dialogue between Socrates and a person of your choosing

Read Chapters 1 & 2 (provided) and Write a two- page dialogue between Socrates and a person of your choosing
Instructions:

Write a two- page dialogue between Socrates and a person of your choosing that accomplishes the following: (Do not include a title page and headers)

• Identify a belief. For example, you might choose a religious belief, a moral value, or a political position. It can be a belief you yourself hold or one you have seen professed by other people.

• Provide reasons for that belief. You may need to do additional research in order to identify persuasive reasons. Personal experience and beliefs are relevant when developing an argument, but a good argument also requires reasons with persuasive authority. A fact, statistic, or expert opinion will likely have persuasive authority; a personal opinion, religious belief, or disputed social norm will have less persuasive force.

• Explain the Socratic Method. Cite support from the Platonic dialogue selections from the weekly reading as well as authoritative secondary sources such as the course text and online lectures.

• Analyze the reasons using the Socratic Method, as Socrates does with Thrasymachus’ views on justice in the Republic. Refer to the list of fallacies in the textbook to see if the reasons include any logical inconsistencies that might be used to challenge the belief. For a student example of such a dialogue, see the end of the chapter in the textbook.

Once this is completed I will submit it to my professor and classmates, at which time they will review and possibly ask questions in return. If any questions are asked I will submit them to you for your brief response that can be completed right in a message, nothing in the original paper would need to be changed. When responding to any questions, using supporting details from the assigned reading helps.

The book we are using is:

Title: Philosopher’s Way: Thinking Critically About Profound Ideas
Author: Chaffee, John
Edition / Copyright: 3rd
Publisher: Prentice Hall
ISBN: 978-0205776993

chapter 1 what is philosophy?: THINKING PHILOSOPHICALLY ABOUT LIFE
What do you hope to learn?

These monolithic figures from Easter Island suggest the contemplative nature of philosophy, which can help you grapple with the big questions of life. This chapter introduces the scope and methods of the discipline.
Defining Philosophy
• • Pursuit of wisdom
• • Begins with wonder
• • Is a dynamic process
• • Ultimate aims
Becoming a Critical Thinker
• • Qualities of a critical thinker: Open-minded, curious, selfaware, analytical, creative, knowledgeable
• • The critical-thinking model
Understanding Arguments

• • Structure of arguments
• • Evaluating arguments
• • Types of arguments:
o Deductive and Inductive
• • Informal fallacies
Branches of Philosophy
• • Metaphysics
• • Epistemology
• • Ethics
• • Aesthetics
• • Logic

1.1 Why Study Philosophy?
You are about to embark on a thrilling journey: the study of philosophy. Reading this book and taking a philosophy course is likely to be a memorable, life-altering experience for you. Why? One student explains:
• In general, we as people don’t usually think critically about the important areas of life, but it’s these areas that help us to create a meaningful life. As an individual I was also one of those who didn’t take the time to examine, ask questions, and think deeply about different perspectives on serious issues. As a result, studying Philosophy has helped me to become more open-minded and reflective about everything in my life.
• Tanya Louis
As Tanya notes, many of us get so caught up in the details and demands of life—deadlines, responsibilities, all the little tasks of living—that we don’t make the time to step back and look at the whole picture. Why am I doing the things that I’m doing? In what direction am I headed? What does it all mean? Who am I? Who do I want to become? These questions penetrate the surface of life to confront the deeper currents lying beneath. But to achieve this more profound level of understanding, we need to recognize the need to go beyond the obvious. And we also need to be willing and open-minded enough to do this.
That’s the unique mission of philosophy. Philosophy provides us with the motivation and the intellectual abilities required to explore life’s most challenging issues. What is the meaning of my life? To what extent am I free and responsible for my choices? Facing moral dilemmas, what is the “right” thing to do? What is the relationship between my religious beliefs and other areas of my life? How do I gain genuine knowledge and ascertain truth? These questions, and others like them, are the core questions of life, and philosophy provides the map, compass, and tools needed to explore them.
In what ways will taking this philosophical journey affect your life? Here’s one student’s analysis:
• Before taking this course I really never explored my thinking abilities: I only explored the obvious. Now that I’ve almost completed this introductory course in Philosophy, I feel I am more sophisticated in both thought and action. I realize that I react differently to situations; I think twice and evaluate circumstances more closely before I make decisions. Philosophy has helped me in my other courses as it helped me to express myself more clearly in essays and speeches. From taking this course I have grown as a person, and my mind is definitely not what it used to be.
• Ryan Malley

