Divisions of Philosophy

Abstract: Philosophy, philosophical inquiry, and the main branches of philosophy are
characterized.

I.What is Philosophy?

A. The derivation of the word "philosophy" from the Greek is suggested by the following words
and word-fragments.
 philo—love of, affinity for, liking of
 philander—to engage in love affairs frivolously
 philanthropy—love of mankind in general
 philately—postage stamps hobby
 phile—(as in "anglophile") one having a love for
 philology—having a liking for words
 sophos—wisdom
 sophist—lit. one who loves knowledge
 sophomore—wise and moros—foolish; i.e. one who thinks he knows many things
 sophisticated—one who is knowledgeable

B. A suggested definition for our beginning study is as follows.

Philosophy is the systematic inquiry into the principles and presuppositions of any field of
study.

1. From a psychological point of view, philosophy is an attitude, an approach, or a calling to

answer or to ask, or even to comment upon certain peculiar problems (i.e., specifically the
kinds of problems usually relegated to the main branches discussed below in Section II).

2. There is, perhaps, no one single sense of the word "philosophy." Eventually many writers
abandon the attempt to define philosophy and, instead, turn to the kinds of things
philosophers do.

3. What is involved in the study of philosophy involves is described by the London Times in
an article dealing with the 20th World Congress of Philosophy: "The great virtue of
philosophy is that it teaches not what to think, but how to think. It is the study of
meaning, of the principles underlying conduct, thought and knowledge. The skills it hones
are the ability to analyse, to question orthodoxies and to express things clearly. However
arcane some philosophical texts may be … the ability to formulate questions and follow
arguments is the essence of education."

II. The Main Branches of Philosophy are divided as to the nature of the questions asked
in each area. The integrity of these divisions cannot be rigidly maintained, for one area
overlaps into the others.

. Axiology: the study of value; the investigation of its nature, criteria, and metaphysical status.
More often than not, the term "value theory" is used instead of "axiology" in contemporary
discussions even though the term “theory of value” is used with respect to the value or price
of goods and services in economics.

0. Some significant questions in axiology include the following:

a. Nature of value: is value a fulfillment of desire, a pleasure, a preference, a behavioral

disposition, or simply a human interest of some kind?
 b. Criteria of value: de gustibus non (est) disputandum(i.e., (“there's no accounting for
tastes”) or do objective standards apply?

c. Status of value: how are values related to (scientific) facts? What ultimate worth, if
any, do human values have?

1. Axiology is usually divided into two main parts.

. Ethics: the study of values in human behavior or the study of moral problems: e.g.,
(1) the rightness and wrongness of actions, (2) the kinds of things which are good or
desirable, and (3) whether actions are blameworthy or praiseworthy.

i. Consider this example analyzed by J. O. Urmson in his well-known essay, "Saints and
Heroes":

"We may imagine a squad of soldiers to be practicing the throwing of live hand
grenades; a grenade slips from the hand of one of them and rolls on the ground near
the squad; one of them sacrifices his life by throwing himself on the grenade and
protecting his comrades with his own body. It is quite unreasonable to suppose that
such a man must be impelled by the sort of emotion that he might be impelled by if his
best friend were in the squad."

ii. Did the soldier who threw himself on the grenade do the right thing? If he did not
cover the grenade, several soldiers might be injured or be killed. His action probably
saved lives; certainly an action which saves lives is a morally correct action. One
might even be inclined to conclude that saving lives is a duty. But if this were so,
wouldn't each of the soldiers have the moral obligation or duty to save his
comrades? Would we thereby expect each of the soldiers to vie for the opportunity
to cover the grenade?

a. Æsthetics: the study of value in the arts or the inquiry into feelings, judgments, or
standards of beauty and related concepts. Philosophy of art is concerned with
judgments of sense, taste, and emotion.

. E.g., Is art an intellectual or representational activity? What would the realistic

representations in pop art represent? Does art represent sensible objects or ideal
objects?

i. Is artistic value objective? Is it merely coincidental that many forms in architecture

and painting seem to illustrate mathematical principles? Are there standards of
taste?

ii. Is there a clear distinction between art and reality?

A. Epistemology: the study of knowledge. In particular, epistemology is the study of

the nature, scope, and limits of human knowledge.

