Explain the meaning of Socratic Irony?. What is ironic about Socrates’ wisdom?? How does this reflect his approach to philosophical questions; ?his method??q

Instructions:

To receive full points your response must thoroughly address the question; avoid vague or excessively brief responses. Single sentence answers will not receive points. Use a large language model (AI) at your own peril.

1. Explain the meaning of “Socratic Irony”. What is ironic about Socrates’ “wisdom”? How does this reflect his approach to philosophical questions; i.e. his method?

2. Draw out the argument for determinism. Why do determinists deny the existence of human freedom? Explain how this complicates, or altogether undermines, the possibility of ethics.

,

Question 1 info Socrates Son of Sophroniscus and Phaeranete born on 470 BCE In his early 20’s he turned away from cosmology and the tradition of the pre-Socratics, and turned toward the study of personal ethics. Made ethics the primary pursuit of philosophy, and was known for pointing out how little people knew about questions such as the essence of virtue, justice, the Good, and democracy. Was the teacher of Plato, who would expand on some of the primary aspects of his philosophy.

Divergence From Predecessors His humble origins produced to a philosophy centered on practical questions. ◦ He had little interest in the arts and was hostile to popular culture. Favored geometry insofar as it was important for buying, selling and measuring land. Socrates diverged from his contemporaries and predecessors’ “natural philosophy”. ◦ “Do these researches think that they know human relations sufficiently that they begin to mix into the Divine? They should remember how the greatest men diverge in their results and present opinions just as the mad do…”

Socratic Wisdom There is in Socratic philosophy no speculation about the heavens or the causes of the Earth’s movements. ◦ Knowledge is important insofar as it works in the service of life: its ethical dimensions. ◦ The highest wisdom is the mastery of virtue: his task, Nietzsche describes, was “to order this world, thinking that mankind could do no other than to live virtuously if so ordered.” (Friedrich Nietzsche, The Pre-Platonic Philosophers) ◦ Socrates’ task is to actualize wisdom through ethical practice.

Wisdom & Ignorance His wisdom is the product of irony: Socrates never claimed to have knowledge about ethical and physical matters. ◦ Yet, his emissary Chaerophon presents this testimony after consulting the Oracle at Delphi: “For he asked if there was anyone wiser than I. Now the Pythia replied that there was no one wiser.” ◦ His attempt to find someone wiser than he ends in disappointment: “I am wiser than this man; for neither of us really knows anything fine and good, but this man thinks he knows something when he does not, whereas I, as I do not know anything, do not think I do either.” (Plato, The Apology)

Socratic Irony Admission of one’s ignorance is the first step on the path toward wisdom. Socratic irony is taking a position of ignorance that reveals the ignorance of others. Socrates introduces a new paradigm for philosophy. ◦ He marks a shift away from speculation about nature toward the inner self, the life of the individual. ◦ Care for the soul is the proper focus of philosophy. ◦ For the first time in the history of philosophy someone makes the human condition and spirit the focus of philosophical inquiry. ◦ With Socrates we become the target of philosophy and human nature becomes the key question.

