Witness before the gates of night and day, Parmenides represents humanity’s introduction to the eternal truth of definition – Is. The beast of mankind stumbles confusedly through an inescapable labyrinth of ignorance, arrogantly determined that the appearance of knowledge, bestowed upon him through traditional belief, is truth. “Know Thy Self” is the advice posted at the birthmark of creation, the naval of earth, Delphi – the truth of being. Humanity struggles against an inevitable insignificance. The impossibility of true knowledge pulses as the heart of Socratic philosophy.
The unending argument of definition is revealed throughout the doctrines of the Socratic method of thought. Plato delivers the shadow of doubt from his creations through Socratic midwifery dialogue. The ignorant soul within each individual that encounters Socrates discards the bulky weight of accepted falsities cluttering his mind. This revelation of inaptitude is an insult. Often the truth is shunned. Plato’s Euthyphro is an ideal example of the Socratic method. Embracing the topic of holiness, this dialogue captures the essence of ignorance.
Euthyphro, the epitome of arrogance, perceives himself as the wise prophet of all things holy. Blinded by pride, he is uplifted from a state of false consciousness to the enlightenment of ignorance through the web of Socratic discussion. The misperception of being dawns from the earliest historical evidence of Greek culture and dusks with the arrival of Socrates, the birth of definition. Previous to Socrates, all conceptual understanding resided in analogy, the comparison of the concept to a tangible example.
Speed was defined by the fastest man, and strength by the greatest warrior. Thus no true definition encompassed all circumstances to which a concept might be applied. The Socratic method is designed to force definition from the interlocutor. A cunning method is employed by Socrates to achieve his aims and must be thoroughly explained to understand how it is utilized in the Euthyphro. Man is chained unawares to a futile destiny of eternal search. This thirst for an oasis of knowledge continually irritates the parched mind in the desert of life.
Socrates, fully realizing this attribute as it pertains to true moral knowledge, persists in a quest to enlighten others. The initial impulse for his doctrine is a challenge: “None is wiser than he (Socrates)”. Apollo, speaking through the oracle at Delphi, originates this challenge. Initially, those whom converse with Socrates seem apprehensive of definitive statements. The full value of Socrates’ impact on thought is felt through his refutation of definition by analogy, the method in accordance with Hellenic thought previous to his influence.
Inherent in this revelation is the difficulty of true definition. Once the interlocutor has been pressured into stating a belief with a purpose of encompassing all analogous examples, Socrates draws specific actions from the interlocutor that relate to the concept defined. By proving the inconsistencies existent between the example and the definition, the interlocutor is reduced to a state of “Aporia” (an inability to define the concept in terms consistent with his examples, to navigate a river previously assumed intelligible).
The discussion continues in an effort to refine the moral concept discussed. Whether Socrates’ objective is to inflict true moral beliefs, of which he is in possession, upon the interlocutor, or that the argument merely negates false opinions that help reduce the concept to more definable limits, must be ascertained. The manner in which this method applies to the Euthyphro will support grounds for believing the definition of a moral concept to be eternally inconclusive. Socrates’ own confession of ignorance acts as a buttress in support of this hypothesis.
Socrates challenges Euthyphros prosecution of his father as possibly “doing an unholy deed” (4e). Euthyphro asserts that he would not differ “from the common herd of men, if I didn’t understand the details of all things of this sort” (5a). Thus we have ignorant Socrates discussing holiness with the self-proclaimed expert Euthyphro. Socrates asks for a definition of holiness and is answered in analogy to Euthyphro’s present circumstances “I say what is holy is what I’m doing right now, prosecuting a criminal for murderregardless of whether that person is one’s father” (6e).
Here is an example familiar to Greek definition prior to Socrates’ influence, giving a definition in analogous terms. Socrates explains the deficiency of this method, without directly challenging Euthyphro’s actions, by stating that his prosecution is holy because it partakes of holiness. Socrates is adamant that Euthyphro give a definition upon which all actions could be compared as holy or unholy. Through ironic flattery, Socrates manipulates Euthyphro into a firm definition: “what is agreeable to the gods is holy” (7a).
