Why Socratic Method Survived

Socrates constantly challenges the experts' knowledge and shows them that they do not know as much as they think they know. Socrates' point is to recognize that we don't know everything and face it. By facing it, we can grow. Socrates shows us that the first step to knowledge is to ask the right questions. Sometimes people that ask questions are perceived as unintelligent and annoying. Socrates shows that there are no weaknesses in questioning the norm and many traditional people will stand in the way but most of the time change is good look at the abolishment of slavery.

I commented on Rebecca Dyes' post.

Crito and the power of friendship

I can understand Crito's position where he wanted to help his dear friend escape from the unjust trial that he was going to be put through. He tries numerous attempts to convince Socrates to escape and flee for his life. This would not only put Socrates life in danger, but his own life would be in jeopardy. It would mean he would have to sacrifice everything for his dear friend. It reminds me of a Greek myth concerning two friends where one becomes imprisoned and is unable to say goodbye to his family. The friend steps in and decides to take his place so he can say goodbye to his family before he is executed; but if he does not return in time for his execution, then the friend must take his place in that as well.

Depart in Innocence

Near the end of Crito when Socrates is summing up why he really believes he should not escape his imprisonment, I could not help but think that the plight he faced was more or less a secular version of the struggle Paul faces in Philippians 1:23-24 ^"For I am hard-pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better. Nevertheless to remain in the flesh is more needful for you." One of the final statements Socrates makes from the viewpoint of the laws is "Now you depart in innocence, a sufferer and not a doer of evil; a victim, not of the laws, but of men." 

The parallel that somehow made sense in my mind may turn out to be a little fuzzy, so I will do my best to explain it well. In Crito, when we hear what the law says to Socrates, it appeals to his concept of right and wrong and the concept he mentions throughout the text of listening to the opinions of select experts and wise men rather than the many. Essentially, the law tells him to not attempt to escape and in doing so return "evil for evil" and that it is better for him to die unblemished, remaining innocent. However, I would argue that Socrates places far too little importance on the fact that he will no longer be there for his children. This is where I believe the parallel arises. In the eyes of the law, it would be "far better" for him to go obediently to his undeserved executions, yet "to remain in the flesh is more needful" for his children. 

Although this is one of the strongest points of the law that Socrates brings up reasoning that he should stay, I would maintain that choosing to stay was, in the end, a selfish act. Ultimately, he chose to maintain his innocence in the eyes of the obviously flawed law rather than escape and continue to do good for his children by staying alive to raise them.

P.S. I commented on Tinsley's

The Snarkiest Sophist of Them All

I’m going to pose a theory that is probably going to cause some controversy, if anyone reads my post that is! I believe that, in some ways, Socrates is the biggest, and snarkiest, Sophist of them all. I’m not the only one; some of the people in my Classical Philosophy class believe the same thing. Socrates wasn’t a Sophist in the conventional way; he didn’t charge people money to talk with them. In fact, he tried to discourage people from following him; he didn’t try very hard though. If he had really wanted to keep people from following him, he would have been able to get them to stop.

In the Apology, Socrates claims that he’s not going to be speaking like a Sophist would speak, with rhetoric. Yet, everything he says, and the way he says it, is full of rhetoric. Granted, Socrates does tell the truth, but he always tells the truth when it best suits him. During his trial, his persuasion is not for proving his innocence but to convince them that he needs to be killed. He never comes right out and says that he should be killed, but he is leading the jury in that direction for sure.

Socrates' use of rhetoric seems less like rhetoric than most people’s because it is so straightforward and generally snarky. But because he does know how to use rhetoric he is unable to not use rhetoric. It is a part of his speech whether he likes it or not. But it is his use of rhetoric that leads him to finding the answers to the great questions he asks. Actually, scratch that, sort of, he never actually comes to any conclusion about any of the questions he asks; at least not in a way I can understand. Unlike the Sophists however, who teach just to make money and hear themselves talk, Socrates truly does wish to answer these questions. He truly does want to know what “good” truly is, or “justice,” or “virtue.” I think, that it is because Socrates is truly the biggest Sophist of them all, that he is able to find the answers he is seeking.

Until next time my good friends!!

Tantum e tenebris receptum constabit (Only what is won from the darkness will stand)

~Meghan

PS. I commented on Tinsley’s “What is Truth Anyway?”

