Hi, getting visibility among core literary public is benchmark
of publishing success and this message is part of an aggressive online campaign
for the promotion and visibility of my two books [1] Political Internet and [2] Intimate Speakers among core reading public in
online space.
It will be really helpful if you are able
to help me forward, share, tweet, post, or tag this message or parts of this
message among potential
beneficiaries of the ideas in the books in your network, your friend’s
network or their networks?
Or anyone should according to you
benefit if they work broadly on anything related to social media, Internet,
society, politics, cyber sexuality, Internet pornography, intimacies,
women and online misogyny, introverts, underprivileged people, Diaspora,
cyberspace, Internet in education, International relations, digital politics,
social media and state, public sphere, civil society, social capital,
contentious politics and so on.
Buy it on Amazon:
Preview on Google Play:
Preview on Google Books:
Preview on Kindle:
Publisher Website:
2. Intimate Speakers: Why Introverted and Socially Ostracized Citizens
Use Social Media, (Fingerprint! 2017).
Buy it on Amazon:
Flipkart:
Blog Review:
goodreadsreviews:
Contact the author
Facebook: https://www.facebook
Twitter: https://twitter.com/b
Blogger: http://bijugayu.blogs
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin
WordPress: https://bijugayu.wo
Tumblr: http://bijugayu.tumblr
Google +: https://plus.google.com/102
Twitter: https://twitter.com/b
Blogger: http://bijugayu.blogs
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin
WordPress: https://bijugayu.wo
Tumblr: http://bijugayu.tumblr
Google +: https://plus.google.com/102
Biju
P R
Author,
Teacher, Blogger
Assistant
Professor of Political Science
Government
Brennen College
Thalassery
Kerala,
India
My Books
1. Political Internet: State and Politics in the Age of Social Media,
(Routledge 2017), Amazon https://www.amazon.in/
2. Intimate Speakers: Why Introverted and Socially Ostracized Citizens Use Social Media, (Fingerprint! 2017)
Amazon: http://www.amazon.in/dp/
1. Political Internet: State and Politics in the Age of Social Media,
(Routledge 2017), Amazon https://www.amazon.in/
2. Intimate Speakers: Why Introverted and Socially Ostracized Citizens Use Social Media, (Fingerprint! 2017)
Amazon: http://www.amazon.in/dp/
Socrates Method
Socrates'
Life was between 469-399 BC.
He
was one of the few individuals who so-shaped the cultural and intellectual
development of the world.
He
is best known for his association with the Socratic method of question and
answer, his claim that he was ignorant (or aware of his own absence of
knowledge), and his claim that the unexamined life is not worth living, for
human beings.
Socrates
was born in Athens in the year 469 B.C.E. to Sophroniscus, a stonemason, and
Phaenarete, a midwife. His family was not extremely poor, but they were by no
means wealthy, and Socrates could not claim that he was of noble birth like
Plato. He grew up in the political deme or district of Alopece, and when he turned
18, began to perform the typical political duties required of Athenian males. These
included compulsory military service and membership in the Assembly, the
governing body responsible for determining military strategy and legislation.
In
a culture that worshipped male beauty, Socrates had the misfortune of being
born incredibly ugly. Socrates was exophthalmic, meaning that his eyes
bulged out of his head and were not straight but focused sideways. He had a
snub nose, which made him resemble a pig, and many sources depict him with a
potbelly. Socrates did little to help his odd appearance, frequently wearing
the same cloak and sandals throughout both the day and the evening.
The
Peloponnesian War and the Threat to Democracy
Between
431—404 B.C.E. Athens fought one of its bloodiest and most protracted conflicts
with neighboring Sparta, the war that we now know as the Peloponnesian
War. Aside from the fact that Socrates fought in the conflict, it is
important for an account of his life and trial because many of those with whom
Socrates spent his time became either sympathetic to the Spartan cause at the
very least or traitors to Athens at worst. This is particularly the case
with those from the more aristocratic Athenian families, who tended to favor
the rigid and restricted hierarchy of power in Sparta instead of the more
widespread democratic distribution of power and free speech to all citizens
that obtained in Athens.