Studying philosophy in a serious and reflective way will change you as a person. Learning to think philosophically will inspire you to be more thoughtful, more open-minded, more attuned to the complexities and subtleties of life, more willing to think critically about yourself and all of life’s important issues, and less willing to accept superficial interpretations and simplistic answers. It is very tempting for peoplenot to think, to remain submerged in reality rather than aware of it, to be carried along by the current of events rather than creating their destiny through thoughtful, independent choices. Philosophy is a training guide for your mind, showing you how to think in clear, analytic, and powerful ways. And, as Ryan notes, this high-level, sophisticated thinking will enable you to make thoughtful decisions, communicate more effectively, and grow as a person.
Studying philosophy will help you develop the understanding and insight you will need to make intelligent choices and fulfill your potential as an individual. To use a metaphor, you are an artist, creating your life portrait, and your paints and brushstrokes are the choices you make each day. How do you feel about the portrait you have created so far? Have you defined yourself as the person you always wanted to be, or are you a “work in progress”? Are you achieving your full potential as a human being, “actively exercising your soul’s powers”—the ancient Greek definition of happiness (eudaemonia)? Do you possess a clear philosophy of life that acts as a guiding beacon, illuminating the whole of your life and showing you the path to wisdom and personal fulfillment? Creating an enlightened self-portrait is your preeminent responsibility in life, and though it is challenging work, it is well worth the effort. Your portrait is your contribution to the world, your legacy to present and future generations.
This is the special power of philosophy: to provide the conceptual tools required to craft a life inspiring in its challenges and rich in its fulfillment. Philosophy is not intended to limit your options or dictate your choices. Your responsibility as a student of philosophy is to explore, to reflect, to think critically—and then to create yourself in the image you have envisioned.
“Man is asked to make of himself what he is supposed to become to fulfill his destiny,” the theologian Paul Tillich wrote. But how do we discover our destiny, the unique meaning of our lives? We must embark on a philosophical journey, a process of self-exploration and discovery, seeking answers to profound questions about our lives and illuminating the mysteries of our existence. Each of us strives to live a life of purpose, to fulfill our unique potential, and to achieve stellar accomplishments. It is the remarkable capability of our minds to reflect deeply and thoughtfully—to think philosophically—that enables us to pursue these goals. As the philosopher Bertrand Russell passionately expressed, “Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man.”

What is the meaning of life?

Hamlet, one of William Shakespeare’s most famous characters, illustrates the philosophical mind at work. The character poses questions and searches for answers throughout the play. In this scene, he reflects upon the meaning of life and death. What gives your life meaning?
1.2 Defining Philosophy
Providing a precise definition of philosophy is not a simple task, in part because of the complex nature of philosophy’s mission and in part because that mission has evolved over time. As we have begun to see, philosophy deals with the most complex, challenging, and profound questions in human life, questions that by their nature resist simple answers. In addition, the scope of philosophy has changed over the centuries. It began in ancient Greece as the “mother of all disciplines,” encompassing the entire breadth of inquiry about humans and the universe they inhabit. Over time, as human knowledge expanded, distinct disciplines were established that specialized in understanding various dimensions of human experience. In the natural sciences, physics, biology, chemistry, and geology seek understanding of the natural world. The social sciences (psychology, sociology, anthropology, linguistics, political science, economics) seek to analyze, explicate, and propose better models for individual and collective human behavior. Philosophy has retained distinct areas of study that we will explore later in the chapter: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, social/political philosophy, aesthetics, and logic. In addition, the evolving role of philosophy has been to continue examining the underlying principles and methodologies of other academic disciplines through the study of “philosophy of science,” “philosophical psychology,” “medical ethics,” and so on.

Philosophy Is the Pursuit of Wisdom
“Rightly defined, philosophy is simply the love of wisdom.”
CICERO
The actual word philosophy is Greek in origin, and it is the composite of two Greek roots: philein, a Greek word for “love,” and sophia, the Greek word for “wisdom.” Taken together, they mean “the love or pursuit of wisdom.” This definition is a good starting point for understanding the distinctive nature of philosophy. Philosophy is not merely a static compendium of great thoughts espoused by great thinkers—it is an activity that reflects passion, commitment, and intellectual ambition. The ultimate goal of this passionate activity is not mastering a certain amount of information but rather the achievement of “wisdom.” What exactly is “wisdom”? Think of several people you know whom you would consider to be “wise”: What qualities do they possess? It’s likely that although they are knowledgeable regarding certain areas of life, it’s their ability to use and apply this knowledge with great intelligence that distinguishes them. They are likely the kind of people who can get to the heart of a complex issue, who are able to generate genuinely creative solutions to challenging problems, who exhibit an insightful understanding of what it means to be human. These are undoubtedly people who are thoughtful and reflective, who are not afraid to confront the most difficult questions in life, who strive every day to develop themselves as astute thinkers and honorable individuals. These are people whom you admire and whom you would like to emulate. At the same time, wise people are usually intellectually humble: They don’t fall under the spell of believing that they have all the answers, and instead approach the world with a childlike curiosity and eagerness to learn.

