1. The Socratic Way

2. Beginnings Philosophy Philosophy What is it? What is it? It’s hard to say It’s hard to say I’ll approach this obliquely I’ll approach this obliquely Began in the West with the Greeks (about 500 BC) Began in the West with the Greeks (about 500 BC) The ‘love of wisdom’ The ‘love of wisdom’ We begin real philosophy with We begin real philosophy with Socrates (496-399BC)

3. Socratic Method Socrates wrote nothing Socrates wrote nothing Spent his life talking in the Athenian town square Spent his life talking in the Athenian town square Plato wrote down his dialogues Plato wrote down his dialogues The early ones have Socrates’s ideas The early ones have Socrates’s ideas The later ones have Plato’s thoughts The later ones have Plato’s thoughts He claimed to know nothing He claimed to know nothing He thought seeking truth had to be a collaborative effort He thought seeking truth had to be a collaborative effort

4. Socratic Method Begin by claiming ignorance of some issue Begin by claiming ignorance of some issue Seek enlightenment from a person who knows Seek enlightenment from a person who knows Show that they don’t know Show that they don’t know End by having a better idea of what is to be known End by having a better idea of what is to be known

5. Socratic Method Elenchus Elenchus Socrates asks all the questions. Socrates asks all the questions. The interlocutor must answer every question. The interlocutor must answer every question. A definition or principle is sought from the interlocutor. A definition or principle is sought from the interlocutor. Socrates seeks clarification, gaining assent for various propositions. Socrates seeks clarification, gaining assent for various propositions. These propositions are used to show that the proposed definition or principle is unsatisfactory. These propositions are used to show that the proposed definition or principle is unsatisfactory.

6. Euthyphro Socrates meets Euthyphro on the way to the law courts Socrates meets Euthyphro on the way to the law courts Euthyphro is going to prosecute his father for unlawfully causing death – a capital crime Euthyphro is going to prosecute his father for unlawfully causing death – a capital crime His father had mistreated a slave to the point that he died His father had mistreated a slave to the point that he died Euthyphro thinks it is the right and pious thing to do to prosecute in such cases Euthyphro thinks it is the right and pious thing to do to prosecute in such cases Socrates is going to be tried for impiety Socrates is going to be tried for impiety He thinks this is a good time to have a philosophical discussion on piety He thinks this is a good time to have a philosophical discussion on piety

8. Euthyphro Soc. Do you know enough about piety to be sure that bringing an action against your father is not itself impious? Euth. Yes, I have an exact knowledge of all such matters. Soc.. Soc. Is piety in every action always the same? and impiety just whatever is impious?. Euth. Yes

9. Euthyphro Euth. Piety is doing what I’m doing and prosecuting my father. After all, Zeus punished his father Cronus (who’d also punished his father Uranus) Soc. But aren’t there also other pious actions? Euth. Yes Soc. I don’t want a list of some pious actions: I want to know what principle makes them pious.

10. Euthyphro Euth. The principle is this: piety is what the gods love and impiety is what they hate. Soc. OK. So let’s think about that. Do the gods quarrel amongst themselves? Euth. Yes Soc. And what sort of differences give rise to the sort of long-lasting quarrels that the gods have?

11. Euthyphro Soc. I say that that sort of dispute arises when we differ over what is just or good or honourable: any other questions we can eventually resolve Euth. Sure Soc. And the gods’ quarrels must also be like this Euth. That seems to be true

12. Euthyphro Soc. And doesn’t everyone love what they deem just and noble and hate the unjust and ignoble? Euth. Yes Soc. Then some things will be both loved by the gods and hated by the gods? Euth. Yes Soc. Aha! So you agree that some things are both pious and impious!

13. Euthyphro But: a contradiction can never be true But: a contradiction can never be true Nothing can be a thing loved by the gods and at the same time a thing not loved by the gods. Nothing can be a thing loved by the gods and at the same time a thing not loved by the gods. And: any proposition that yields a contradiction must be false And: any proposition that yields a contradiction must be false Therefore: piety can’t be ‘what is loved by the gods’ Therefore: piety can’t be ‘what is loved by the gods’

14. Aporia This argument doesn’t tell us what piety is; only what it is not This argument doesn’t tell us what piety is; only what it is not This is typical of Socrates’s arguments This is typical of Socrates’s arguments We are left in a state of indecision and perplexity – which the Greeks called aporia We are left in a state of indecision and perplexity – which the Greeks called aporia The Socratic style is called aporetic The Socratic style is called aporetic

15. Philosophical Reflexivism What’s the process in that argument What’s the process in that argument 1. Find Euthyphro, who claims to know what piety is 2. Get a definition of piety 3. Derive consequences from this definition 4. Identify a falsehood (contradiction) in the consequences 5. Conclude that the definition must be false 6. Conclude finally Euthyphro didn’t know what piety was

16. Philosophical Reflexivism That argument depended on an assumption that if you know what piety is then you can give a definition of it. That argument depended on an assumption that if you know what piety is then you can give a definition of it. That assumption was typical for Socrates: If you say you know what X is, then you can define X That assumption was typical for Socrates: If you say you know what X is, then you can define X But is it a good assumption? But is it a good assumption? How might Euthyphro have continued the argument? How might Euthyphro have continued the argument?

17. Euthyphro’s reply Euth. You say I don’t know what piety is, so you clearly have an idea of what it is to know something. Do tell. Soc. Surely: to know something is to be able to define it Euth. And this applies to everything? Soc. Of course!

18. Euthyphro’s reply Euth. Well, we’ll see about that. I ask you to look now at that man with the shiny head who is buying figs. Soc. That’s Cephalus. Ha ha. He’s bald. Euth. Bald? But I’m sure I can see a couple of hairs there. Soc. Not enough though. He’s definitely bald.

19. Euthyphro’s reply Euth. If I added one more hair to his head would he still be bald? Soc. Yes. Euth. So a single hair doesn’t make the difference between baldness and non-baldness. OK, so what if I then added one more hair Soc. I think I get your point. Euth. Which is?

20. Euthyphro’s reply Soc. Since I can’t tell you how many hairs make a bald man non-bald, I can’t define baldness, so I don’t know what baldness is. Euth. Almost! But I think we do know what baldness is. My real point is that there are lots of words like ‘bald’ that we use but can’t define. Soc. Ah, and so you reject my assumption that to know what baldness is to know its definition.

21. Philosophical Reflexivism That argument is an application of Socrates’s method to Socrates’s method. That argument is an application of Socrates’s method to Socrates’s method. A sort of meta-elenchus! A sort of meta-elenchus! This sort of self analysis – reflexivity – is typical of philosophy This sort of self analysis – reflexivity – is typical of philosophy The philosophizing mind never simply thinks about an object, it always, while thinking about any object, thinks also about its thought about that object. Philosophy may thus be called thought of the second degree, thought about thought.

22. Philosophical Reflexivism Could we take reflexivity as being definitive of philosophy? Could we take reflexivity as being definitive of philosophy? No. Consider mathematics, history, sociology No. Consider mathematics, history, sociology If we can’t define philosophy, does that mean we can’t know what it is? If we can’t define philosophy, does that mean we can’t know what it is? What do you think? What do you think?