There
are a number of important historical moments throughout the war leading up to
Socrates’ trial that figure in the perception of him as a traitor. Sparta
finally defeated Athens in 404 B.C.E., just five years before Socrates’ trial
and execution. Instead of a democracy, they installed as rulers a small
group of Athenians who were loyal to Spartan interests. Known as “The
Thirty” or sometimes as the “Thirty Tyrants”, they were led by Critias, a known
associate of Socrates and a member of his circle.
The Socratic
Problem: the Philosophical Socrates
Socratic
problem is the problem faced by historians of philosophy to reconstruct the
ideas of the original Socrates as distinct from his literary
representations.
Socrates’
identity as a philosopher is much more difficult to establish.
He
wrote nothing, what we know of his ideas and methods comes to us mainly from
his contemporaries and disciples
There
were a number of Socrates’ followers who wrote conversations in which he
appears. These works are what are known as the logoi sokratikoi, or Socratic accounts. Aside from Plato and
Xenophon, most of these dialogues have not survived. What we know of them
comes to us from other sources.
The
two Socratics on whom most of our philosophical understanding of Socrates
depends are Plato and Xenophon. Scholars also rely on the works of the
comic playwright Aristophanes and Plato’s most famous student, Aristotle.
Origin of the
Socratic Problem
The
Socratic problem first became pronounced in the early 19th century with the
influential work of Friedrich Schleiermacher. Until this point, scholars had
largely turned to Xenophon to identify what the historical Socrates
thought. Schleiermacher argued that Xenophon was not a philosopher but
rather a simple citizen-soldier, and that his Socrates was so dull and
philosophically uninteresting that, reading Xenophon alone, it would be
difficult to understand the reputation accorded Socrates by so many of his
contemporaries and nearly all the schools of philosophy that followed him. The
better portrait of Socrates, Schleiermacher claimed, comes to us from Plato.
His disciples were…
1.
Aristophanes
2.
Xenophon
3.
Plato
and
4.
Aristotle,
among others.
Content: What
does Socrates Think?
Given
the nature of these sources, the task of recounting what Socrates thought is
not an easy one. Nonetheless, reading Plato’s Apology, it is possible to
articulate a number of what scholars today typically associate with Socrates. Plato
the author has his Socrates claim that Plato was present in the courtroom for
Socrates’ defense (Apology 34a), and while this cannot mean that Plato records
the defense as a word for word transcription, it is the closest thing we have
to an account of what Socrates actually said at a concrete point in his life.
Pre-Socratic Philosophy and the Sophists
The
Pre-Socratic’s were not just those who came before Socrates, for there are some
Pre-Socratic philosophers who were his contemporaries. A group of thinkers
whom Socrates did not influence and whose fundamental uniting characteristic
was that they sought to explain the world in terms of its own inherent
principles. The 6th cn. Milesian Thales, for instance,
believed that the fundamental principle of all things was water.
Anaximander believed the principle was the indefinite (apeiron), and for Anaxamines it was air. Anaxagoras, the
5th cn. thinker who argued that the universe was originally a
mixture of elements that have since been set in motion by Nous, or Mind. Socrates suggests that
he does not engage in the same sort of cosmological inquiries that were the
focus of many Pre-Socratics.
Socratic
Ignorance
Socrates
explains that he was not aware of any wisdom he had, and so set out to find
someone who had wisdom in order to demonstrate that the oracle was mistaken.
He
first went to the politicians but found them lacking wisdom.
He
next visited the poets and found that, though they spoke in beautiful verses,
they did so through divine inspiration, not because they had wisdom of any
kind.
Socrates
found that the craftsmen had knowledge of their own craft, but that they subsequently
believed themselves to know much more than they actually did. Socrates
concluded that he was better off than his fellow citizens because, while they
thought they knew something and did not, he was aware of his own
ignorance. The god who speaks through the oracle, he says, is truly wise,
whereas human wisdom is worth little or nothing (Apology 23a).