PPS. How cool was it to listen to the process that went into the making of our motto? I loved hearing how Dr. Clapp searched so many texts to find the words that really did fit the motto of Honors. I also found it cool that it was the class above me that came up with the motto, I didn’t realize it was that young!

The opinion of one versus the opinion of all men

While reading the works of Plato this week not only did I get slightly confused, but also I found multiple portions which thankfully made sense.  There was one point in particular that Socrates made in Crito that I feel I really need to apply to my own life. While talking to Crito, Socrates asks the question,"And he ought to live and train, and eat and drink in the way which seems good to his single master who has understanding, rather than according to the opinion of all other men put together?" Crito obviously says that this is true, that instead of listening to the opinion of all men who have no understanding, man should live according to the one who has understanding.  Socrates goes on to point out that if we listen to the opinion of the many we will suffer evil, then we will have a corrupted body, and if we are evil and have a corrupted body there is no point to life if we aren't living the way we are supposed to.

I feel as Christians this is really strong and serious advice we all should heed.  Since God is the ultimate authority and the only one who understands our true purpose and calling, if we aren't following His will then what is the point in this life we are given? Why should we care or listen to the opinion of the world that has no true understanding of God's plan and wind up suffering evil and corrupting our bodies when we can just follow God's will and live our lives according to His opinions and judgement? Unfortunately, it's easier said than done.  Falling into the temptations of the world and wanting the approval of our peers is something the flesh craves. Thankfully, we serve a God who is also forgiving and has already paid the ultimate price for when we fail him. Fortunately also for Socrates, he was able to base his decision on what he thought was the will of  god or "gods" and not on the opinion of his friends who thought it would be okay to escape prison. I just find it so incredible that Socrates was able to pinpoint a problem that is clearly still found all over the world today. I think this portion of Crito can always serve as a reminder to Christians that following the will of God will result in a purposeful life rather than falling prey to the world and having purposeless life.


p.s. commented on For the love of the gods by emilylaforce

Rhetoric in Crito

I find it ironic that after not wanting to be a part of persuading the jury to let him off the hook in the Apologia, Socrates, while he is in prison awaiting his death, must try to explain to Crito why he should not try to escape. Crito uses some of the arguments that Socrates did not want to use as his defense in the Apologia. Crito speaks about how Socrates should escape so that he doesn't desert his children, which is one of the exact forms of pity that Socrates did not want to use to persuade the jury in the Apologia. Again we see that Socrates wants to go against what everyone else, which he calls "unwise," says when they try to use rhetoric to get him to do what they say.

PS. I posted on Amanda's...

Final Message

We know that Socrates probably could have convinced the jury to release him. But he did not. He was making a statement, with both words and actions, at his trial. He claimed that he would not use rhetoric and that he was on a divine mission. He showed that the threat of an execution would not keep him from standing by his beliefs. Socrates would rather submit to undeserved death under law than abandon what he thought was right.

Tantum e tenebris receptum constabit.

I commented on Mallory Searcy's post.

The Joy of Death

                A section of Apology that I feel is very important, but that we did not discuss very much in class, is Socrates' view on death and what it will be.  He says that death will be either one or two things.  First, it could be an annihilation where the dead person has no consciousness of anything.  This would be like a deep, dreamless sleep which to the dead person would seem only like one, peaceful night.  This is a death that people should welcome and even enjoy because there is no pain or suffering.  There is just the end. 

                The other form of death is a removal from this world to a different one, which is a widely excepted belief during this time.  Here, Socrates says that he will receive true judgment in those courts and he is confident that he will receive a very good judgment completely different from the one he has received from earth.  Socrates says that here he could continue in philosophy and question people just like he did on earth, except that he could talk to the heroes and great people, and would never be condemned for it.  In the end Socrates says to the jurors "fix your minds on this one belief, which is certain-that nothing can harm a good man either in life or after death, and his fortunes are not a matter of indifference to the gods."

                Socrates' dialogue on death sort of makes a little jab at is condemners who he says in between the lines has judged him falsely.  Depending on how you read it, it could also be implied that the accusers will be harshly judged in the second form of death, and that they may not get to thrive as pleasantly as Socrates and other great people like him would.  I love that Socrates is willing to say everything as it is, even if it may offend those who have his life in their hands.  This second view of death is what heaven would be like to Socrates, and even is slightly similar to our view of heaven (rejoicing and communing with each other), and I love it!

I commented on Gary Hamner's "Crito and Public Opinion"

-Susan Berner

does it even matter what "they" say?