0. Epistemology investigates the origin, structure, methods, and integrity of knowledge.

1. Consider the degree of truth of the statement, "The earth is round." Does its truth
depend upon the context in which the statement is uttered? For example, this statement
can be successively more accurately translated as …
 "The earth is spherical"
 "The earth is an oblate spheroid" (i.e., flattened at the poles).
 But what about the Himalayas and the Marianas Trench? Even if we surveyed exactly the
shape of the earth, our process of surveying would alter the surface by the footprints left and
the impressions of the survey stakes and instruments. Hence, the exact shape of the earth
cannot be known. Every rain shower changes the shape.
 (Note here as well the implications for skepticism and relativism: simply because we cannot
exactly describe the exact shape of the earth, the conclusion does not logically follow that the
earth does not have a shape.)

2. Furthermore, consider two well-known problems in epistemology:

. Russell's Five-Minute-World Hypothesis: Suppose the earth were created five minutes
ago, complete with memory images, history books, records, etc., how could we ever
know of it? As Russell wrote in The Analysis of Mind, "There is no logical impossibility
in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then
was, with a population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no logically
necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is
happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world
began five minutes ago." For example, an omnipotent God could create the world with
all the memories, historical records, and so forth five minutes ago. Any evidence to the
contrary would be evidence created by God five minutes ago. (Q.v.,the Omphalos
hypothesis.)

a. Suppose everything in the universe (including all spatial relations) were to expand
uniformly a thousand times larger. How could we ever know it? A moment's thought
reveals that the mass of objects increases by the cube whereas the distance among
them increases linearly. Hence, if such an expansion were possible, changes in the
measurement of gravity and the speed of light would be evident, if, indeed, life would
be possible.

b. Russell's Five-Minute-World Hypothesis is a philosophical problem; the impossibility of

the objects in the universe expanding is a scientific problem since the latter problem
can, in fact, be answered by principles of elementary physics.

B. Ontology or Metaphysics: the study of what is really real. Metaphysics deals with the
so-called first principles of the natural order and "the ultimate generalizations available
to the human intellect." Specifically, ontology seeks to indentify and establish the
relationships between the categories, if any, of the types of existent things.

0. What kinds of things exist? Do only particular things exist or do general things also exist?
How is existence possible? Questions as to identity and change of objects—are you the
same person you were as a baby? as of yesterday? as of a moment ago?

1. How do ideas exist if they have no size, shape, or color? (My idea of the Empire State
Building is quite as "small" or as "large" as my idea of a book. I.e., an idea is not
extended in space.) What is space? What is time?

2. E.g., Consider the truths of mathematics: in what manner do geometric figures exist? Are
points, lines, or planes real or not? Of what are they made?

3. What is spirit? or soul? or matter? space? Are they made up of the same sort of "stuff"?

4. When, if ever, are events necessary? Under what conditions are they possible?

Characteristics of a Philosophical Problem

 Abstract: A working definition of philosophy is proposed and a few philosophical problems are
illustrated.

I.Some general comments about the nature of philosophy can be summarized from the
previous tutorial.

A. Etymologically, "philosophy" can be broken into the following roots and examples.
 philo—fond of, affinity for; e.g., the name "Philip" means "lover of horses."
 sophia—wisdom; e.g., the name "Sophie" means "wisdom."

B. Hazarding a beginning definition and some general characteristics of philosophy might be of help.

1. Philosophy is the systematic inquiry into the principles and presuppositions of any
endeavor.

a. Almost any area of interest has philosophical aspects. For example, name an area and
place the phrase “philosophy of” in front of it as in philosophy of science, philosophy of
art, and philosophy of science. Or name the area and place the word “philosophy” after it
as in political philosophy and ethical philosophy.

b. Recently, philosophy of sport, medical ethics, and ethics of genetics have generated
much interest.

c. Some restaurants have printed on the back of the customer's bill their philosophy of
restaurant management.

2. In general, philosophy questions often are a series of "why-questions," whereas

science is often said to ask "how-questions."

3. E.g., asking "Why did you come to class today?" is the beginning of a series of why-
questions which ultimately lead to the answer of the principles or presuppositions by
which you lead your life.

I.e., Answer: "To pass the course."

Question: "Why do you want to pass the course?"

Answer: "To graduate from college."

Question: "Why do you want to graduate?"

Answer: "To get a good job."

Question: "Why do you want a good job?"

Answer: "To make lots of money."

Question: "Why do you want to make money?"

Answer: "To be happy."

Hence, one comes to class in order to increase the chances for happiness.

