Philosophy of Socrates - Essay Example

Philosophy has always interested humanity but Socrates had a new approach to knowledge, which revolutionized philosophy. He believed in the method ofinquiry; he practiced the art of attaining the truth through logical arguments. His philosophy took shape when the priestess at the shrine of Apollo at Delphi claimed that nobody was wiser than Socrates was. In his pursuit to prove the priestess wrong, he began to question the politicians, poets and artisans. He realized that the priestess was correct in her assessment because these individuals had very little wisdom. He was wiser than they were because he at least knew how ignorant he was; they did not. He examined the statements by pursuing their implications. He believed that if a statement were true it could not lead to wrong assumptions. Socrates always portrayed himself as ignorant and that he was in need of instruction. He always asked questions to others thereby indirectly leading them to the truth. He believed that all virtues converge into one, which is the good. His philosophy held the view that knowledge and virtue are the same so no man would knowingly do wrong. Since virtue is identical to knowledge, it implies that virtue can be taught but Socrates never explained how it was possible to teach virtue. Thinkers and philosophers have put forth several arguments on the philosophy that Socrates preached. Socrates assumed that all philosophical concepts have a real definition. This definition could be revealed through the method of self-enquiry. He claimed that in order to know about X you must first know what is X. He also believed that the knowledge of X exists and it is known to the enquirer. This implies that every human being contains all the knowledge within. Socrates’ style of defining does have some definite advantage to the extent it leads a person to go deep into the subject. Socrates discussed with Euthyphro as a student of his but through discussions he drew conclusions which were beneficial both for Euthyphro and the society. This was the greatness of Socrates that he portrayed himself as an ignorant ever in the position of learning something new. Prosecuting his father for a misdeed was not an act of piety that Euthyphro did, is the conclusion that Socrates drew at the end. Socrates believed that morality was not something that could be decided through poll. For instance, even if all the Gods agreed on certain principles of morality, it still could not be termed as right or good. Moral qualities cannot be determined by what people think. Socrates’ argument that morality cannot be decided through poll relies on the principle that ‘majority is not right; right is right’. Euthyphro suggested that piety can be defined as what the gods all love (Cohen, 2004). Socrates objected to this definition and derived that it is not because they are loved by God that things are pious; it is because they are pious that Gods love them. According to Euthyphro, the same thing can be both pious and impious, which is impossible according to Socrates. Socrates further argues that approval of Gods of an action is merely an attribute of piety; it does not define piety. A definition of a concept is different from the defining features of a concept and besides all the defining features should always be present. Piety is not service to the gods nor is it the knowledge how to sacrifice and pray. The good simply is what is dear to the Gods and anything that is not dear to the Gods can be termed as bad. Socrates pointed out through argument the difference between good and bad. He insisted that one should not be careless and inventive about divine matters. What Socrates teaches through Euthyphro to the society is that one must go into introspection and argument with the self to determine whether an act is good or bad. If someone else points it out to us we may not accept it. The essential step has to be taken by the individual himself. Most things which are evil may be accidentally good except for death (Phaedo). Death is not in our hands but we are prisoners in the hands of the gods. We would be angry if some of our possession took life on their own. Similarly, God becomes angry with us if we decide to suicide. Hence, it is wrong or bad to think of taking ones own life or someone else’s life. This amounts to interference with laws of God and nature. Every unjust act loosens the social order. To be a human being is to be a social citizen and one cannot live without laws, institutions and language. Human souls need human body and human body needs laws and institutions to live in. Different societies and different religions offer different perceptions of what is good and bad but a true philosopher would always raise a question on what most people believe simply because it is accepted by the society. Socrates believed that an unexamined life is not worth living. Philosophy cannot exist in social vacuum. His thoughts and philosophy did not emerge in solitude but in discussion with others in the society. Socrates believed that one who lives the life of a true philosopher will happily meet death and can hope of the greatest good in the next world. While death is better than life yet suicide is not permissible. True philosophers are generally misunderstood by the society because they love wisdom, they indulge in self-inquiry and they know much more about these things than most other people. The importance of a society and family is evident from Phaedo. The master-disciple relationship wins over the family frame. Socrates’ last day on earth was spent talking to his disciples who he cared most about. His approach is beneficial for the society in many ways. He would often pray for assistance in the argument or rely on his spiritual inspiration for guidance. He also felt he was the power of God which enabled the person he was talking to, to improve (Beck, 2006). He was always sensitive to the mood of the group and allay their fears. He knew how to relieve their tensions when necessary. He had exceptional perseverance and demonstrated facts through personal examples. He insisted Euthyphro to continue the self-inquiry very patiently but Euthyphro ran away. In Phaedo, Socrates explained that one should not give up inquiry or search for the truth just because of one bad experience. He has left messages for the society to be prepared to introspect and accept truth. What can be surmised is that you cannot come to know something that you do not already know about as he says prior knowledge exists within each individual. Enquiry cannot produce any new knowledge. This boil downs to refreshing or recapitulating the memory and further can lead to the theory of rebirth. This also explains why death is better than death and the soul is immortal. Socrates’ method inquiry till one reaches the sub-stratum has awakened the inner consciousness of many not only during his times but even today people are inspired by his style and approach. He taught the world through his own example that the best way to learn something in this world is to be a student as he became a student of Euthyphro. Socrates never insisted that others should follow what he says but they should be convinced of the concept through questioning, arguments and inquiry. Thus Socrates was good for the society. Reference: Beck, S., (2006), Socrates, 16 Dec 2006 Cohen S M, (2004), Socratic Definition, 16 Dec 2006 GMA (1981), Comments on the Euthyphro, 16 Dec 2006 Jowett, B., (n.d). Euthyphro, 16 Dec 2006 Wikipedia, Euthyphro dilemma, 16 Dec 2006 Wikipedia, Phaedo, 16 Dec 2006 Read More