“The beginning of wisdom is to desire it.”
SOLOMON IBN GABIROL

Viewing philosophy as the pursuit of wisdom was given eloquent expression by the female philosopher Perictione, who is thought to have lived around 300 B.C.E.:
• Humanity came into being and exists in order to contemplate the principle of the nature of the whole. The function of wisdom is to gain possession of this very thing, and to contemplate the purpose of the things that are. Geometry, of course, and arithmetic, and the other theoretical studies and sciences are also concerned with the things that are, but wisdom is concerned with the most basic of these. Wisdom is concerned with all that is, just as sight is concerned with all that is visible and hearing with all that is audible…. Therefore, whoever is able to analyze all the kinds of being by reference to one and the same basic principle, and, in turn, from this principle to synthesize and enumerate the different kinds, this person seems to be the wisest and most true and, moreover, to have discovered a noble height from which he will be able to catch sight of God and all the things separated from God in serial rank and order.

“He who knows he is a fool is not a great fool.”
CONFUCIUS

In this inspiring passage, Perictione gets right to the heart of being human and the nature of wisdom. Human life has a central purpose—to contemplate the profound essence of the universe—and wisdom is, in her mind, the divine gift we have to accomplish this. While various disciplines such as mathematics and science are concerned with determining specific knowledge of the universe, wisdom has a grander mission: understanding how and why the universe is the way it is, the core principles that underlie and govern the whole of experience. This Western concept of philosophy originated in ancient Greece in the work of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. We will be exploring their ideas in some depth as we journey through the history of philosophical thinking.
“Philosophy means the complete liberty of the mind, and therefore independence of all social, political, or religious prejudice.”
HENRI FREDERIC AMIEL
Of course, there have been many important thinkers since Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, and there were even a number of insightful thinkers before them, the “pre-Socratics” who were known as Sophos, wise men and women who posed sophisticated and penetrating questions regarding the essential principles of human life and the natural world. In addition, there have been many significant thinkers in non-Western cultures. Although the primary focus of this text is on Western philosophy, we will also be examining key ideas from philosophers in non-Western cultures.
The School of Athens, painted by the Renaissance artist Raphael for the Vatican in Rome and reproduced on page 40, depicts the ancient Greek philosophers who first embodied the spirit of philosophy in the West. In the center of the painting, under the arch, Plato points toward the heavenly realm of the ideal while Aristotle gestures toward the earth. On the left, Socrates debates Xenophon. The “pre-Socratics” are also represented, including Epicurus, Pythagoras, Diogenes, and Ptolemy. These individuals are considered to be “heroes of philosophy” by professionals in the discipline. Although the “wise” people you know may not be professional philosophers, they may very well embody the spirit of philosophy that we will be considering in this book. Who are your intellectual heroes?
“Philosophy means liberation from the two dimensions of routine, soaring above the well known, seeing it in new perspectives, arousing wonder and the wish to fly.”
WALTER KAUFMANN

Philosophy Begins with Wonder
“The feeling of wonder is the touchstone of the philosopher, and all philosophy has its origins in wonder.”
PLATO
Some definitions of philosophy focus on the source of philosophical thinking, the way philosophy encourages us to look both deeper andwider. Philosophy stimulates us to penetrate beneath the surface of daily experience while seeking a comprehensive, inclusive vision of reality.
The catalyst for thinking philosophically about one’s life is often wonder, a search for unity of knowledge, a desire to answer the great questions of life. As Plato and Aristotle observe, philosophy begins with wonder, speculation, considering “what if?,” asking that powerful question, “why?” Instead of simply accepting life as it presents itself, philosophy seeks to probe beneath the surface, question the familiar, challenge “accepted wisdom.” Where can we look for models of philosophical wonder? Children! Young children are brimming over with intellectual energy, blending innate curiosity, passionate convictions, and imaginative speculation: Not coincidentally, the essential ingredients required for thinking critically and developing a philosophical perspective on the world. “Why?” is perhaps the most penetrating question in human language and thought, and children use it liberally, sometimes driving adults to distraction. Asking “Why?” shakes up complacent attitudes, forcing us to expose hidden assumptions and to articulate the rationale for our conclusions. And other questions can help us probe beyond the surface of everyday consciousness. Here’s a brief sampler provided by my children, Jessie and Joshua, at very young ages: Why did God create life? What is at the end of space? What happens after forever? Do people still love after they die? Suppose that animals could think just as well as we could, what would the world be like? Imagine that stuffed animals had feelings, how would you treat them? Why are bad people bad?
“For it is owning to their wonder that people both now begin and at first began to philosophize.”
ARISTOTLE