II. As I remember Avrum Stroll and Richard H. Popkin, in their highly readable
book, Introduction to Philosophy, isolate seven characteristics of a philosophical problem.
These characteristics serve as a good introduction to mark some of the perplexing kinds
of problems which can arise in philosophy.
Philosophical Thought-Experiments from Metaphysics and Epistemology

Characteristics Typical Examples

If I take a book off my hand, what's left on my hand?

1. A reflection about
If I take away the air, then what's left? If I take away
the world and the
the space? With the space gone, nothing is left. Does
things in it.
everything exist in nothing?

According to Newton's gravitation theory, as the

ballerina on a New York stage moves, my balance is
2. A conceptual rather imperceptibly affected. Since the earth's circumference
than a practical is about 25,000 miles, and the earth spins around once
activity. every 24 hours, as I sit at my desk, I am in reality
looping through space in giant arcs at over 25,000
miles per hour.

Does a tree falling in a forest with no one around to

hear it, make a sound? To solve, we distinguish two
senses of "sound": (1) hearing—a phenomenological
3. The use of reason
perception and (2) vibration—a longitudinal wave in
and argumentation to
matter. So if no one is there to hear, there is no sound
establish a point.
of type 1, but there is sound of type 2, as can be
determined by the prior leaving a recording device on
the scence.

Does a mirror reverse left and right? If I move my

right hand, the image's left hand moves. But why then
4. An explanation of
doesn't the mirror reverse up and down? Why aren't
the puzzling features
the feet in the mirror image at the top of the mirror?
of things.
Why doesn't it change the situation if I lie down or I
rotate the mirror 90 degrees?

What is a fact? In science, facts are collected. Is a

book a fact? Is it a big or little fact? Is the book a
5. Digging beyond the smaller fact than the earth which is a larger fact. If the
obvious. book is brown, is that a brown fact? If facts don't have
size, shape, and color, then in what manner do they
exist in the world? And how can they be found?
 Is a geranium one flower or is it a combination of
6. The search for
many small flowers bunched together? If I turn on a
principles which
computer, does one event occur or do many events
underlie phenomena.
occur?

Is nature discrete or continuous? E.g., Consider Zeno's

7. Theory building
from these principles.
paradoxes of motion. If you are to leave the classroom
today, isn't it true that you will have to walk at least
half-way to the door? And then when you get half-way,
you will have to at least walk another half? How many
"halves" are there? How will you ever get out?

III.In practice, philosophy is an attitude, an approach, or even a calling to answer, to ask, or to

comment upon certain peculiar kinds of questions. As we saw previously, the problems are often
relegated to the main divisions of philosophy: Epistemology, Metaphysics, and Axiology (Ethics
and Æsthetics).

. Attitude—a curiosity arising from questions such as the following.

0. Under the assumption that time is a dimension just like any other, the case of the problem
of the surprise examination can arise: Suppose students obtain the promise from their
teacher that a surprise quiz scheduled be given next week will not be given, if the students
demonstrate how they can know, in advance, the day the teacher will give the exam. Thus,
the students can argue as follows: Assuming the class meets only on Monday, Wednesday,
and Friday, the students know the surprise exam cannot be given on Friday because
everyone would know Thursday night that the following day is the only period left in which
to give the exam. One would think that the teacher could give the exam Wednesday, but
since Friday has been eliminated as a possibility, on Tuesday night, the students would
know that the only period left in the week would be Wednesday (since Friday has already
been eliminated; hence, the exam could not be given Wednesday either. Monday, then, is
the only possible period left to offer the exam. But, of course, the teacher could not give the
exam Monday because the students would expect the exam that day. Consequently, the
teacher cannot give a surprise examination next week.

1. In his Nobel Prize Lecture, Richard Feynman explained that from the perspective of
quantum electrodynamics, if an electron is seen as going forward in time, a positron is
the same particle moving backwards in time. Is time- reversal really possible?

. Is a positron, or even the earlier tachyon, discussed above, associated with backward
causation a possible event? Consider this paradoxical result. Suppose a "positron gun" or
a "tachyon gun" would fire a particle going backward in time—it could "trigger" an off-
switch to turn off the gun before it could be fired.

a. This example is, of course, a thought-experiment. As Feynman noted in his Lectures on

Physics, "Philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science,
and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong.

A. Approach—to devise a methodology to answer such puzzles. Very often, all that is
needed is to invoke old maxim, "When there is a difficulty, make a distinction."
 0. E.g., for the problem of the sound of a tree falling in a forest with no one around to hear, all
we need do is distinguish two different senses of "sound."