This
awareness of one’s own absence of knowledge is what is known as Socratic
ignorance, and it is arguably the thing for which Socrates is most famous.
Socratic ignorance is sometimes called simple ignorance, to be distinguished
from the double ignorance of the citizens with whom Socrates spoke.
Simple ignorance is being aware of one’s own ignorance, whereas double
ignorance is not being aware of one’s ignorance while thinking that one knows.
Priority of the
Care of the Soul
Throughout
his defense speech (Apology 20a-b, 24c-25c, 31b, 32d, 36c, 39d) Socrates
repeatedly stresses that a human being must care for his soul more than
anything else (see also Crito 46c-47d, Euthyphro 13b-c, Gorgias 520a4ff).
Socrates found that his fellow citizens cared more for wealth, reputation, and
their bodies while neglecting their souls (Apology 29d-30b). He believed
that his mission from the god was to examine his fellow citizens and persuade
them that the most important good for a human being was the health of the soul.
Wealth, he insisted, does not bring about human excellence or virtue, but
virtue makes wealth and everything else good for human beings (Apology 30b).
The Unexamined
Life
After
the jury has convicted Socrates and sentenced him to death, he makes one of the
most famous proclamations in the history of philosophy. He tells the jury
that he could never keep silent, because “the unexamined life is not worth
living for human beings” (Apology 38a). We find here Socrates’ insistence
that we are all called to reflect upon what we believe, account for what we
know and do not known, and generally speaking to seek out, live in accordance
with, and defend those views that make for a well lived and meaningful life.
Other Socratic
Positions and Arguments
In
addition to the themes one finds in the Apology, the following are a number of
other positions in the Platonic corpus that are typically considered Socratic.
Unity of Virtue;
All Virtue is Knowledge
In
the Protagoras (329b-333b)
Socrates argues for the view that all of the virtues—justice, wisdom, courage,
piety, and so forth—are one. He provides a number of arguments for this
thesis. For example, while it is typical to think that one can be wise
without being temperate, Socrates rejects this possibility on the grounds that
wisdom and temperance both have the same opposite: folly. Were they truly
distinct, they would each have their own opposites. As it stands, the
identity of their opposites indicates that one cannot possess wisdom without
temperance and vice versa.
This
thesis is sometimes paired with another Socratic, view, that is, that virtue is
a form of knowledge (Meno
87e-89a; cf. Euthydemus
278d-282a). Things like beauty, strength, and health benefit human
beings, but can also harm them if they are not accompanied by knowledge or
wisdom. If virtue is to be beneficial it must be knowledge, since all the
qualities of the soul are in themselves neither beneficial not harmful, but are
only beneficial when accompanied by wisdom and harmful when accompanied by
folly.
No One Errs
Knowingly/No One Errs Willingly
Socrates
famously declares that no one errs or makes mistakes knowingly (Protagoras 352c, 358b-b). Here
we find an example of Socrates’ intellectualism. When a person does what
is wrong, their failure to do what is right is an intellectual error, or due to
their own ignorance about what is right. If the person knew what was
right, he would have done it. Hence, it is not possible for someone
simultaneously know what is right and do what is wrong. If someone does
what is wrong, they do so because they do not know what is right, and if they
claim the have known what was right at the time when they committed the wrong,
they are mistaken, for had they truly known what was right, they would have
done it.
All Desire is
for the Good
One
of the premises of the argument just mentioned is that human beings only desire
the good. When a person does something for the sake of something else, it
is always the thing for the sake of which he is acting that he wants. All
bad things or intermediate things are done not for themselves but for the sake
of something else that is good. When a tyrant puts someone to death, for
instance, he does this because he thinks it is beneficial in some way.
Hence his action is directed towards the good because this is what he truly
wants (Gorgias 467c-468b).