Socrates now demonstrates the inaccuracy of the statement by proving the inconsistency of the example when applied to the definition. Simply: if the gods quarrel, then not all are in agreement; the interpretation of mans actions may be agreeable to one god and disagreeable to another. Thus, what is holy can be simultaneously unholy, a proposition with which neither participant is satisfied. The discussion continues in an effort to refine the moral concept of holiness, resulting in a circular argument with no definitive conclusion.
However, the argument has negated principle characteristics of a supposed eventual definition. The distinction between the gods’ approval and what is holy is complete. That holiness is an element of the just is asserted and agreed to, yet not properly proven. Gratification of the gods is an attribute of holiness. The absence of the definition leaves Socrates “in ignorance” (16a) of holiness and proves that the wisest of all men is he who accepts and confronts this ignorance. Several aspects of the Socratic dialogue have been neglected thus far.
The argument itself transcends dependence on Socrates and Euthyphro and is discussed as a separate entity with a life and will of it’s own. The “tendency for my verbal creations to run off and refuse to stay wherever I’ve tried to position them” (11c) is the explanation offered by Socrates. The argument has a “Daedalan” (11d) quality, as if man began a work and it assumed a life of its own. There is a dual nature to this metaphor. Certainly it has the functional purpose of literary technique, adding credibility to the situation and the characters, who are more animated and life-like as a consequence.
More importantly, by transcending the individuals involved this quality implies a progressive attribute inherent in discussion. It supports the positive aspect of argument hypothesized above. Although the definition of holiness is never completed, certain obstacles, false opinions, have been eluded through the argument. The individual could not progress towards definition without the aid of discussion. Since Euthyphro is unwilling to dedicate himself to the search for definition and abandons Socrates relatively quickly, we can not conclude that persistent argument will ever reach it’s goal.
However, in the absence of further options, it is implied that argument is essential to refining opinion as near truth as is possible. The role of Apollo has been mentioned. Behind the argument, this divinity asserts the futility of human knowledge. Socrates could not expect for his interlocutor to be capable of true definition, as prophecy declares his superiority – through the acknowledgement of ignorance – regarding wisdom. Revealing Euthyphro’s inability to define holiness is, therefore, necessarily the objective. The accepted Athenian views are also called upon to aid the discussion.
Initially, it is a banausic or common belief that Euthyphro rejects concerning the prosecution of his father. “They claim I still shouldn’t be concerned with that type of person (slave) they think it’s unholy for a son to prosecute his father” (4d). Although the term “they” applies specifically in this case to Euthyphro’s relatives, the perspective seems generic. This assumption is supported by Socrates’ reaction: “Heavens above! It’s certainly beyond the masses to know the right course” (4a), “My word, Euthyphro” (4e). To assume that this is a typical Athenian reaction is to be on safe ground.
Since Euthyphro takes a stand against common perspective himself, it is unnecessary for Socrates to challenge the premises for such belief (as is the case in other dialogues). The customary education of poetry arises from Socrates as an analogy to help Euthyphro understand his argument: “I am really claiming the opposite of what is said by the poet… ” (which continues to explain how holiness is an attribute of justice). The Euthyphro is unique in that common opinion is raised and shattered by the interlocutor, and Socrates initiates traditional opinion himself only to degrade it’s value.
To support common and traditional belief is typical of the interlocutor in other Socratic dialogues, yet the functional purpose of these arguments remains similar in the Euthyphro nevertheless. The rejection of both types of opinion is apparent, forcing the interlocutor to perform his own analysis of the truth. The disassociation of individual belief from communal opinion is an integral aspect of Socratic midwifery. For the interlocutor to confront ignorance, he must abandon the crutch of traditional belief. Responsibility of opinion is thrust on the individual, and they are accountable for the consequences of their beliefs.