1. If by "sound" is meant a "phenomenological perception by a subject," then no sound

("hearing") would occur. If by "sound" is meant "a longitudinal wave in matter," then a
sound is discoverable.

B. Calling— if a person has had experiences of curiosity, discovery, and invention at an

early age, these experiences could leave an imprint on mind and character to last a
lifetime.

The Principle of Charity

Abstract: The principle of charity is a presumption often made in philosophy whereby
preconceptions about an argument, a topic, or a belief are set aside in the attempt to gain new
understanding.

I.The Principle of Charity is a methodological presumption made in seeking to understand a point

of view whereby we seek to understand that view in its strongest, most persuasive from before
subjecting the view to evaluation.

A. While suspending our own beliefs, we seek a sympathetic understanding of the new idea or
ideas.

B. We assume for the moment the new ideas are true even though our initial reaction is to
disagree; we seek to tolerate ambiguity for the larger aim of understanding ideas which
might prove useful and helpful..

C. Emphasis is placed on seeking to understand rather than on seeking contradictions or

difficulties.

D. We seek to understand the ideas in their most persuasive form and actively attempt to
resolve contradictions. If more than one view is presented, we choose the one that appears
the most cogent.

II. The principle of charity is a methodological principle—ideas can be critiqued after an

adequate understanding is achieved. The original presumption of setting aside our own
beliefs and assuming the new ideas are true is only a provisionalpresumption.

. Hence, we should listen and read in the beginning as if we had no personal attitudes. We
should seek to be open and receptive.

A. This attitude, if maintained, frees the conditioned mind and enables it to absorb and
understand the new.

B. In essence, we just start with a simple desire to get a point not understood upon first
acquaintance.

III. Refinements of the principle of charity in philosophy include theprinciple of rational

accommodation whereby we attempt to maximize truth and the principle of humanity where
we attempt to maximize intelligibility.
. Willard Van Orman Quine's version of the principle is this maxim of translation: "[A]ssertions
startingly false on the face of them are likely to turn on hidden differences of languages." (W.
V. O. Quine, Word and Object (Cambridge, Mass.: The M. I. T. Press, 1960), 59.)

A. Donald Davidson suggests the principle of charity (or, in his words, "the principle of rational
accommodation") should attempt to "maximize" sense and "optimize" agreement when
invoked with respect to coherence and factual correspondence of what is said.

1. Principle of Coherence: seeks "logical consistency in the thought of the speaker."

2. Principle of Correspondence: seeks the same feature of the world that [we] would be
responding to under similar circumstance."

3. The humanity principle as put forward by Richard Grandy is that we should initially
interpret a different philosophical point of view in accordance with the assumption that
the interrelation of belief and reality being expressed is similar to our own. As Donald
Dennett explains the principle of humanity, "[O]ne should attribute to [the person's
whose view we are attempting to understand] … the propositional attitudes one supposes
one would have oneself in those circumstances."

IV. Some examples of uses and possible benefits on the application of the principle of charity
in the analysis for new ideas:

. Feynman writes in his Nobel Prize Lecture about struggling with the notion of backward
causation in quantum electrodynamics:

… all physicists know from studying Einstein and Bohr, that sometimes an idea which
looks completely paradoxical at first, if analyzed to completion in all detail and in
experimental situations, may, in fact, not be paradoxical.

A. Dostoevsky writes in his Notes from Underground that what is not in one's own interest
may be precisely that which is in one's own interest:

Oh, tell me, who was it first announced, who was it first proclaimed, that man only
does nasty things because he does not know his own interests; and that if he were
enlightened, if his eyes were opened to his real normal interests, man would at once
cease to do nasty things, would at once become good and noble … we all know that
not one man can, consciously, act against his own interests … And what if it so
happens that a man's advantage, sometimes not only may, but even must, consists
in his desiring in certain cases what is harmful to himself and not advantageous[?]

Through consideration of the seemingly contradictory idea that one's advantage can be
what is not ones advantage, Dostoevsky reveals the notion of unconscious motivation.

