertions about moral matter. If Socrates is consistent in the application of his epistemological view, then a received view cannot account for these passages. Indeed, these pieces fo test appear to directly conflict with interpretation. Socrates sees an emptiness in the arrogance we sometimes show when we claim to know that an action is courageous or an activity is pious. He routinely scrutinizes such knowledge claims by self-pro-claimed experts like Euthyphro, Thrasymachus, and Plus, and he acknowledges that his own carefully considered beliefs are subject to ongoing scrutiny.

Though, the wisdom of Socrates contains a sort of intellectual modesty that recognizes that human notions about moral properties fall well short of full knowledge and that human moral decision are always open to question. Despite this disappointing appraisal of human knowledge, Socrates does not abandon philosophy. He many never be able to claim he has moral wisdom, but the investigation of morality appears to remain important to him because the subject matter is of utmost importance to humanity. Even if humanity will never achieve moral knowledge, philosophic scrutiny of moral beliefs is beneficial to us because it provokes's to carefully consider an even reform out beliefs. The paradox of Socratic wisdom can be solved if these measurements are taken first, human wisdom lies in realizing that we are ignorant of the definitions of moral properties, and this ignorance makes hazardous our many important moral decisions. Instead of dogmatically clinging to our moral beliefs, we should hold them up to philosophic scrutiny and continually examine the natural of moral properties.

Though we may never achieve absolute knowledge of these properties, we will improve our own lives by appreciating out epistemic predicament, by working to improve our moral beliefs, and by engaging in philosophy, an activity that Socrates seems to find life fulfilling. Socrates appears to intend for his ignorance claims to be understood bradly, which further suggests that his definition requirement ranges over all moral knowledge and not just tough cases or general statements about property. I can argue that Socrates is still referring only to certain pieces knowledge that is difficult to obtain. But this argument appears strained; it seems more appropriate that we accept Socrates' broad claims at face value.

The new view asserts that Socrates recognizes two different types of moral knowledge: expert knowledge that stems from knowledge of definition, and lesser knowledge that is produced in some way other than through the knowledge of definitions. The new view accounts for Socrates' many positive moral claims by identifying them as something other than expert knowledge. In this case, new view proponents claim Socrates recognizes a second, lower state of knowledge that these claims exemplify. Using the concept of lower knowledge, the new view allows for Socrates to accept a priority of definition principle yet also permits him to hold some knowledge of moral matters even though he does not know the relevant definitions. Socrates view of ethics was one based on seeing it as a rational process. According to Socrates nobody would purposely choose to do the wrong thing.

Instead, a person would only do the wrong thing if they didn't have the information to know any better. This view places reason as central to ethics, where the person who knows what is right does what is right. With this view, the only barrier to ethical action is knowledge. This is a view where reasoning is considered as the basis by which decisions are made. Especially notable is that Socrates does not suggest that emotions might impact thinking, or even that a person just might think irrationally. Instead, people are considered to always think rationally, while any error in thinking is based on not having enough information.

Like all ancient philosophers Plato maintains a virtue-based ethic. Tat is to say, human well-being is the highest aim of moral thought and conduct; the virtues are the requisite skills and character-traits. If Plato's support for an ethics of happiness seems somewhat subdued that is due to several reasons. First of all, his conception of happiness differs in significant ways from ordinary views.

He devotes more time to understanding the traditional understanding of the good life than to describing his own. Second, Plato regards happiness as a state of perfection that is hard to comprehend. In ethics, Socrates did not surpass the prejudice of greek intellectualism, that made the practice completely dependent upon theory. It is enough to know virtue in order to be virtuous. Everyone wishes to be happy. If he does not attain happiness, it is because he does not know the way that leads to happiness.

Consequently, so-called evil men are in reality only ignorant; the evil is reduced to error. As vice is synonymous with ignorance, so knowledge of the good is synonymous with virtue. This it is easy to see concepts. It is to be noted that moral intellectualism is present in all Greek though, not excepting the great ethical system of Plato.

Of all confrontations in political philosophy, the biggest is the conflict between philosophy and politics. The problem remains making philosophy friendly to politics. The questioning of authoritative opinions is not easily accomplished nor is that realm of philosophy - the pursuit of wisdom. Socrates was the instigator of the conflict. While the political element takes place within opinions about political life, Socrates asks the question 'What is the best regime and how should I live?' Ancient thought is riddled with unknowns and can make no such statement as 'how should I live. ' The Socratic philosophy offers an alternative and prepares the way for the alternative of absolutes.

