![]() |
Contact |
![]() |
Courses |
![]() |
Professional |
![]() |
Study Aids |
![]() |
Glossaries |
![]() |
Key Links |
![]() |
Purpose |
![]() |
![]() |
LOGOS |
INTRODUCTION
TO PHILOSOPHY
Socratic Method
in the Euthyphro
A. General Definition: The question-and-answer method of philosophical inquiry (dialectic) employed by Socrates in Plato’s early dialogues (e.g. Euthyphro), typically in conjunction with professed ignorance (Socratic irony), whereby a self-proclaimed expert’s excessively confident claim to knowledge is critically cross-examined and refuted (elenchus), thereby initiating an inductive search for a satisfactory universal definition
B. Dialectic: from Greek, dialektikē: the art of conversation, discussion, logical argument or debate.
Socratic dialectic: general, inclusive characterization of Socrates’ overall method as a form of critical reasoning proceeding by means of question and answer. As such, it incorporates the following components:
1. Socratic irony and ignorance
2. Critical
cross-examination and logical refutation (elenchus)
3. Induction (epagōgē)
and universal definition (eidos)
ignorant whereas others lacked insight into their ignorance.
2. Specifically, his professed ignorance and pretended modesty relative
to particular questions (what is X?) posed to conversation partners (interlocutors)
from whom he “eagerly awaits wise instruction.”
D. Socratic
cross-examination or refutation (elenchus): Euthyphro
a) Model
definitional dialogue: What is X?
b)
Aporetic: without resolution; no satisfactory definition
c)
Self-deluded expert and Socratic irony: correspondence
2. Socratic definition:
a) Real vs.
nominal: types of definition
b)
Logical requirements of definition:
1. universality (not an example); covers all cases
2. self-identity (A=A): exclusion of opposite
3. essentiality
c) Essentialist metaphysical presupposition: essence (eidos)
and examples (instances)
Universal
Particulars
Essence Examples
Concept
Instances
e) Aims
of definition:
1. theoretical: define universal form, essence, or concept (eidos)
2. practical: utilize definition
as standard for logically discriminating between examples or cases
f) Induction: generalization or abstraction of universal concept from particular cases or instances.
1. First definition: example only (violates universality requirements)
contradiction: piety=impiety.
3. Third definition: “What is pleasing to all the gods is pious.” Satisfies universality and self-identity
requirement. Yet, question of essence of piety still not
resolved; issue of
cause and effect, essence and implication. Arbitrary authority or rational justification.
“Do the gods love piety because
it is pious, or is it pious because
they love it?”
(A)
(B)
1. If A, then still don’t know what piety is.
2. B rejected as arbitrary, capricious, without rational
foundation, authoritarian.
![]() |