B. In Hinduism, God may be worshipped as a child when the devotee worships Krishna. A
Christian, uncharitably, might be inclined to believe Hinduism is a polytheistic religion. Yet,
for the Christian, the notion of the Christ Child could be suggested by the application of the
principle of humanity in order to help understand this ideal in Hinduism. Swami
Vivekanda writes:

The next [human representation of the ideal of divine love] is what is known as
Vatsalya, loving God not as our Father but as our Child. This may look peculiar, but
it is a discipline to enable us to detach all ideas of power from the concept of God. …
 [T]he Christian and the Hindu can realize [this idea of God as Child] easily, because
they have the baby Jesus and the baby Krishna.

The similarity belief and attitudes between Christianity and Hinduism, in this regard,
removes unnecessary difficulties in understanding.
Further Reading:

 A Code of Conduct for Effective Rational Discussion. Jonathan Davis's useful summary of twelve
principles of for open discussion in Usenet debates is drawn from Attacking Faulty Reasoning by
T. Edward Damer.
 Principle of Charity. Philosophical and rhetorical principles are briefly summarized by Wikipedia.
 Unbeggable Questions. (A PDF file) Some problems with the principle of charity are noted in
passing in this paper from Analysis by Roy Sorensen on the fallacy of begging the question.

“… the principle of charity. This policy calls on us to fit our own propositions (or our own
sentences) to the other person's words and attitudes in such a way as to render their speech and
other behavior intelligible. This necessarily requires us to see others as much like ourselves in
point of overall coherence and correctness—that we see them as more or less rational creatures
mentally inhabiting a world much like our own.” Donald Davidson, Problems of
Rationality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 35.

Plato's The Apology Part I

Abstract: Plato's account of Socrates' defense elucidates some main principles of the Socratic
philosophy: (1) the Socratic paradox, (2) the Socratic method, (3) tending ones soul, and (4)
death is not to be feared.

1. What are the specific charges brought against Socrates, and why do you think he was so
charged? Is Socrates being charged with being a sophist? Is he being accused of offering
scientific explanations for religious matters?

2. Why doesn't Socrates plead for a lesser charge? Why couldn't he accept exile?

3. How does Socrates show that he does not corrupt the young people of Athens? Are his
arguments convincing?

4. Explain Socrates' defense of his belief in God. How persuasive do you find it?

5. What is Socrates' philosophy of life? Why has it been called paradoxical?

6. Explain why Socrates compares himself to a "gadfly." What does he mean when he uses
this term?

I. Notes are arranged in response to the questions from Plato'sApology2 available on this
site: Chapter 4: "Just Do What's Right"

A. Answers from the chapter beginning: Chapter 4: "Just Do What's Right" in Reading for
Philosophical Inquiry, Version 0.21.
1. What are the specific charges brought against Socrates, and why do you think he was so
charged? Is Socrates being charged with being a sophist? Is he being accused of offering
scientific explanations for religious matters?

a. At the heart of this question is the Socratic Problem: since Socrates apparently wrote
nothing, his manner and philosophy are subject to the controversy of conflicting
accounts. The historical problem of Socrates is omitted in these notes. The presentation
of the Socrates described by Plato is assumed here in part because of Aristotle's
testimony that Socrates concerned himself with "the excellences of character" and the
attempt to find the essences of ethical terms. Even so, how much of the thought in the
Socratic dialogues is Plato's is a matter of debate as well.

b. Summary of the charges against Socrates:

i. Impiety: he does not believe in the gods whom the state believes in—he seeks natural
explanations for natural processes

ii. He teaches people to disbelieve the gods—a charge suggested in Aristophanes'

play Clouds, Socrates is portrayed as an atheist.

iii. He corrupts the young; he infuses in them a spirit of criticism—Socrates did attract
attention from wealthy young men in Athens as he cross-examined prominent
citizens in the marketplace. It's quite possible he occasionally accepted some
support from them. In his examination of statesmen, poets, and artisans, he reveals
that they do not know what they claim to know. In any case, by his questioning of
authority, he had an effect on the young.

iv. He is a wrongdoer; he speculates about the heaven and things beneath the earth—
perhaps this is the basis of the charge of disbelief in the gods if Socrates seeks
natural explanations for astronomical and geological phenomena rather than
attributing natural events to the gods. Early in his life Socrates apparently was
interested in science; later in life Socrates emphasized ethical and epistemological
inquiry.

v. He makes the weaker reason seem to be the stronger—Socrates here is being

accused of being a sophist. Aristophanes' play Clouds some thirty-five years earlier
had portrayed Socrates as a sophist.

c. Originally the sophists were known as the Seven Sages of Greece, but later the term
"sophist" was applied in a derogatory sense to persons who made their living
teaching methods of wining lawsuits in the courts. Again, Aristophanes' play had
portrayed Socrates as a teacher or rhetoric and astronomy.