In this manner, Socrates reveals and enlightens the moral character of his subject. Usually, as in the Euthyphro, the interlocutor reacts to this shattering of the ego, this confrontation with ignorance, as insulting. Euthyphro quickly abandons the argument, showing his distaste. The method employed so successfully by Socrates leads to two separate conclusions: one, an actuality resulting in the execution of philosophy’s first martyr; and two, the arrival of definition and, subsequently, the problems of moral philosophy. History affirms the former, leaving the “why? for reflection. For impiety and corruption of the young, Socrates was found guilty and was sentenced to intake a lethal dose of Hemlock in 399 BC. Regardless of the verdict, the trial was inevitable. The Euthyphro and all other Socratic dialogues affirm that Socrates attempted to refine the moral concepts of Athenian society. By doing so he reveals the inadequacies of the present moral training upheld in Athens. Socrates’ participant stated definitions in terms of traditional education, in terms of respected ancestral belief.
Often, the arguments presented involved analogy closely related to traditional poetry or even directly affiliated with Athenian divinities. Socrates form of argument challenged the moral training within the community. A Christian society instills a sense of guilt, which serves as an internal barrier to immorality. The Greek culture is based on the external appearance of guilt or inadequacy, shame. The method of Socratic argument inflicts shame upon the interlocutor, no matter how adept Socrates may be with ironic flattery. His subject is reduced from a state of false moral opinion to one of pure ignorance.
Self-proclaimed experts, like Euthyphro, under-go a tormenting process of belittling. The foundation of being is exposed, the truth of a continuous state of ignorance. A considerable amount of time and ego is invested in the process of degradation. The inconclusive result is still more cold comfort to an Athenian shamed thus. Possibly Socrates’ influence was insignificant enough to avoid the criminal charge that eventually confronted him, but time was the only variable element. By defacing the reputation of his interlocutor, Socrates is disliked.
By challenging the traditional moral training of society, to the extent of refuting principle ethical perspectives based on the actions of the divine, Socrates is accused. Many other factors can be attributed to the manner in which Socrates and his methods were challenged. However, the grounds for and destiny of a trial are sufficiently established through the evidence given. Socrates’ had a checkered (although rare) political past. The management of his personal affairs (of integral importance to the quality of the citizen in Greek society) is circumspect, and personally admitted in Plato’s Apology.
Aristophanes’ portrayal of him in The Clouds is somewhat less than exalting. He was comparable in reputation to other societal offenders such as Anaxagoras. These surrounding issues can be regarded as catalyst qualities to the fated trial. ** Definition had profound effects on Greek thought, effects that linger in the foremost minds of Western philosophy. Socrates exposed a culture veiled from the truth. Appearance shattered under the weight of Socratic discussion, revealing the inescapable living state of ignorance. The definitions sought for by Socrates’ remain inconclusive two thousand years succeeding his contribution.
The imperfection of moral knowledge is a problem that will continue to plague great minds, but the problem may be artificial. Let’s return to Parmenides. There he stands, gazing at “is” from the gates of night and day. Neither he nor the divine entity as his guide can properly articulate what “is” (is? ). Perhaps Socratic dialogue exposes the deficiencies of communication rather than the impossibility of true knowledge. The ant can intuitively understand his role, his function, his purpose in the colony, yet it would be miraculous if he could express this understanding.
In this sense, the intuition of being is far superior to the fragmenting method of the intellect. Socrates often utilizes the difference between the body and the soul to express his thoughts. Language is certainly an attribute of body. Intuition could be compared to the communication of the soul – a pure form of knowledge, harmonious with being. The ambiguity of Socrates, both as a historical figure and as a philosopher, only helps to preserve and exalt one of the most influential beings to grace the face of the planet. * Socrates two recorded political activities involved strict adherence to Athenian law, yet were contrary to popular opinion. One, Socrates refused to try the generals of the battle of Arginusae in 406BC en bloc. Two, he was given orders under the “Thirty Commissioners” to arrest Leon of Salamis, and instead went home. The other claims found at the end of this paragraph are supported most prominently within Plato’s Apology, but occur variously throughout Socratic literature. As concerns the management of personal affairs and its importance, see Pericles’ Funeral Oration.