"What we ought to worry about is not so much what people in general will say about us but what the expert in justice and injustice says, the single authority and with him the truth itself."

This is a quote by Socrates in Crito, and it's one of my favorites. I think it captures the essence of this dialogue between Socrates and Crito, and it also presents a very important principle regarding justice. It does not matter what men consider just, so much as how the single authority regards justice. The single authority with whom resides truth: God. Not the gods, but God. He is the expert in justice and injustice because He is the only one who can define justice, just as Euthyphro shows that He's the only one that can define holiness. Socrates refused to bend to Crito's pleadings because he knew that justice and truth were on the opposite side of the argument. Socrates personified the Law later in the dialogue, and the Laws were also on the side of justice and truth. Nowadays I don't know if the same could be said of our laws, but as far as the law as an authority goes, God is pretty clear how we are supposed to view that in 1 Peter 2:13-15 the Bible says, "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people." Socrates realized that he would be giving the foolish people more to talk about if he escaped from prison, and he would not be upholding the good and right, no matter haw justified he might seem before his friends.

I think this is very applicable to our lives as well. How often do we measure our actions by what other people think instead of "what the expert in justice and injustice says"? If truth resides with God, then why would we listen to mere humans regarding what is right? Why not go to the authority on the subject? Personally, I am more concerned about the verdict of the One with whom reside truth and justice, rather than the opinions of men who have no control or grasp on the vast principle of justice.

"For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ." Galatians 1:10 (ESV)

commented on Rebekah's "Euthyphro and Socrates battle it out!"

Justice v. Injustice

"In the matter of just and unjust,

fair and foul, good and evil, which are the subjects of our present

consultation, ought we to follow the opinion of the many and to fear

them; or the opinion of the one man who has understanding, and whom

we ought to fear and reverence more than all the rest of the world:

and whom deserting we shall destroy and injure that principle in us

which may be assumed to be improved by justice and deteriorated by

 

 

  injustice; is there not such a principle?"

 

               This quote from Plato's Crito- a long-drawn out, over exaggerated question- can be broken down to a much more simple inquiry; if we follow the opinion of the majority but ignore the opinion of the minority, even if the minority is right, do we lose our sense of justice? I believe that the answer to this question is yes. How is it possible to keep your sense of justice if you ignore what you feel is right? I think that after a while of ignoring the truth, and accepting the majority opinion, that you start to believe that the majority opinion is truth. I think that you lose yourself when you lose your sense of what is right. So lies become truth, and truth becomes lies. Injustice takes the place of true justice, and justice turns to the ashes of a long forgotten concept.

 

p.s. I commented on Rebekah Dye’s blog “Euthyphro and Socrates battle it out!”

What is the Basis for Truth?

When reading Socrates' questions in the Euthyphro, it struck me that the Romans don't actually have a standard for morality.  After all, as Socrates says, the gods disagree with each other on what's right and wrong, they fight constantly and force men to commit things that human standards call wrong.  They cannot be a basis for piety.  Men's actions cannot be the central idea of piety either, as they also contradict each other perhaps even more than the gods.  None of Socrates' questions can be answered by Euthyphro because neither man has a basis for truth.  Everything really is just thought to these philosophers.  Maybe this is going against the entire point of philosophy, but every question of Socrates seems to center around the constant unanswered question, "What is truth?" And in the spirit of philosophy, without Christ, I suppose that's a question that is left hanging by Plato....

P.S. Commented on Jamie Kilpatrick's "Morality, Justice, and Grace."

Euthyphro and Socrates battle it out!

While I was reading 'Euthyphro' this week, a few things were going through my mind.

Number one, I was thinking I really didn't have a good grasp on everything that was going on... Number two, that was okay! Because that would mean that Socrates thinks I'm wise! ;)
Number three, I had never really read anything that discussed the issue of piety and impiety (holiness and unholiness) in that kind manner, and I thought it was interesting.
Socrates makes the argument that piety (or holiness) is simply doing what the gods want you do to, and impiety (or unholiness) is directly disobeying the gods. At first, Euthyphro tries to argue that with him and say there is more to it then that. However, Socrates then does what Socrates does best and keeps pushing, probing, and adding new ideas to that. Eventually Euthyphro gives up the fight. The end of the book was sort of funny to me. Here Euthyphro is, coming into this discussion, armed for his fight. Ready, with his points. But then, Socrates makes him question everything and fumble over his original thoughts.
To me, I related this to how Christians arm themselves when they get into a spiritual discussion with a non-believer. We may go into the fight armed, but if there is even an ounce of doubt in us, and that other person has really done their research, it may make us question our original beliefs. That it why I believe it is so necessary to know what you believe with 100% certainty and have the certainty to back it up even when someone comes along who appears to be wiser.