. The sophists were itinerate teachers who were the encyclopædists, the polymaths, who
knew a little about everything—in general, they were skeptical with regard to ethics
and knowledge.

i. Unlike philosophers, they took payment for their teaching and were accused of
"corrupting the youth." Brief examples of sophistical arguments include:

a. Your fourth finger is longer than your little finger but shorter than your middle
finger. Thus, a finger is both long and short.
 b. Here is proof that you are on the other side of campus. Do you know where the
Bell Tower is? Well, then you know that you are on the other side of campus from
the Bell Tower.

c. Consider the well-known story of Euthalus and Protagoras. Euthalus wanted to

become a lawyer but could not pay Protagoras. Protagoras agreed to teach him
under the condition that if Euathlus won his first case, he would pay Protagoras,
otherwise not. Euathlus agreed and finished his course of study and but did enter
the courts. Protagoras sued for his fee.
 Protagoras argued: If Euathlus loses this case, then he must pay (by the judgment of
the court). If Euathlus wins this case, then he must pay (by the terms of the contract).
He must either win or lose this case. Therefore Euathlus must pay me.
 But Euathlus had learned well the art of rhetoric. He responded: "If I win this case, I
do not have to pay (by the judgment of the court). If I lose this case, I do not have to
pay (by the contract). I must either win or lose the case. Therefore, I do not have to
pay Protagoras."

2. Why doesn't Socrates plead for a lesser charge? Why couldn't he accept exile?

. Socrates' understanding of himself is that life is not worth living is he cannot choose what
is right (c.f., theSocratic paradox.)

a. Socrates notes that he cannot change and improve his soul; hence, if he went
elsewhere, he would continue his questioning. Citizens of other city-states would
probably tolerate his questionings even less well than his fellow Athenians.
Undoubtedly, he would be continually expelled or worse.

b. Undoubtedly the lack of compromise on principles by Socrates led to the court

condemning him to death by a greater margin than when voting for his guilt.

c. Socrates claims that he is following the god's order to examine his fellow citizens.
Chærephon asked the Delphic Oracle if there were any man living who was wiser than
Socrates. The Oracle answer was "No." Yet, Socrates did not see himself as being wise,
so through questioning of others, he realized the basis of the Oracle's statement of his
wisdom was that he knew that he did not know and so his life mission was, in effect, to
prove the Oracle's assertion. (Cf., Socratic irony in Part II of these notes.)

3. How does Socrates show that he does not corrupt the young people of Athens? Are his
arguments convincing?

. Socrates' answer to this charge, more than any other, exhibits the courtroom tactics of a
sophist. A.E. Taylor suggests that Socrates does not take these charges seriously and
exhibits the often observed irony as he plays with his accusers.

a. Socrates states that the charge of corruption of the youth is a "stock charge" against
all philosophers. The charge may well be common against sophists, but such a defense
is irrelevant to Socrates' situation. The relevant question is not the ad hominem but is
rather whether or not the charge is true in this case.

b. Socrates professes ignorance: he states that he knows nothing so how could he

possibly teach the young people anything? If somehow a young person were
corrupted, then the corruption was unintentional. Many commentators including A.E.
Taylor see Socrates' stance as part of the doctrine "no one does evil volunta1rily." Yet,
this is an odd defense for Socrates to make, since, as a result of the Socratic Paradox,
Socrates believes we are morally responsible for knowledge or the lack thereof. An
 unintentional action results from ignorance, and a person is responsible for what is not
known.

c. Finally, Socrates states the ad ignorantiam argument that there is no one present
testifying that he was corrupted. In a court of law, of course, there is the burden of
proof on the prosecution, and evidence or testimony need be offered for those charges.
But from a logical point of view, Socrates' argument is the ad ignorantiam fallacy:
 No proof has been placed into evidence that anyone has been corrupted.
 --------------------------------------------------
 Therefore, no one has been corrupted.

d. Socrates proposes the following dilemma:

 If I drive away the young men, they will persuade their parents to expel me.
 If I allow them to stay, their fathers will expel me [on account of the influence on their
sons].
 [Either I drive them away or I allow them to stay.]
 ------------------------------------------------------
 Thus, either they will persuade their parents to expel me or their fathers will expel me.