“Philosophy is not a theory but an activity.”
LUDWIG WITTGENSTEIN
“Philosophy is man’s quest for the unity of knowledge: it consists in a perpetual struggle to create the concepts in which the universe can be conceived as a universe and not a multiverse.”
WILLIAM H. HALVERSON
Another catalyst for philosophy is the human desire for synthesis and integration, to “put all of the pieces together.” As the contemporary American philosopher William Halverson observes, this drive toward integration is reflected in our concept of our world as a uni verse, the conviction that there are underlying principles of thought and reality that form the structure of our experience. Philosophy has always been driven by the desire to discover these primal principles and then to apply them to make human existence more intelligible. All of us have the responsibility to confront and try to answer these profound questions as we work to craft lives of meaning and purpose.
“I do not know how to teach philosophy without becoming a disturber of the peace.”
BARUCH SPINOZA

Philosophy Is a Dynamic Process
This definition probes the dynamic nature of philosophical thinking, a process that is dialectical in the sense that ideas are continually analyzed in terms of their opposites, with the ultimate goal of creating a more enlightened synthesis.
“The beginning of philosophy is the recognition of the conflict between opinions.”
EPICTETUS
“Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.”
LUDWIG WITTGENSTEIN
As Epictetus observes, the philosophical process is powered by conflict, bringing divergent opinions together into a dynamic interaction. Which ideas make most sense? Which are clearer? Best supported? Have greater explanatory power? Are consistent with other beliefs we know to be true? Are most comprehensive? Why? As we will see in the next chapter, this ongoing process of comparing and contrasting, analyzing and synthesizing, is at the heart of the Socratic Method, a powerful approach developed and used by Socrates that is characterized by relentless questioning, clear definitions, dialectical analysis, and critical evaluation. It is the process by which we can disentangle complex issues and distinguish more informed ways of thinking from less informed. Language is a key partner of thinking, as Wittgenstein notes: A confused, illogical, and sloppy use of language leads to confused, illogical, and sloppy thinking—and vice versa. Analogously, clarity and precision in our use of language contributes to clarity and precision in our thinking—and vice versa.

Are you willing to become a “disturber of the peace”?

Philosophy gives us the tools to analyze complex issues and develop informed beliefs. These beliefs have direct applications for how we want to affect change in the world. What social issues are important to you? Are you ready to subject them to critical analysis and discussion?
In its crusade to enlighten minds and inform choices, philosophy is not confined to the classroom or “ivory towers.” The conclusions we reach by thinking philosophically have direct applications for how we live our lives in the real world. And because philosophy is committed to the truth rather than popular opinion, prevailing norms, or conventional wisdom, it means that we may indeed find ourselves, in the words of Spinoza, as “disturbers of the peace.” In the case of Socrates, and other truth-seekers like him throughout the centuries, this passion for intellectual integrity and authentic lives had grave personal consequences.
The Ultimate Aim of Philosophy
Finally, philosophy can be defined in terms of the goal of philosophical thought, which is to improve the quality of our lives by enlightening our minds. Philosophy has grand and lofty aspirations, and this undoubtedly accounts for the fascination and high regard with which it has been held. Here is a brief sampling of some of the goals proposed by philosophers:
• • The complete liberty of the mind
• • Freedom from all social, political, or religious prejudice
• • To care for the well-being of the soul
• • Answer the question, “What is it all about?”

Can philosophy really deliver on this ambitious promise? Perhaps a better question is, “Can any other discipline or approach to life do a more effective job than philosophy?” Philosophers—and many others—believe that philosophy is the one best hope we have to discover the truth to these profound questions and intimidating challenges. Philosophy is uniquely qualified, because of the historical scope of its vision and the conceptual and language tools that it employs, to help each person find his or her way to the truth of these issues. Virtually all people desire a liberated mind, an enlightened consciousness, a well-cared-for soul, a rich and fulfilling life. Philosophy provides the equipment you need to construct such a path for yourself: You need only to commit yourself to taking the philosophical journey.
“Let no young man delay the study of philosophy, and let no old man become weary of it; for it is never too early nor too late to care for the well being of the soul.”
EPICURUS
“Philosophy asks the simple question, what is it all about?”
ALFRED NORTH WHITEHEAD

1.3 Thinking Philosophically: Becoming a Critical Thinker
“Philosophy should be responsive to human experience and yet critical of the defective thinking it sometimes encounters.”
MARTHA NUSSBAUM
Socrates probably came closest to capturing the essence of philosophy when he issued a startling challenge that has reverberated through the centuries: “The unexamined life is not worth living.” The ability to reflect on one’s life and one’s self is a distinctly human ability. Philosophy provides us with the intellectual tools to reflect with clarity and discipline, to critically evaluate the choices we have made, and to use this knowledge to make more enlightened choices in the future. The stakes are high: If we fail to make use of this unique ability to think philosophically about ourselves, then, according to Socrates, our lives have diminished potential.
“Philosophy is the science which considers the truth.”
ARISTOTLE
To begin our journey of philosophical discovery, we must first distinguish between “having” a philosophy and “doing” philosophy. Every person “has” a philosophy of life—a collection of beliefs used to guide his or her thoughts and actions. For example, you may believe that it’s wrong to needlessly kill living things, or you may believe that it’s good to be kind to people in difficult circumstances. Such beliefs—and countless others that you have formed over the years of your life—influence the way you see the world and the choices that you make. You may not be aware of all your beliefs—some may be deeply buried in your unconsciousness—but they can still influence you. For instance, you may instinctively help an elderly person cross the street, without being consciously aware that your action reflects a deeply imbedded belief of yours.