It is Better to
Suffer an Injustice Than to Commit One
Socrates
infuriates Polus with the argument that it is better to suffer an injustice
than commit one (Gorgias
475a-d). Polus agrees that it is more shameful to commit an injustice,
but maintains it is not worse. The worst thing, in his view, is to suffer
injustice. Socrates argues that, if something is more shameful, it
surpasses in either badness or pain or both. Since committing an
injustice is not more painful than suffering one, committing an injustice
cannot surpass in pain or both pain and badness. Committing an injustice
surpasses suffering an injustice in badness; differently stated, committing an
injustice is worse than suffering one. Therefore, given the choice
between the two, we should choose to suffer rather than commit an injustice.
This
argument must be understood in terms of the Socratic emphasis on the care of
the soul. Committing an injustice corrupts one’s soul, and therefore
committing injustice is the worst thing a person can do to himself (cf. Crito 47d-48a, Republic I 353d-354a). If one
commits injustice, Socrates goes so far as to claim that it is better to seek
punishment than avoid it on the grounds that the punishment will purge or
purify the soul of its corruption (Gorgias
476d-478e).
Method: How Did
Socrates Do Philosophy?
As
famous as the Socratic themes are, the Socratic method is equally famous.
Socrates conducted his philosophical activity by means of question an answer,
and we typically associate with him a method called the elenchus. At the
same time, Plato’s Socrates calls himself a midwife—who has no ideas of his own
but helps give birth to the ideas of others—and proceeds dialectically—defined
either as asking questions, embracing the practice of collection and division,
or proceeding from hypotheses to first principles.
The Elenchus:
Socrates the Refuter
A
typical Socratic elenchus is a cross-examination of a particular position,
proposition, or definition, in which Socrates tests what his interlocutor says
and refutes it.
Topic
Socrates
typically begins his elenchus with the question, “what is it”? What is
piety, he asks Euthyphro. Euthyphro appears to give five separate
definitions of piety: piety is proceeding against whomever does injustice
(5d-6e), piety is what is loved by the gods (6e-7a), piety is what is loved by
all the gods (9e), the godly and the pious is the part of the just that is
concerned with the care of the gods (12e), and piety is the knowledge of
sacrificing and praying (13d-14a). For some commentators, what Socrates
is searching for here is a definition. Other commentators argue that
Socrates is searching for more than just the definition of piety but seeks a
comprehensive account of the nature of piety. Whatever the case, Socrates
refutes the answer given to him in response to the ‘what is it’ question.
Another
reading of the Socratic elenchus is that Socrates is not just concerned with
the reply of the interlocutor but is concerned with the interlocutor
himself. According to this view, Socrates is as much concerned with the
truth or falsity of propositions as he is with the refinement of the
interlocutor’s way of life. Socrates is concerned with both
epistemological and moral advances for the interlocutor and himself. It
is not propositions or replies alone that are refuted, for Socrates does not
conceive of them dwelling in isolation from those that hold them. Thus
conceived, the elenchus refutes the person holding a particular view, not just
the view. For instance, Socrates shames Thrasymachus when he shows him
that he cannot maintain his view that justice is ignorance and injustice is
wisdom (Republic I 350d).
The elenchus demonstrates that Thrasymachus cannot consistently maintain all
his claims about the nature of justice. This view is consistent with a
view we find in Plato’s late dialogue called the Sophist, in which the Visitor from Elea, not Socrates, claims
that the soul will not get any advantage from learning that it is offered to it
until someone shames it by refuting it (230b-d).
Purpose
In
terms of goal, there are two common interpretations of the elenchus. Both
have been developed by scholars in response to what Gregory Vlastos called the
problem of the Socratic elenchus. The problem is how Socrates can claim
that position W is false, when the only thing he has established is its
inconsistency with other premises whose truth he has not tried to establish in
the elenchus.
The
first response is what is called the constructivist position. A
constructivist argues that the elenchus establishes the truth or falsity of
individual answers. The elenchus on this interpretation can and does have
positive results. Vlastos himself argued that Socrates not only
established the inconsistency of the interlocutor’s beliefs by showing their
inconsistency, but that Socrates’ own moral beliefs were always consistent,
able to withstand the test of the elenchus. Socrates could therefore pick
out a faulty premise in his elenctic exchange with an interlocutor, and sought
to replace the interlocutor’s false beliefs with his own.