e. The use of the dilemma is in a sense a sophistic rhetorical device which is effective in a
courtroom but of little logical significance. Let's spend a moment analyzing the dilemma.
There are three ways to refute a dilemma:

. Take it by the horns: i.e., show that at least one of the conditionals is false. For
example, if Socrates drives the young men away, it's unlikely they could induce their
parents to expel him.

i. Escape between the horns: i.e., show that the disjunction is false. For example,
Socrates could not control whether or not the young men stay and listen.

ii. Set up a counter-dilemma: negate the consequents of the conditionals and switch
them for new conditional statements. Then draw the conclusion as in the following
argument:
 If I drive away the young men, their fathers will not expel me.
 If I do not drive them away, they won't persuade their parents to expel me.
 [Either I drive them away or I allow them to stay.]
 ------------------------------------------------------
 Thus, either their fathers will not expel me or they won't persuade their fathers to expel
me.

4. Explain Socrates' defense of his belief in God. How persuasive do you find it?

. First, Socrates simply points out the contradiction between the two groups of accusers:
he can't be an atheist and at the same time believe in false gods. But, of course, this
response does not address the emotional effect of the charge of impiety.

a. Second, Socrates presents the linguistic argument that if he believes in divine things,
then he cannot be an atheist. Since there is evidence for the antecedent of the
conditional, the truth of the consequent does follow.

b. Socrates does not address philosophical reasons for his belief in the gods; he merely
demonstrates the errors in the prosecution's charges.

5. What is Socrates' philosophy of life? Why has it been called paradoxical?

 . A number of statements in the Apology point to the heart of the Socratic philosophy:
the Socratic Paradox.

. Socrates states at the beginning of his defense: "Give your whole attention to the
question, is what I say just, or is it not?"

i. He believes that you should only do what's right—irrespective of matters of life or

death. (Socrates later offers a proof that no harm can come to a good person and
death is not to be feared.)

ii. Your life should be spent on the improvement of your soul.

iii. Socrates states, "[I]f I say again that daily to discourse about virtue, and of those
other things about which you hear me examining myself and others, is the greatest
good of man, and that the unexamined life is not worth living, you are still less likely
to believe me." (Apology, 38a, trans. Benjamin Jowlett).

a. The Socratic Paradox: People act immorally, but they do not do so deliberately.

. Everyone seeks what is most serviceable to oneself or what is in ones own self-
interest.

i. If one [practically] knows what is good, one will always act in such manner as to
achieve it. (Otherwise, one does not know or only knows in a theoretical fashion.)

ii. If one acts in a manner not conducive to ones good, then that person must have
been mistaken (i.e., that person lacks the knowledge of how to obtain what was
serviceable in that instance).

iii. If one acts with knowledge then one will obtain that which is serviceable to oneself
or that which is in ones self-interest.

iv. Thus, for Socrates…

 knowledge = [def.] virtue, good, arete
 ignorance = [def.] bad, evil, not useful

v. Since no one knowingly harms himself, if harm comes to that person, then that
person must have acted in ignorance.

vi. Consequently, it would seem to follow we are responsible for what we know or for
that matter what we do not know. So, then, one is responsible for ones own
happiness.

vii. The essential aspect of understanding the Paradox is to realize that Socrates is
referring to the good of the soul in terms of knowledge and doing what's right—not
to wealth or freedom from physical pain. The latter play no role in the soul being
centered.

b. Examples of the Paradox explained in practice.

