Project 3: Socrates always denied having any knowledge that he could teach to anybody. He also spent all his time questioning people, and he claimed (see Plato’s Apology) that by doing that he would help them become better people. How? And wouldn’t this count as teaching?
Presented By: Arzoo Zaheer
Presented to: Prof. Anna Greco
Course: PHL300H5S
Date Due: Thursday, February 03, 2005
To the eyes of an inexperienced young philosophy reader, Socrates might seem a man of contradictions. However, a careful analysis of his work reveals him as a clever ironist who understood the gap between God’s “infallible wisdom” and human’s “fallible wisdom”. Socrates was one of the most wise men who roamed the streets of Athens in order to find the definitions of moral characteristics such as courage, bravery, piety etc. He believed that the correct definition of a certain type of moral characteristic should have a common “form” to it. For example, the common “form” of bravery as described in the definition of bravery should be seen in all instances of bravery. (Irwin, 1995)
As we read Plato’s or Xenophon’s Socrates, it becomes evident that Socrates was indeed very wise and virtuous. Since he strongly believed that breaking the laws of the city meant doing harm to its people and law-makers, he preferred death over “wrong-doing”. In the Crito, we see a very contend and happy Socrates meeting his death. We see that his belief in “doing right” is not shaken at the time of death but is instead strengthened. Once again a picture emerges of a man who is truly moral, wise and reached.
For a long time, philosophers have been baffled by one of Socrates’ claims termed Docta Ignorantia: “I do not know” or “I am not wise”. Many philosophers view this as evidence that Socrates was indeed a man of contradictions and yet others believe that he made this and certain other paradoxical claims without intending to deceive anybody.
In this essay, I shall venture to argue that Docta Ignorantia is in fact consistent with the fact that Socrates was a very wise man. I shall also show that Socrates made the claim that he never taught anybody, in utmost sincerity. I shall support my thesis by first discussing Socratic Method, the elenchus, and then the Socratic irony. Next, I shall argue how Socrates made variable use of the word “knowledge” since he understood the difference between “infallible” and “fallible” knowledge. Furthermore, I shall refer to the Socratic irony to argue that Socrates was sincere when he said that he never taught anybody. Hence, it shall be shown that this claim of Socrates does not conflict with the fact that his listeners and interlocutors did gain valuable knowledge from him.
In order to understand Socrates, one must understand the elenchus, Socrates’ method of cross-examination and refutation. When Chaerophon told Socrates that Oracle told him that no one is wiser than Socrates, Socrates was surprised (Reeve, 2002–Plato’s Aplogy 21a). He then decided to go and cross-examine other people to see if the Oracle is really correct or not. He would enter in a dialogue with the interlocutor and ask them the definitions of moral characteristics such as courage, honesty, bravery etc. He would then refute the presented definition by showing that the interlocutor held other beliefs which were inconsistent with the definition. The definition would be revised, represented after revision and then refuted again. Elenchus results in aporia or confusion. (Reich, 1998) After subjected to such a brutal cross-examination and refutation, the interlocutor would get highly confused; he would not know what to believe in any more. Certain philosophers believe that the purpose of elenchus was to not to confuse the interlocutor but to create an inquiring state of mind, clean of any false beliefs that might obstruct the quest of knowledge. (Brun, 1962)
Next, we must try to understand “Socratic Irony” and its implications. Irony is defined as “the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of [their] literal meaning” (Webster’s Dictionary). In “simple Irony”, what is said is not what is intended eg. What fine weather we have today. Here the speaker intends to say that today the weather is very rough. Simple irony has been used excessively by Greek philosophers and playwrights. Instances of simple irony can be seen in “Clouds “ and “Rhetorica and Alexandrum”. (Vlastos, 1991) Vlastos notes that most of the time, the intent of the ironist was to mock, protest or humor. Irony is not meant to deceive but is rather presented as a riddle to the audience. Socrates introduced a new form of irony, “complex irony”, to Greek literature. Complex irony is such that what is said is both what is intended and what is not intended. “…its surface content is meant to be true in one sense, false in another” (Vlastos, 1991). For example, Xenophon’s Socrates claims that his features are beautiful. This is false in the ordinary sense since in the ordinary sense, Socrates is not beautiful. This statement is true in the other sense since he means that his features are beautiful because they serve their purpose i.e his nose is perfect for smelling etc. (Vlastos, 1991)
Critics might be tempted to say that Socrates intended to mock or protest while using irony. I would refute this claim by pointing out the purpose of elenchus. Elenchus was used to create an inquiring state of mind. Similarly, Socratic irony was meant to emphasize the aporia in hope that the interlocutor will join Socrates in the quest for (human) knowledge. Hence, by saying that he does not know, while at the same time seeming to possess a lot of wisdom, Socrates intends to stir up the minds of the audience so that they may look for, by themselves, the answer to this riddle as well as other moral claims.