The
second response is called the non-constructivist position. This position
claims that Socrates does not think the elenchus can establish the truth or
falsity of individual answers. The non-constructivist argues that all the
elenchus can show is the inconsistency of W with the premises X, Y, and
Z. It cannot establish that ~W is the case, or for that matter replace
any of the premises with another, for this would require a separate
argument. The elenchus establishes the falsity of the conjunction of W,
X, Y, and Z, but not the truth or falsity of any of those premises
individually. The purpose of the elenchus on this interpretation is to
show the interlocutor that he is confused, and, according to some scholars, to
use that confusion as a stepping stone on the way to establishing a more
consistent, well-formed set of beliefs.
Maieutic:
Socrates the Midwife
In
Plato’s Theaetetus Socrates
identifies himself as a midwife (150b-151b).
While the dialogue is not generally considered Socratic, it is elenctic (used of indirect modes of proof —opposed to deictic.) insofar
as it tests and refutes Theaetetus’ definitions of knowledge. It also
ends without a conclusive answer to its question, a characteristic it shares
with a number of Socratic dialogues.
Socrates
tells Theaetetus that his mother Phaenarete was a midwife (149a) and that he
himself is an intellectual midwife. Whereas the craft of midwifery
(150b-151d) brings on labor pains or relieves them in order to help a woman
deliver a child, Socrates does not watch over the body but over the soul, and
helps his interlocutor give birth to an idea. He then applies the
elenchus to test whether or not the intellectual offspring is a phantom or a
fertile truth. Socrates stresses that both he and actual midwives are
barren, and cannot give birth to their own offspring. In spite of his own
emptiness of ideas, Socrates claims to be skilled at bringing forth the ideas
of others and examining them.
The
method of dialectic is thought to be more Platonic than Socratic, though one
can understand why many have associated it with Socrates himself. For one
thing, the Greek dialegesthai
ordinarily means simply “to converse” or “to discuss.” Hence when
Socrates is distinguishing this sort of discussion from rhetorical exposition
in the Gorgias, the contrast
seems to indicate his preference for short questions and answers as opposed to
longer speeches (447b-c, 448d-449c).
There
are two other definitions of dialectic in the Platonic corpus. First, in
the Republic, Socrates
distinguishes between dianoetic thinking, which makes use of the senses and
assumes hypotheses, and dialectical thinking, which does not use the senses and
goes beyond hypotheses to first principles (Republic VII 510c-511c, 531d-535a). Second, in the Phaedrus, Sophist, Statesman, and Philebus,
dialectic is defined as a method of collection and division. One collects
things that are scattered into one kind and also divides each kind according to
its species (Phaedrus
265d-266c).
Some
scholars view the elenchus and dialectic as fundamentally different methods
with different goals, while others view them as consistent and
reconcilable. Some even view them as two parts of one argument procedure,
in which the elenchus refutes and dialectic constructs.
Legacy: How Have
Other Philosophers Understood Socrates?
Nearly
every school of philosophy in antiquity had something positive to say about
Socrates, and most of them drew their inspiration from him. Socrates also
appears in the works of many famous modern philosophers. Immanuel Kant,
the 18th century German philosopher best known for the categorical
imperative, hailed Socrates, amongst other ancient philosophers, as someone who
didn’t just speculate but who lived philosophically. One of the more
famous quotes about Socrates is from John Stuart Mill, the 19th
century utilitarian philosopher who claimed that it is better to be a human
being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied
than a fool satisfied. The following is but a brief survey of Socrates as
he is treated in philosophical thinking that emerges after the death of
Aristotle in 322 B.C.E.
About the Contributor:
Biju P R is a writer, teacher and academic blogger. Writes a social media trilogy. Specializes in celebrity culture, political class, culture studies, business politics and technology.