 Cheryl and her friend Holly, both twelve years old decide to go to the movies. Cheryl, unlike
her friend Holly, states that she is eleven so that she will not have to pay the adult
admission and will have extra money for snacks. Holly refuses to do so since her parents
have told her that if she cannot pay the admission of a twelve year old, then she doesn't
have enough money to go the movies.
 Cheryl gives Holly some of her extra snacks as a way of showing Holly that Holly made a foolish
decision.
 If we were to ask Cheryl if she made the right decision, she would happily say, "Yes, of course!"
If we were to ask Holly if she made the right decision, Holly would perhaps glumly say, "Yes, I
did the right thing."
 Cheryl lacks knowledge of the longer-term effect on her soul; Holly lacks knowledge of the
rightness of following her parents' advice.
 Consider the effects of a choice like Cheryl's on her soul in the longer term. She might…
0. Lack an authentic self: Compare Cheryl's development of different personalities for
different people to Socrates' being the same before the court as he was in the
marketplace.
1. Seek an edge: What becomes fair to Cheryl are those circumstances where she has an
advantage. Cheryl comes to believe a level playing field is unfair to her. She does not
interact unless she has an advantage.
2. Consequently feel guilt or even pride: Cheryl came to believe that she is better or
smarter than other people because she can play by different rules. In other cases, some
persons like Cheryl might feel guilt for not doing the right thing.
3. Reject conditions for fair-treatment: At the age of fourteen, when Cheryl was asked for
evidence of her age by a movie ticket-seller she became angry, saying, "I was admitted
last week as child—you just don't get a whole year older in one week!"
4. Lose confidence or self-esteem: Cheryl learns to only feel comfortable when she has an
advantage. Without an advantage, she feels at a loss.
5. Be left to improvise in new situations: By cutting corners or seeking the advantage, in
new situations, the soul is out of balance because of the attempt to avoid being treated
as others are. As Sir Walter Scott wrote,
 "O what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive!"
6. Have a soul not centered: By having to foresee future circumstances dependent upon
what she has done in the past, her attention becomes scattered among calculating
different scenarios.

6. Explain why Socrates compares himself to a "gadfly." What does he mean when he uses
this term?

. A gadfly is a fly that stings or annoys livestock; hence one that acts as a provocative
stimulus.

a. Socrates is trying to arouse drowsy, apathetic people to realize that they do not know
themselves and do not know what they claim to know. Socrates' cross-examination of
the some of the prominent citizens undoubtedly led to prejudice against him.

b. Consider Plato's dialogue the Theætetus as an example of Socrates' stinging: he

questions Theætetus, a well-known mathematician, as to the nature of knowledge.

. Theætetus explains knowledge as perception. (Protagoras had argued that "Man is

the measure of all things.")

. If that be so, Socrates asks, how Protagoras can rank his knowledge over that of
other men.

a. If knowledge were the same as perception, then hearing a foreign language would
be the same as understanding it.
 b. We can perceive without knowing what we are perceiving.
Note Figure 1the well-known duck-rabbit figure from Gestalt psychology or Figure
2Norwood Russell Hanson's "bear climbing a tree."

c. If knowledge were the same as perception, as soon as we

cease to perceive, then we would cease to know—but this is not the case.

d. We can know some things without perceiving them (i.e., truths of mathematics, a
telephone number).

i. Theætetus' second attempt: knowledge is true opinion.

. Socrates' objection: an opinion can be true without involving knowledge—the

opinion might just be coincidental with the truth

a. Consider a murderer on trial: In the face of inadequate evidence the jury might
vote "guilty," and by luck, the opinion turns out to be correct. Even so, we would
not say the jury had knowledge at the time they returned their verdict.

ii. Theætetus' third attempt: knowledge is true opinion plus explanation or an

account. I.e., if something cannot be analyzed, it cannot be known.

. Socrates notes if explanation means analyzing into elements of differentia, then

we cannot have knowledge, for the results of analysis are themselves
unanalyzable.

a. Therefore, the unknowable is reduced to what cannot be known.

iii. The final result of the dialogue is not a completely a negative result because
Socrates has shown by implication that knowledge must somehow involve the
intelligent grasping of the structure and relationships of a thing.

B. Notes on Plato's Apology are continued in Part II of these notes. Part II emphasizes
Socrates' response to the verdict.
Further Reading:

 Apology: An excellent discussion and introduction to the historical background and the life and
character of Socrates at the Classics Technology Center provided by AbleMedia Curriculum
Guides.
 Commentary on Plato's Apology of Socrates. An exhaustive point-by-point commentary on
the Apology by Kelley L. Ross with copious explanations of references implicit in the dialogue.
 Famous Trials: The Trial of Socrates 399 BC. An extensive examination of various interpretations
of the trial by Douglas Linder. Chronology, maps, images, bibliography, historical background as
well as accounts from Lætius, Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes are included. Especially
interesting is an interview with I.F. Stone on why Socrates was put to death.
 Plato on Knowledge in the Theætetus. A review and assessment of Plato's dialogue with an
extensive bibliography by Timothy Chappell.

“You are mistaken, my friend, if you think that a man who is worth anything ought to spend his
time weighing up the prospects of life and death. He has only one thing to consider in performing
any action—that is, whether he is acting rightly or wrongly, like a god man or a bad one.”
Plato, Socrates' Defense (Apology) trans. Hugh Tredennick in Plato: The Collected
Dialogues (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1961), 28b.