“The first step toward philosophy is doubt.”
DENIS DIDEROT
Of course, an individual’s philosophy of life can also contain beliefs that are wildly inaccurate, biased, or destructive. For example, racist or sexist beliefs can be factors in a person’s philosophy of life—although many people would consider such beliefs to be unenlightened and destructive. Or someone might be convinced that aliens are living among us, planning to take over the human race—a belief that most of us would consider highly questionable.
“Doing” philosophy—thinking philosophically—means thinking critically about your beliefs to ensure that they are the most accurate and enlightened beliefs possible. For example, if your philosophy of life includes stereotyped beliefs about other races or genders, thinking critically about them would involve asking such questions as:
• • What is the factual evidence or reasons for these beliefs? Do I have a compelling rationale for saying that I “know” them to be true?
• • How did these beliefs originate? What circumstances gave rise to these beliefs?
• • Are these beliefs logical or illogical, rational or irrational?
• • If I were a member of this racial group or gender, would I still endorse these beliefs? Why or why not?
• • Are there more enlightened, accurate beliefs than mine that I should consider?

“Who am I?” “What is a self?”

The philosophical journey requires self-examination. Your responsibility as a critical thinker is to explore, reflect, and then create yourself in the image you have envisioned.
Thinking philosophically—“doing” philosophy—involves many advanced forms of thinking that we will be exploring in this book and that you will be developing in your philosophy class. But a productive place to begin is with your philosophy of life. The questions included in the following “Thinking Philosophically” box are designed to help you articulate some of the basic building blocks of your philosophy of life. You should record your responses in a philosophy journal or notebook that you keep for this course. Or your professor may request that the activity be completed in a form to be handed in or e-mailed. Here is a sample student response to the question, “What moral beliefs influence your choices?”
• I firmly believe that all animals are sentient beings, and therefore I am opposed to their being used as inanimate raw material in our mass-production agricultural system. This matter spans a much broader area than simply eating meat. Although all animal suffering is deplorable, it is important to realize that there are degrees of suffering, and in many cases animals used for the production of milk or eggs endure more pain and distress, for longer periods of time, than those raised primarily for slaughter. Many people fight against animal experimentation based on principle, and although I think they are to be commended, very often they are unaware of the strict husbandry rules that strive for humane treatment in the research field, while the hens that lay their breakfast eggs are awarded no such luxury and live in dark, dirty, overcrowded battery cages, debeaked and unable to move, laying an average of 250 eggs per year versus a natural 25, all awaiting their final two-week fast (water withheld in addition to food) to induce a final molt and lay prior to slaughter. For anything less would be quite uneconomical. I have been a vegetarian for ten years, and vegan for the last four, yet I struggle with issues of animal welfare daily. Although I sometimes fantasize of myself as Jainist, I am aware of the impossibility of leading a completely cruelty-free life and so strive to make choices that will reduce the amount of animal suffering for which I am directly responsible.
• Kasia Zarebska

“I don’t know what I think until I see myself write.”
ANNIE DILLARD
“The relation of word to thought, and the creation of new concepts, is a complex, delicate, and enigmatic process unfolding in our soul.”
LEO TOLSTOY
“I write to understand as much as to be understood.”
ELIE WIESEL

You may be wondering that because thinking is a mental activity, why is it necessary to record your thoughts in writing? The answer is that writing is a vehicle for creating and communicating your ideas, a catalyst for your intellectual development. The process of writing stimulates your mind, helps shape your thinking, and enlarges your understanding of the world. Just as significantly, writing creates a permanent record—a “snapshot”—of your thinking process at a specific point in time. You can return to your thinking snapshot as often as you wish, evaluate its logic and coherence, and use it as a foundation on which to build a more insightful understanding. The Thinking Philosophically boxes in this book are designed as springboards for your “thinking in writing” about profound ideas.
Your philosophy notebook can be an actual book or a computer file; what matters is developing the discipline and commitment to engage in the process, thinking deeply, and expressing your ideas as clearly and specifically as possible. Once you have established this pattern of thinking and writing, you will find that it will become integrated into your life in a natural and profound way, leading you to deeper insights, creative ideas, and enriched meaning. Make your philosophy notebook an integral part of your life; let it remind you to strive to think well. Expressing your ideas in your philosophy notebook should provide a stimulating, liberating experience and help you formulate and articulate your thinking.
thinking philosophically: WHAT IS YOUR PHILOSOPHY OF LIFE?
Everybody has a philosophy of life. Identify some of the foundation beliefs that form your philosophy of life, using these questions as a guide. Express your ideas as completely and clearly as you can. Think deeply and beyond superficialities and refuse to be satisfied with the first idea that you have.
• • What do you most value in life? Why?
• • What moral beliefs influence your choices and your behavior toward others? How do you determine the “right” thing to do?
• • What role do religious beliefs play in your life? Do you believe in “God”? Why or why not? Is there an afterlife? If so, what is the path to it?
• • What gives your life meaning? What is the purpose of your life? What do you hope to achieve in your life?
• • How do we find truth? How do you know when you “know” something is true? What is an example of something you know to be true?
• • Do you believe that your choices are free? Do you hold yourself responsible for your choices?
• • What do you consider to be “beautiful”? Why? What is the function of art? Should “extreme” forms of artistic expression be censored? Why or why not?
• • Are all people entitled to basic human rights? Why? What is justice?
• • What are other important beliefs in your life?

