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.