P.s. I commented on Jannah Lyon's post

Crito and Public Opinion

In the dialogue Crito, Socrates' friend Crito says that one of the reasons Socrates should escape is because the general public would think very poorly of Crito and other friends of Socrates. Socrates did not seemed fazed by this at all however in fact his point of view was that only the opinion of the important people should be considered, this is a position that I think more people need to hold as their own.  
     Their was a lecture this evening given by Dr. Douglas who is from the university of Samford, his lecture was on rumors, now in this case they were political rumors, but rumors all the same. One of the things he discussed was the destructive effect of false rumors, this I thought was very important, but I believe we can at times take these rumors to be more than they actually are. I think that sometimes people are to quickly offended by false rumors and are to worried about public opinion, It is my stance that we should all try to take on the attitude of Socrates and not pay attention to the general public's opinion, but the opinion of the people that are most important to us.

PS: I commented on Jamie's post (Morality, Justice, and Grace)

Morality, Justice, and Grace

I haven't completely wrapped my brain around everything Euthyphro, and I'm not quite sure exactly where to start with trying to get a grasp on the text as a whole, but one thing that kept popping into my mind while reading the text was (at least as far as I understood) an absence of grace.

The conversation between Euthyphro and Socrates, at its core, was about justice.  The two talk of how no man would say a guilty person who admits to be guilty should go unpunished, nor would a man claim to be guilty and then ask to be let off.  Socrates then asks "And is, then, all which is just pious? or, is that which is pious all just, but that which is just, only in part and not all, pious?" So, what is moral and ultimately good is not always equal to what is just.  

My ultimate question, however, is how do the concepts of grace and forgiveness fit into an equation where piety is ideal, justice is ok in a pinch, but there is no thought of another option.  What I began to see at the end of the text however, if that even though it is not explicitly said, was that Socrates seemed to be leaning toward some type of grace, forgiveness, or at least a different image of justice by implying that unless Euphyphro completely understands the nature of the gods, he shouldn't charge his father with murder. It is ultimately God who has the right to decide what should be done. When "speaking of men..." evil doers should never be let off, but It is God's right to offer grace.

Commented on Mallory's "The Law."

Tantum E Tenebris Receptum Constabit

      So I'm going to go off from the assigned reading just a bit, I've enjoyed reading Plato, but something in today's lecture really captured me attention. Today when we were given the backstory and meaning of the Honor's Motto, the word Receptum.

      From what I understood, receptum means recapturing, and Dr. Clapp used the powerful illustration of the Roman army going in and recapturing their standards or banners from their enemies. The Roman standard was their symbol of life. The loss of their standards was the loss of themselves.  To lose a standard was to be without purpose, and likewise for the standards.  This is a great parallel of what Christ does for mankind. We are like the standards, captured by the enemy, we are lost and without knowledge of our purpose, held in darkness.  When Christ, our Victor and Light comes in and reclaims and recaptures us.   He strengthens us and molds us into something which cannot be shaken.  Then our quest begins to love, serve and bring glory to Him with our whole being.
     One way to do that is to serve Him with our minds, which is one thing we strive to do in Honors. While in Honors, I ask, "How can reading this literature serve Christ? How this apply to my life? What can I learn from this?  How will this strengthen my faith?" Before I know it I have a lightbulb moment (those are the most valuable learning points in Honors). In Honors we also try to recapture what has been lost in the Darkness, we search for hidden knowledge, we search for wisdom, we search for meaning. When we find it, we recapture that which was lost. This becomes part of our lives, alters how we perceive the world. We then ourselves alter our world.  Only what is recaptured from the darkness will stand, or Tantum E Tenebris Receptum Constabit.