This alternative is not without its faults. Socratic philosophy is plagued by a destructive element. It reduces the authoritative opinions about political life but replaces it with nothing. This is the vital stem from which the 'Apology of Socrates' is written.

Because of the stinging attack on Athenian life, and the opinions, which they revere so highly, Socrates is placed on trial for his life. The question now becomes why and in what manner did Socrates refutes the gods and is he quality? Socrates, himself, speaks out the accusers charges by saying 'Socrates does injustice and is meddlesome, by investigating the things under the earth and the heavenly things, and by making the weaker the stronger and by teaching others these things'. Why does Socrates remind the assembly about the old accusers?

It appears improper for a man on trial to bring about his other 'crimes'. Socrates as an old accuser, in particular, implicates Aristophanes. For you yourselves used to see these things in the comedy of Aristophanes. The poets helped to shape Greek culture. Poetry was passed on and perpetuated the city where thought constantly changed. Philosophy begins in debunking what the city thinks they know in order to refute the god.

It is evident that the gods of the city do not guide Socrates. Socrates says 'it is not part of the same man to believe e 3 win demon ian and divine things' (Plato, 27 e). Socrates is subtly admitting his guilt. Perhaps Socrates believes in gods, but if so, they are not the gods of the city. Socrates simply denies that he has had any part in celestial or subterranean inquiry - he simply speaks 'elsewhere'. Socrates goes on to say that those who do are reported to be atheists.

However, Socrates says that 'Zeus does not eve een exist's ocrates replaces Zeus with nature, the permanent and necessary things accessible to reason. This is an outrage to any Athenian. To deny the gods is to deny faith and ultimately the authoritarian opinions on which their politics is based. Why does Socrates think that he is being unjustly punished? Chaerophon had told Socrates that the Pythian Oracle had said that Socrates was the wisest man. Socrates admits that 'I am conscious that I am not wise, either much or little's ocrates wonders what the riddle is and sets out to 'refute the divination'.

This is a prime example of Socrates' impiousness as is his statement in 'The Clouds' where he states, 'we don't credit Gods'. He is attempting to refute the god at Delphi. Socrates tries to aid his own defense by charging that what he does is in devotion to the god. 'Even now I still go around seeking and investigating in accordance with the god.

Socrates makes this brash statement yet it is unfounded and untrue because it is not a Devine order for Socrates to pursue this line of investigation. In opposition, Socrates asserts that the demon ian did not oppose him. Socrates was 'the gadfly's tinging the city of Athens. When Socrates proposes that the god sent him on his quest, he set out to prove it wrong.

In the process, he questioned, 'The politicians and those reported to be wise'. After finding that no one reported to be wise, was worthy of being called wise, Socrates investigated further 'all the while perceiving with pain and fear that I was becoming hated'. The artisans, poets, and politicians all thought they were knowledgeable in 'the greatest things' but, in fact, did not know anything at all. 'They all say noble things but they know nothing of which they speak'.

Socrates, in affirming that he ranked above them in wisdom, because he knew nothing, in fact became the oracles main supporter. It must be noted that Socrates's up port of the cities god is based solely on his 'testing' of the oracle. Socrates accepts the oracles words, not on divine authority but because it passes his test of reason. The hatred of Socrates is extended, as the youth of Athens imitate him and make the elders look foolish by engaging in Socratic dialogue and showing up their ignorance. This led to the charge that Socrates corrupted the youth. This too was added to the impiety charge.

Socrates says that the youth follow him 'of their own accord'. In any event, one concludes that the Delphic Oracle was a definite turning point in Socrates' life. Perhaps it changes Socrates' interest from the physical and astronomical studies with moral and political thought. In conclusion, this paper examined three philosophical problems that some philosophers have credited to the priority of definition principle. By re-examining the text I found that there is a good reason to accept both of these distinctions. He talks of moral beliefs that he accepts but he refuses to consider those beliefs as knowledge.

Socratic polices, ethics and method is examined and opinionated through out this paper. Also true and false issues are brought up, and explained in details. This paper is mostly fixated on Socrates way of knowledge and if the method is the correct way of learning and teaching. I would like to close with this small thought, people set the boundaries of right and wrong, and every society is different, as so is Socrates.