WHAT IS THE SOCRATIC METHOD? excerpted from Socrates Café by Christopher Phillips The Socratic method is a way to seek truths by your own lights. It is a system, a spirit, a method, a type of philosophical inquiry an intellectual technique, all rolled into one. Socrates himself never spelled out a "method." However, the Socratic method is named after him because Socrates, more than any other before or since, models for us philosophy practiced – philosophy as deed, as way of living, as something that any of us can do. It is an open system of philosophical inquiry that allows one to interrogate from many vantage points. Gregory Vlastos, a Socrates scholar and professor of philosophy at Princeton, described Socrates’ method of inquiry as "among the greatest achievements of humanity." Why? Because, he says, it makes philosophical inquiry "a common human enterprise, open to every man." Instead of requiring allegiance to a specific philosophical viewpoint or analytic technique or specialized vocabulary, the Socratic method "calls for common sense and common speech." And this, he says, "is as it should be, for how man should live is every man’s business." I think, however, that the Socratic method goes beyond Vlastos’ description. It does not merely call for common sense but examines what common sense is. The Socratic method asks: Does the common sense of our day offer us the greatest potential for self-understanding and human excellence? Or is the prevailing common sense in fact a roadblock to realizing this potential? Vlastos goes on to say that Socratic inquiry is by no means simple, and "calls not only for the highest degree of mental alertness of which anyone is capable" but also for "moral qualities of a high order: sincerity, humility, courage." Such qualities "protect against the possibility" that Socratic dialogue, no matter how rigorous, "would merely grind out . . . wild conclusions with irresponsible premises." I agree, though I would replace the quality of sincerity with honesty, since one can hold a conviction sincerely without examining it, while honesty would require that one subject one’s convictions to frequent scrutiny. A Socratic dialogue reveals how different our outlooks can be on concepts we use every day. It reveals how different our philosophies are, and often how tenable – or untenable, as the case may be – a range of philosophies can be. Moreover, even the most universally recognized and used concept, when subjected to Socratic scrutiny, might reveal not only that there is not universal agreement, after all, on the meaning of any given concept, but that every single person has a somewhat different take on each and every concept under the sun.What’s more, there seems to be no such thing as a concept so abstract, or a question so off base, that it cant be fruitfully explored at Socrates Café. In the course of Socratizing, it often turns out to be the case that some of the most so-called abstract concepts are intimately related to the most profoundly relevant human experiences. In fact, it’s been my experience that virtually any question can be plumbed Socratically. Sometimes you don’t know what question will have the most lasting and significant impact until you take a risk and delve into it for a while. What distinguishes the Socratic method from mere nonsystematic inquiry is the sustained attempt to explore the ramifications of certain opinions and then offer compelling objections and alternatives. This scrupulous and exhaustive form of inquiry in many ways resembles the scientific method. But unlike Socratic inquiry, scientific inquiry would often lead us to believe that whatever is not measurable cannot be investigated. This "belief" fails to address such paramount human concerns as sorrow and joy and suffering and love.

Zoom

WHAT IS THE SOCRATIC METHOD? excerpted from Socrates Café by Christopher Phillips

The Socratic method is a way to seek truths by your own lights. It is a system, a spirit, a method, a type of philosophical inquiry an intellectual technique, all rolled into one. Socrates himself never spelled out a "method." However, the Socratic method is named after him because Socrates, more than any other before or since, models for us philosophy practiced – philosophy as deed, as way of living, as something that any of us can do. It is an open system of philosophical inquiry that allows one to interrogate from many vantage points. Gregory Vlastos, a Socrates scholar and professor of philosophy at Princeton, described Socrates’ method of inquiry as "among the greatest achievements of humanity." Why? Because, he says, it makes philosophical inquiry "a common human enterprise, open to every man." Instead of requiring allegiance to a specific philosophical viewpoint or analytic technique or specialized vocabulary, the Socratic method "calls for common sense and common speech." And this, he says, "is as it should be, for how man should live is every man’s business." I think, however, that the Socratic method goes beyond Vlastos’ description. It does not merely call for common sense but examines what common sense is. The Socratic method asks: Does the common sense of our day offer us the greatest potential for self-understanding and human excellence? Or is the prevailing common sense in fact a roadblock to realizing this potential? Vlastos goes on to say that Socratic inquiry is by no means simple, and "calls not only for the highest degree of mental alertness of which anyone is capable" but also for "moral qualities of a high order: sincerity, humility, courage." Such qualities "protect against the possibility" that Socratic dialogue, no matter how rigorous, "would merely grind out . . . wild conclusions with irresponsible premises." I agree, though I would replace the quality of sincerity with honesty, since one can hold a conviction sincerely without examining it, while honesty would require that one subject one’s convictions to frequent scrutiny. A Socratic dialogue reveals how different our outlooks can be on concepts we use every day. It reveals how different our philosophies are, and often how tenable – or untenable, as the case may be – a range of philosophies can be. Moreover, even the most universally recognized and used concept, when subjected to Socratic scrutiny, might reveal not only that there is not universal agreement, after all, on the meaning of any given concept, but that every single person has a somewhat different take on each and every concept under the sun. What’s more, there seems to be no such thing as a concept so abstract, or a question so off base, that it cant be fruitfully explored at Socrates Café. In the course of Socratizing, it often turns out to be the case that some of the most so-called abstract concepts are intimately related to the most profoundly relevant human experiences. In fact, it’s been my experience that virtually any question can be plumbed Socratically. Sometimes you don’t know what question will have the most lasting and significant impact until you take a risk and delve into it for a while. What distinguishes the Socratic method from mere nonsystematic inquiry is the sustained attempt to explore the ramifications of certain opinions and then offer compelling objections and alternatives. This scrupulous and exhaustive form of inquiry in many ways resembles the scientific method. But unlike Socratic inquiry, scientific inquiry would often lead us to believe that whatever is not measurable cannot be investigated. This "belief" fails to address such paramount human concerns as sorrow and joy and suffering and love.