Qualities of a Critical Thinker
“He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.”
WILLIAM DRUMMOND
Your responses to the previous Thinking Philosophically activity are a sampler of your “philosophy of life.” To “do” philosophy, you have to question, scrutinize, explore, evaluate, analyze, synthesize, and apply these beliefs. You have to use higher-order thinking abilities and sophisticated language skills to determine the worthiness of these beliefs. Becoming a critical thinker changes qualitatively the way a person views the world, processes information, and makes decisions.
“Most people would rather die than think—in fact they do!”
BERTRAND RUSSELL
The word critical comes from the Greek word for “critic” (kritikos), which means to question, to make sense of, to be able to analyze. It is by questioning, making sense of, and analyzing that you examine your thinking and the thinking of others. These critical activities aid us in reaching the best possible conclusions and decisions. The word critical is also related to the word criticize, which means to question and evaluate. Unfortunately, the ability to criticize is often used destructively, to tear down someone else’s thinking. Criticism, however, can also be constructive—analyzing for the purpose of developing a better understanding of what is going on. You need to engage in constructive criticism as you develop your ability to think critically.

The best way to develop a clear and concrete idea of the critical thinker you want to become is to think about people you have known who can serve as critical thinking models. For example, I’ve been fortunate to have studied with a number of teachers who taught me what it means to be a critical thinker through the example of their lives. I considered them to be brilliant critical thinkers because of the power of their minds and their commitment to excellence. Here are some qualities that characterized these and other expert critical thinkers:
thinking philosophically: WHO ARE YOUR MODELS OF CRITICAL THINKING?
Whom would you identify as an expert critical thinker? What qualities from the list on this page does he or she exhibit? For each critical thinking quality, write down a brief example involving the person. Identifying such people helps us visualize the kind of people we’d like to emulate. As you think your way through this book, you will be creating a portrait of the kind of critical thinker you are striving to become, a blueprint you can use to direct your development and chart your progress.
• • Open-minded: In discussions they listen carefully to every viewpoint, evaluating each perspective carefully and fairly.
• • Knowledgeable: When they offer an opinion, it’s always based on facts or evidence. On the other hand, if they lack knowledge of the subject, they acknowledge this.
• • Mentally active: They take initiative and actively use their intelligence to confront problems and meet challenges, instead of simply responding passively to events.
• • Curious: They explore situations with probing questions that penetrate beneath the surface of issues, instead of being satisfied with superficial explanations.
• • Independent thinkers: They are not afraid to disagree with the group opinion. They develop well-supported beliefs through thoughtful analysis, instead of uncritically “borrowing” the beliefs of others or simply going along with the crowd.
• • Skilled discussants: They are able to discuss ideas in an organized and intelligent way. Even when the issues are controversial, they listen carefully to opposing viewpoints and respond thoughtfully.
• • Insightful: They are able to get to the heart of the issue or problem. While others may be distracted by details, they are able to zero in on the essence, seeing the “forest” as well as the “trees.”
• • Self-aware: They are aware of their own biases and are quick to point them out and take them into consideration when analyzing a situation.
• • Creative: They can break out of established patterns of thinking and approach situations from innovative directions.
• • Passionate: They have a passion for understanding and are always striving to see issues and problems with more clarity.