P.S. commented on Emily's post

The Socratic Method (And a Bit of Ranting)

So we've finally arrived upon the philosophical trinity. This is the moment that I've been waiting for. Mixing the tough questions with some of our literature and in doing so creating a new method of thinking in Honors. In this post, I would like to analyze the Socratic method. I've noticed that it's in use in some of my classes, especially in a Mashburn class. This proves the solidity of the method seeing how thousands of years later, it is still in usage today. The reason this method is so effective is because it sparks critical thinking in the questioned. Any one can study a text book and regurgitate information, but the Socratic method questions your core values. Who can rightly give a concrete answer on an abstract idea like Justice or Piety? Who can find that rock-solid definition of that in a textbook?  Socrates asks the tough questions to his companions and in doing so, in my opinion, his friends grow wiser from the experience. If not his friends, the readers of the dialogues grow wiser from the experience. This method tests the limits of our minds, and in all three of the readings for this week, Socrates provides a logical defense for his opinions. Even if we don't necessarily agree with what Socrates believes, we can still understand why he believes this due to his logic. I know that I did not agree with his decision in prison. He had been wrongly put into prison, so why not escape with his life and continue teaching the youth? That's what I would have done. However, I do respect that he doesn't wish to treat injustice with further injustice. That's admirable, and I understand his reasoning but I don't completely agree with it. He could have done so much more good for the Athenians if he would have escaped, but it was not my decision to make. 

That is why I like Honors as much as I do. Though we might have differing opinions, we are allowed to express them to a loving family, and although we may not come to the same conclusions, we can still respect the opinions of the others. This is because in Honors, we are encouraged to use the Socratic method. We are called and encouraged to express our ideas in a logical defense. Mashburn and Schuler, as wise as they are, are not called to be lecturers in Honors. However, they are only the midwives as to draw the wisdom out of us.  As Honors students, our duty is to first read the reading, and secondly, to express our ideas, because we have enough classes that lecture us already. The only classes I have where my voice is truly heard is in a Mashburn class, or in Honors, where the Socratic method is used. We have a voice. In Honors where he have the opportunity, we need to use it.

The Questions of Justice

How highly do we regard justice? I think that is one of the poignant questions of the reading in Crito. Socrates, if he chose to escape his sentence, would nullify his life's work in that singular action. One sees that his search for wisdom, for truth was intended for the betterment of his society. Was his sentence a just sentence? One could debate whether it was or wasn't--but ultimately it does not seem to matter to Socrates. He chose the path he was on, and would be held accountable if he acted unjustly in return. Could I ever hold justice in such high regard that I would hold to it, regardless of whether the world did or not? 

This question surely leads in the direction of pascifism: a belief that challenges me day to day. I think it is an admirable way to go about life, absorbing all the wrong done against you in love, but it is so contrary to our nature. Christ instructs us in this way (though to what degree it can be taken is questionable). It fascinates me that a person without Christ can arrive at this conclusion through philosophizing. It is such a marvel that these truths found in darkness can survive as they do.

For the love of the gods

I find it ironic that Socrates gets put on trial not for killing someone or rendering physical harm to anyone, but because Socrates is a poet and maker new gods and denied the existence of old ones. It makes me laugh cause the "old" gods aren't even real in the first place. If he was even trying to invent new gods, he would have been doing the same thing as everyone else. I think the fact that Socrates questions the gods is the crime itself to the Athenians. While they're giving their offerings and praying at the temple and trying their hardest to win the gods approval, Socrates is over here questioning if the gods are even real. You know what the Athenians would feel like if they found out that all their religious actions have been for nothing? They'd feel stupid, and of course they'd rather not know the truth than know the truth and feel stupid, so they yelled, "Off with his head!" I think it's the same way today. When a revolutionary comes along with a new idea that would make us have to change everything and would probably make us feel stupid, we half listen and then just reject the idea completely. It's crazy that someone could get killed over an idea. The power of thought and mob violence... P.s. commented on the law by Mallory searcy.

The Law.

I have never before been on the side of the laws, and I'm looking forward to class tomorrow. If the law, the upholder of justice, is not given the authority to act, anarchy will reign. Socrates, in defying the law, defys the essence of the law's authority. The issue (for socrates) is not whether the laws are right or wrong, but whether it is right or wrong to disobey them.  For him, the city is higher than man.  The laws themselves can BE personified. Most of us probably would never even think to personify them. We see them as a collection of decisions we made about what we want. This is what Democracy means; "we the people." Socrates says "her, The Law". Under this view, I understand how he as no option but to submit to the authority of the law, but I'm just not sure if that view is right. I understand that laws have to be obeyed so that chaos doesn't rule, but it does seem like there should be a measure of man's reason that can transcend the laws. I've never been exactly sure where that line is.