WHAT IS THE SOCRATIC METHOD? excerpted from Socrates Café by Christopher Phillips The Socratic method is a way to seek truths by your own lights. It is a system, a spirit, a method, a type of philosophical inquiry an intellectual technique, all rolled into one. Socrates himself never spelled out a "method." However, the Socratic method is named after him because Socrates, more than any other before or since, models for us philosophy practiced – philosophy as deed, as way of living, as something that any of us can do. It is an open system of philosophical inquiry that allows one to interrogate from many vantage points. Gregory Vlastos, a Socrates scholar and professor of philosophy at Princeton, described Socrates’ method of inquiry as "among the greatest achievements of humanity." Why? Because, he says, it makes philosophical inquiry "a common human enterprise, open to every man." Instead of requiring allegiance to a specific philosophical viewpoint or analytic technique or specialized vocabulary, the Socratic method "calls for common sense and common speech." And this, he says, "is as it should be, for how man should live is every man’s business." I think, however, that the Socratic method goes beyond Vlastos’ description. It does not merely call for common sense but examines what common sense is. The Socratic method asks: Does the common sense of our day offer us the greatest potential for self-understanding and human excellence? Or is the prevailing common sense in fact a roadblock to realizing this potential? Vlastos goes on to say that Socratic inquiry is by no means simple, and "calls not only for the highest degree of mental alertness of which anyone is capable" but also for "moral qualities of a high order: sincerity, humility, courage." Such qualities "protect against the possibility" that Socratic dialogue, no matter how rigorous, "would merely grind out . . . wild conclusions with irresponsible premises." I agree, though I would replace the quality of sincerity with honesty, since one can hold a conviction sincerely without examining it, while honesty would require that one subject one’s convictions to frequent scrutiny. A Socratic dialogue reveals how different our outlooks can be on concepts we use every day. It reveals how different our philosophies are, and often how tenable – or untenable, as the case may be – a range of philosophies can be. Moreover, even the most universally recognized and used concept, when subjected to Socratic scrutiny, might reveal not only that there is not universal agreement, after all, on the meaning of any given concept, but that every single person has a somewhat different take on each and every concept under the sun. What’s more, there seems to be no such thing as a concept so abstract, or a question so off base, that it cant be fruitfully explored at Socrates Café. In the course of Socratizing, it often turns out to be the case that some of the most so-called abstract concepts are intimately related to the most profoundly relevant human experiences. In fact, it’s been my experience that virtually any question can be plumbed Socratically. Sometimes you don’t know what question will have the most lasting and significant impact until you take a risk and delve into it for a while. What distinguishes the Socratic method from mere nonsystematic inquiry is the sustained attempt to explore the ramifications of certain opinions and then offer compelling objections and alternatives. This scrupulous and exhaustive form of inquiry in many ways resembles the scientific method. But unlike Socratic inquiry, scientific inquiry would often lead us to believe that whatever is not measurable cannot be investigated. This "belief" fails to address such paramount human concerns as sorrow and joy and suffering and love.