“With this irony, Socrates intends to create a certain uneasiness and tension inside the person with whom he is speaking, in order that an unexpected reaction may then take place in the speaker himself, or if he cannot be helped, in the people who are listening to the conversation” (Brun, 1962)
Now, I shall argue that Socrates made dual use of the word “knowledge” as he realized the difference between “infallible” and “fallible” knowledge. Let us first try to understand what Socrates meant by the term “knowledge”. Professor Cannon points out that Socratic irony introduces three different levels of human knowledge. Uncritical knowledge occurs when a person possesses an answer declared by an authority. He will accept the answer as it is without engaging in a critical examination of the answer. The lack of such an answer implies ignorance of uncritical knowledge of a fact. Critical knowledge occurs when one possesses an answer with adequate justification. When somebody has an answer but lacks justification for it, he is said to be ignorant of the critical knowledge relevant to the question. Post-critical knowledge is the highest form of knowledge accessible to humans. Anybody who possesses such type of knowledge has an “awakened initiative acquaintance with the transcendental truth” i.e. the person realizes and understands deeply the issue in question. (Cannon, 1999) Vlastos points out to yet another form of knowledge which is only possessed by God and not human. According to Vlastos, this divine knowledge is infallible (i.e. devoid of any errors) and certain (Vlastos, 1991)
Now, we are in a position to decipher the meaning of Docta Ignorantia. We see that Plato’s and Xenophon’s Socrates starts out his argument for refuting the proposed definition by rephrasing certain beliefs of his into a question. These beliefs were acquired by means of either a) observation or b) elenchus (critical cross examination gives critical knowledge). The following quotes show two of Socrates’ beliefs which were acquired by observation and elenchus respectively. “If you and I differed about…resolve our difference?” (Reeve, 2002—Euthyphro7b) and “…whether things issued…human beings?” (Reeve, 2002–Euthyphro 7d). We also notice that Socrates possesses post-critical knowledge. For instance, he says “I do not know” and “I am not wise”. To say something like this in front of an entire crowd of philosophers requires high degree of perception and wisdom. A person lacking in wisdom would not claim that he is not wise but would rather try not to bring up the issue regarding his intellect. In contrast, Socrates makes this claim in a very humble manner. Saying something like this does not make him nervous at all. This humbleness and calmness shows that he does know and understand what he is talking about. In my opinion, when Socrates says that he knows, he is implying that he has either post-critical or critical knowledge on the issue. When he says that he does not know, he is referring to divine infallible knowledge (which he will never possess) or human knowledge (which he may find by using elenchus or by realizing the truth). It should be noted here that critical knowledge is gained by elenchus and post-critical knowledge is a result of realization of the truth. Thus, in Apology, when Socrates says that he has human wisdom but he is not wise, he is in fact saying that he does not possess divine, infallible knowledge about these things but rather has human knowledge which may be either critical or post-critical. Another interpretation would be that he means he possess critical knowledge on the issue but does not have post-critical knowledge. Yet another interpretation would be that he has uncritical knowledge of the issue but not the higher forms.
Certain critics of Socrates tend to view Docta Ignorantia as a pose Socrates strikes in order to draw others to the conversation so that he can apply the elenchus (Reich, 1998). I would refute this claim by pointing out that Socrates was an ironist. When he said that he does not know, the intention is not to draw other people into the dialogue but rather to affirm his own ignorance of either the subject-matter (i.e. he really did not know much about the subject of discussion) or to refer to the fact that he cannot perceive this subject matter as deeply as God would perceive it.
Furthermore, Socrates was consistent when he said that he did not teach anybody. It is obvious that Socrates taught others indirectly. Athenians learned elenchus from him either by engaging in a dialogue with him or by listening to his conversations. By using elenchus, he made them a better person because he made them realize how foolishly they believed in certain ethical claims which were in fact not correct since they contradicted other fundamental beliefs of theirs. Socrates cleared their minds of false beliefs and gave them elenchus so that they may continue their search for critical knowledge. If his followers and readers are wise enough to go beyond critical searching then they will acquire post-critical knowledge. This is why Socrates is careful not to give the answers to his paradoxical statements or to other ethical questions because he wanted the Athenians to acquire the ability of “how to learn” post-critical knowledge which can only be gained by letting them find their way to it.
When Socrates said he did not teach, he meant that he never taught them post-critical knowledge because such knowledge can only be acquired once the person who possesses critical knowledge starts to realize the meaning of the knowledge gained. Socrates only showed them the way to gain post-critical knowledge but never taught them how to get there since getting there is a task a possessor of critical knowledge must do by himself. Another interpretation is that Socrates was saying that he never taught anybody divine infallible knowledge since he did not knew it himself.
In conclusion, Socrates wisdom lied in the fact that he understood that difference between human and divine knowledge. He further understood the different types of and fallibility of human knowledge. He realized that in order for him to gain more of the post-critical and critical knowledge he must keep philosophizing. He is most certainly not a man of contradictions but is rather consistent. His paradoxical claims can only be understood in terms of Socratic irony and reveal that he indeed possessed a lot of human knowledge. He taught this knowledge to others by means of elenchus. He believed that people can truly search for knowledge once they realize their own ignorance i.e. how they claim to know when they don’t really know.
References
Brun, Jean. Socrates. pp 47-91. Walker and Company: New York. 1962
Cannon, Dale (1999) Socrates Handouts. Western Oregon University. URL: [www.wou.edu/las/ humanities/cannon/socrates.htm] Date Accessed: 1/27/2005
Irwin, Terence. Plato’s Ethics. pp 17-30. Oxford University Press: New York. 1995
Reeve, C.D.C The Trials of Socrates. Hackett Publishing Company Inc.: Cambridge. 2002
Reich, Rob (1998). Confusion about the Socratic Method: Socratic paradoxes and Contemporary Invocations of Socrates. PES Yearbook: Stanford University. URL [http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/EPS/PES-Yearbook/1998/reich.html]. Date accessed: 1/27/2005
Vlastos, Gregory. Socrates-An Ironist and Moral Philosopher. pp 21-44 Cornell University Press: New York. 1991
Webster’s Dictionary. URL: [http://www.m-w.com/] Date Accessed: 1/28/2005
Download 