The Process of Critical Thinking
A critical thinker is someone who approaches life in an informed and reflective way. This approach is one that you can use in virtually every area of your life as you work to understand your experience and make informed decisions. A critical thinking approach is also appropriate in all the various academic disciplines. Understanding history, psychology, economics, biology, or any other field of study involves much more than mastering that discipline’s accumulated knowledge. Genuine understanding means using your critical thinking abilities to understand how each discipline organizes experience, provides explanations, applies concepts, and constructs knowledge. A critical thinking approach to the academic disciplines thus involves learning how to “think like a historian,” “think like a psychologist,” and so on.
“For every complex question there’s a simple answer–and it is clever, neat, and wrong.”
H. L. MENCKEN
“Just like anything else, thinking skills require upkeep. If they aren’t nourished, they’ll fade away.”
DAVID PERKINS

The same is true of philosophy. “Thinking philosophically”—what we have designated as doing philosophy—involves thinking critically about the unique areas of experience with which philosophy is concerned, areas that include the most fundamental questions and issues in human experience. What sets philosophy apart from other academic disciplines is that they all have their roots in philosophy, the “mother” of all disciplines. The same is true for critical thinking—the abilities and attitudes that characterize a critical thinker originated for the most part in philosophical inquiry.
Let’s examine this process in action by exploring how a critical thinker approaches a philosophical issue such as free will. It is the synthesis of critical thinking with philosophical subjects such as “free will” that leads to “thinking philosophically.” The process of learning to think philosophically requires ongoing practice and reflection. The following critical thinking model will help you see philosophical thinking in operation. We will be using the model to think about an important issue that confronts every human being: “Are people capable of choosing freely?”
1. STATE YOUR INITIAL POINT OF VIEW.
Reasoning always begins with a point of view. As a critical thinker and aspiring philosopher, you need to take thoughtful positions and express your views with confidence. Using this statement as a starting point: “I believe (or don’t believe) that people can choose freely because … “Here is a sample response:
• I believe that people are capable of choosing freely because when I am faced with choosing among a number of possibilities, I really have the feeling that it is up to me to make the choice that I want to.
2. DEFINE YOUR POINT OF VIEW MORE CLEARLY.
After stating your initial point of view, define the issues more clearly and specifically. The language that we use has multiple levels of meaning, and it is often not clear precisely what meaning(s) people are expressing. To avoid misunderstandings and sharpen your own thinking, you must clarify the key concepts as early as possible. In this case, the key concept is “choosing freely.” Begin by completing the following statement: “From my point of view, the concept of ‘choosing freely’ means …” Here is a sample response:

• From my point of view, the concept of “choosing freely” means that when you are faced with a number of alternatives, you are able to make your selection based solely on what you decide, not because you are being forced by other influences.
3. GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF YOUR POINT OF VIEW.
Once your point of view is clarified, you should provide an example that illustrates your meaning. The process of forming and defining concepts involves the process of generalizing (identifying general qualities) and the process of interpreting (locating specific examples). Here is a sample response:
• An example of a free choice I made was deciding what area to major in. There are a number of career directions I could have chosen, but I chose my major entirely on my own, without being forced by other influences.
4. EXPLORE THE ORIGIN OF YOUR POINT OF VIEW.
To fully understand and critically evaluate your point of view, you must review its history. How did the point of view develop? Have you always held this view, or did it develop over time? This sort of analysis will help you understand how your perspective regarding this issue was formed. Here is a sample response:
• I used to believe that everything happened because it had to, because it was determined. Then, when I was in high school, I got involved with the “wrong crowd” and developed some bad habits. I stopped doing schoolwork and even stopped attending most classes. I was on the brink of failing when I suddenly came to my senses and said to myself, “This isn’t what I want for my life.” Through sheer willpower, I turned everything around. I changed my friends, improved my habits, and ultimately graduated with flying colors. From that time on I knew that I had the power of free choice and that it was up to me to make the right choices.
5. IDENTIFY YOUR ASSUMPTIONS.
Assumptions are beliefs, often unstated, that underlie your point of view. Many disputes occur and remain unresolved because the people involved do not recognize or express their assumptions. For example, in the very emotional debate over abortion, when people who are opposed to abortion call their opponents “murderers,” they are assuming the fetus, at any stage of development from the fertilized egg onward, is a “human life,” because murder refers to the taking of a human life. On the other hand, when people in favor of abortion call their opponents “moral fascists,” they are assuming that antiabortionists are merely interested in imposing their narrow moral views on others.
Thus all parties must identify clearly the assumptions that form the foundation of their points of view. They may still end up disagreeing, but at least they will know what they are arguing about. Thinking about the issue that we have been exploring, respond by completing the following statement: “When I say that I believe (or don’t believe) in free choice, I am assuming …” Here is a sample response:
• When I say that I believe in free choice, I am assuming that people are often presented with different alternatives to choose from, and I am also assuming that they are able to select freely any of these alternatives independent of any influences.