Instead of focusing on the outer cosmos, Socrates focused primarily on human beings and their cosmos within, utilizing his method to open up new realms of self-knowledge while at the same time exposing a great deal of error, superstition, and dogmatic nonsense. The Spanish-born American philosopher and poet George Santayana said that Socrates knew that "the foreground of human life is necessarily moral and practical" and that "it is so even so for artists" – and even for scientists, try as some might to divorce their work from these dimensions of human existence. Scholars call Socrates’ method the elenchus, which is Hellenistic Greek for inquiry or cross-examination. But it is not just any type of inquiry or examination. It is a type that reveals people to themselves, that makes them see what their opinions really amount to. C. D. C. Reeve, professor of philosophy at Reed College, gives the standard explanation of an elenchus in saying that its aim “is not simply to reach adequate definitions" of such things as virtues; rather, it also has a "moral reformatory purpose, for Socrates believes that regular elenctic philosophizing makes people happier and more virtuous than anything else. . . . Indeed philosophizing is so important for human welfare, on his view, that he is willing to accept execution rather than give it up." Socrates’ method of examination can indeed be a vital part of existence, but I would not go so far as to say that itshould be. And I do not think that Socrates felt that habitual use of this method "makes people happier." The fulfillment that comes from Socratizing comes only at a price – it could well make us unhappier, more uncertain, more troubled, as well as more fulfilled. It can leave us with a sense that we don’t know the answers after all, that we are much further from knowing the answers than we’d ever realized before engaging in Socratic discourse. And this is fulfilling – and exhilarating and humbling and perplexing. We may leave a Socrates Café – in all likelihood we willleave a Socrates Café – with a heady sense that there are many more ways and truths and lights by which to examine any given concept than we had ever before imagined. In The Gay Science, Friedrich Nietzsche said, "I admire the courage and wisdom of Socrates in all he did, said – and did not say." Nietzsche was a distinguished nineteenth-century classical philologist before he abandoned the academic fold and became known for championing a type of heroic individual who would create a life – affirming "will to power" ethic. In the spirit of his writings on such individuals, whom he described as "supermen,’, Nietzsche lauded Socrates as a "genius of the heart. . . whose voice knows how to descend into the depths of every soul . . . who teaches one to listen, who smoothes rough souls and lets them taste a new yearning . . . who divines the hidden and forgotten treasure, the drop of goodness . . . from whose touch everyone goes away richer, not having found grace nor amazed, not as blessed and oppressed by the good of another, but richer in himself, opened . . . less sure perhaps… but full of hopes that as yet have no name." I only differ with Nietzsche when he characterizes Socrates as someone who descended into the depths of others’ souls. To the contrary Socrates enabled those with whom he engaged in dialogues to descend into the depths of their own souls and create their own life – affirming ethic. Santayana said that he would never hold views in philosophy which he did not believe in daily life, and that he would deem it dishonest and even spineless to advance or entertain views in discourse which were not those under which he habitually lived. But there is no neat divide between one’s views of philosophy and of life. They are overlapping and kindred views. It is virtually impossible in many instances to know what we believe in daily life until we engage others in dialogue. Likewise, to discover our philosophical views, we must engage with ourselves, with the lives we already lead. Our views form, change, evolve, as we participate in this dialogue. It is the only way truly to discover what philosophical colors we sail under. Everyone at some point preaches to himself and others what he does not yet practice; everyone acts in or on the world in ways that are in some way contradictory or inconsistent with the views he or she confesses or professes to hold. For instance, the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, the influential founder of existentialism, put Socratic principles to use in writing his dissertation on the concept of irony in Socrates, often using pseudonyms so he could argue his own positions with himself. In addition, the sixteenth-

