Last semester I took my first Philosophy class. We studied Plato's dialogues on Socrates for a big portion of the class. I plan on taking some more philosophy classes next semester so I am reviewing what I studied last semester to prepair. I'm new to philosophy and am still trying to figure things out.
In the Euthyphro i'm trying to figure out the elenctic method. Do you think it is a useful method or problematic?
Personally I think it's a good tool to use, but I can't figure out WHY I think this. It can cause some problems. How does socrates use the 'elenchus' to refute the definitions of piety that Euthyphro gives?
Do you have any other good points about the Euthyphro? Any other discussions?
2007-03-10 18:29:48 · 4 answers · asked by Alexa K 5 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
The question in the Euthyphro is "What is piety" and the elenctic method is Socrates' usual system of interrogation: asking questions and pointing out any inconsistencies that the answerer stumbles into.
The problem with the elenctic method is "If the questioner doesn't already have an opinion of the answer how can he frame relevant questions?" or "How can one approach truth, starting from ignorance?"
Peter Geach coined the phrase "Socratic fallacy" for the assumption that "to know something" is to be able to define it. Socrates asks Euthyphro "What is piety?" and then shows him that his answer (What is loved by the gods) is no good, since it leads him into a circular argument (Why do the gods love it? Because it is pious). According to Geach the mistake Euthyphro makes is to agree in the first place to an attempt at definition.
Was Socrates as ignorant as he pretended, or was he leading his victim towards a conclusion he had already in mind? And can one arrive at a definition at all by examining single instances of the thing to be defined?
One escape from these dilemmas is to take the route of linguistic analysis. Socrates was not so much seeking definitions in answer to the general questions he posed (What is piety? What is justice? etc.) as demonstrating a method of critical enquiry for probing whatever is supposed to be true.
2007-03-10 20:29:22 · answer #1 · answered by Recumbentman 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
To first argue a point in an Elenistic maner would be aggressively oppositional. Social grace is key to winning an arguement universally along with validity. You can offer a valid arguement from the heart more successfully rather than attack it from the opposition immediately.
2007-03-10 19:21:07 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
UGH, I had to take philosophy training in college and hated it so very plenty. I wish i could desire to enable you to yet I handed all my philo training with a C, and that replaced into in basic terms because of the fact I confirmed up for each type (and did no longer fall asleep). good success!
2016-10-01 22:28:47 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Basically, Socrates just pointed out contradictions. But that was new, and the interlocutors weren't prepared for it. And they were stunned. (see Meno, sec 80a-b)
2007-03-10 22:55:38 · answer #4 · answered by G-zilla 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