century essayist Michel de Montaigne, who was called "the French Socrates" and was known as the father of skepticism in modern Europe, would write and add conflicting and even contradictory passages in the same work. And like Socrates, he believed the search for truth was worth dying for. The Socratic method forces people "to confront their own dogmatism," according to Leonard Nelson, a German philosopher who wrote on such subjects as ethics and theory of knowledge until he was forced by the rise of Nazism to quit. By doing so, participants in Socratic dialogue are, in effect,"forcing themselves to be free," Nelson maintains. But they’re not just confronted with their own dogmatism. In the course of a Socrates Café, they may be confronted with an array of hypotheses, convictions, conjectures and theories offered by the other participants, and themselves – all of which subscribe to some sort of dogma. The Socratic method requires that – honestly and openly, rationally and imaginatively – they confront the dogma by asking such questions as: What does this mean? What speaks for and against it? Are there alternative ways of considering it that are even more plausible and tenable? At certain junctures of a Socratic dialogue, the "forcing" that this confrontation entails – the insistence that each participant carefully articulate her singular philosophical perspective – can be upsetting. But that is all to the good. If it never touches any nerves, if it doesn't upset, if it doesn't mentally and spiritually challenge and perplex, in a wonderful and exhilarating way, it is not Socratic dialogue. This "forcing" opens us up to the varieties of experiences of others – whether through direct dialogue, or through other means, like drama or books, or through a work of art or a dance. It compels us to explore alternative perspectives, asking what might be said for or against each. Keep this ethos in mind if you ever, for instance, feel tempted to ask a question like this one once posed at a Socrates Café: How can we overcome alienation? Challenge the premise of the question at the outset. You may need to ask: Is alienation something we always want to overcome? For instance, Shakespeare and Goethe may have written their timeless works because they embraced their sense of alienation rather than attempting to escape it. If this was so, then you might want to ask: Are there many different types, and degrees, of alienation? Depending on the context, are there some types that you want to overcome and other types that you do not at all want to overcome but rather want to incorporate into yourself? And to answer effectively such questions, you first need to ask and answer such questions as: What is alienation? What does it mean to overcome alienation? Why would we ever want to overcome alienation? What are some of the many different types of alienation? What are the criteria or traits that link each of these types? Is it possible to be completely alienated? And many more questions besides. Those who become smitten with the Socratic method of philosophical inquiry thrive on the question. They never run out of questions, or out of new ways to question. Some of Socrates Café’s most avid philosophizers are, for me, the question personified.

Question 2 info

Freedom &Responsibility

Becoming Evil The existence of evil can be attributed to acts of the will. • According to St. Augustine, either evil is a part of the initial conditions of creation, or it emerges from a deprivation of Divine Law. – Evil, therefore, must emerge from a volition that goes against the imperatives of Divine Law. • Freedom, and not God, is the source of evil. • However, this claim is contradicted by the causal order or laws of nature

Causality • How is freedom possible within physical laws? – Everything follows a causal order. • Whatever happens occurs “from a ground of necessity.” • What happens from necessity is not free. – Not a problem for theologians like Augustine: • “God gave us free choice in order to enable us to act rightly.” (Augustine, On Free Choice of the Will)

Zoom

Freedom & Responsibility

Becoming Evil The existence of evil can be attributed to acts of the will. • According to St. Augustine, either evil is a part of the initial conditions of creation, or it emerges from a deprivation of Divine Law. – Evil, therefore, must emerge from a volition that goes against the imperatives of Divine Law. • Freedom, and not God, is the source of evil. • However, this claim is contradicted by the causal order or laws of nature.

Causality • How is freedom possible within physical laws? – Everything follows a causal order. • Whatever happens occurs “from a ground of necessity.” • What happens from necessity is not free. – Not a problem for theologians like Augustine: • “God gave us free choice in order to enable us to act rightly.” (Augustine, On Free Choice of the Will)

Adolf Eichmann • Morality may at times be at odds with our social duty or role. • Ex: Eichmann denied his moral responsibility for the deaths of thousands claiming to be “only following orders.” • A critical analysis of moral questions requires the objective use of reason. • We are responsible for our choices and how we rationalize them. • This responsibility is rooted in our freedom or autonomy.

Morality & Freedom • Freedom is being able to do what one wills. – “The stone has no power to check its downward movement, but the soul is not moved to abandon higher things and love inferior things unless it wills to do so.” (Ibid) • We are responsible for what we do freely. – Choice is necessary for moral accountability. – We must be able to choose, according to preference, what we desire. – Preferences and choices define our character.

Strict Determinism • All of our choices are determined by previous events. – Physical causality (environment, biology and physiology) – “Interior causality” (psychology) • structured by stimulus, motivation and character • Free will is impossible since it implies an event happening outside of the causal order. • Our character is inexorably conditioned by socio-historical circumstances as well as natural laws

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.