6. OFFER THE REASONS, EVIDENCE, AND ARGUMENTS THAT SUPPORT YOUR POINT OF VIEW.
Everybody has beliefs. What distinguishes informed beliefs from uninformed beliefs is the quality of the reasons, evidence, and arguments that support the beliefs. In the next section, “Understanding Arguments,” we will take a closer look at how to evaluate the strength of your reasons, evidence, and arguments. Here is an example of an argument supporting the writer’s belief in free choice:
• Our society is based on the possibility of free choice. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be able to hold people responsible for their choices and the consequences of these choices. But we do hold people responsible, suggesting that the reality of free choice is an integral part of how humans see themselves.
7. CONSIDER OTHER POINTS OF VIEW.
One of the hallmarks of critical thinkers—and philosophers—is that they strive to view situations from perspectives other than their own, to “think empathetically” within other viewpoints, particularly those of people who disagree with their own. If we stay entrenched in our own narrow ways of viewing the world, the development of our minds will be severely limited. Empathetic thinking is the only way to achieve a full understanding of life’s complexities. In working to understand other points of view, we need to identify the reasons, evidence, and arguments that have brought people to these conclusions. Here is a sample response:
• Another point of view on this issue might be that our choices are influenced by people around us, although we may not be fully aware of it. For example, we may go along with a group decision of our friends, mistakenly thinking that we are making an independent choice. Or in a more general way, our ways of thinking may have been conditioned by our family and culture over time, so that while we think we’re making free choices, we’re really not.

Of course, simply listening and trying to understand other perspectives is not enough: We need to respond to other points of view, explaining why we are unconvinced by these conflicting views and the arguments that support them. Here’s a possible response:
• I agree that there may sometimes be influences on our thinking and choices of which we are not aware. Sometimes when we look back we can see that our reactions in a given situation were influenced by unconscious motivations or by social conditioning. But I believe that we can escape the influence of these factors by becoming aware and choosing to transcend their power over us. This is where critical thinking comes in: using our thinking abilities to understand ourselves and the forces at work on us so that we can make genuinely free choices.
8. ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSION, DECISION, SOLUTION, OR PREDICTION.
The ultimate purpose of critical thinking is to reach an informed and successful conclusion, decision, solution, or prediction. With respect to the sample issue we have been considering—determining whether we can make free choices—the goal is to achieve a thoughtful conclusion. This is a complex process of analysis and synthesis in which we consider all points of view; evaluate the supporting reasons, evidence, and arguments; and then construct our most informed conclusion. We may find that our initial point of view changes as we work through the steps. The next section, “Understanding Arguments,” will help you evaluate the strength of your conclusions. Here is a sample response:
• After examining different points of view and critically evaluating the reasons, evidence, and arguments that support the various perspectives, my conclusion about free choice is that we are capable of making free choices but that our freedom is sometimes limited. For example, many of our actions are conditioned by our past experience, and we are often influenced by other people without being aware of it. To make free choices, we need to become aware of these influences and then decide what course of action we want to choose. As long as we are unaware of these influences, they can limit our ability to make free, independent choices.

thinking philosophically: APPLYING THE CRITICAL THINKING MODEL
Identify an issue that is important to you and apply the critical thinking model to analyze it:
• • What is your initial point of view?
• • How can you define your point of view more clearly?
• • What is an example of your point of view?
• • What is the origin of your point of view?
• • What are your assumptions?
• • What are the reasons, evidence, and arguments that support your point of view?
• • What are other points of view on this issue?
• • What is your conclusion, decision, solution, or prediction?
• • What are the consequences?
9. CONSIDER THE CONSEQUENCES.
The final step in the reasoning process is to determine the consequences of our conclusion, decision, solution, or prediction. The consequences refer to what is likely to happen if our conclusion is adopted. Looking ahead in this fashion is helpful not simply for anticipating the future but for evaluating the present. Here is a sample response:
The consequences of believing in free choice involve increasing personal responsibility and showing people how to increase their freedom. The first consequence is that if people are able to make free choices, then they are responsible for the results of their choices. They can’t blame other people, bad luck, or events “beyond their control.” They have to accept responsibility. The second consequence is that although our freedom can be limited by influences of which we are unaware, we can increase our freedom by becoming aware of these influences and then deciding what we want to do. On the other hand, if people are not able to make free choices, then they are not responsible for what they do, nor are they able to increase their freedom. This could lead people to adopt an attitude of resignation and apathy.

1.4 Understanding Arguments

Thinking philosophically requires the ability to analyze your own reasoning as well as the reasoning of others. As one of the central branches of philosophy, logic seeks to establish the rules of correct reasoning, clear understanding, and valid argumentation. It addresses such questions as what are the principles of correct reasoning and how do people use incorrect reasoning to reach false conclusions? Over the centuries, philosophers working in the field of logic have systematized the study of reasoning, developing it into a powerful and rewarding system of analysis. This section presents a brief practical introduction to the more structured field of logic as represented in the way we construct and evaluate arguments.
The Structure of Arguments
Katherine: Did you hear about the group of animal-rights activists who were sentenced to two years in prison for breaking into a laboratory where they experiment on animals? All they wanted to do was rescue those unfortunate creatures—which they did. That’s no reason for convicting them of breaking and entering, robbery, and malicious destruction of property. And a sentence of two years … you must agree that’s crazy! After all, even people convicted of serious crimes often don’t get punished like that. Everything I know about the case leads me to believe that they should receive a public service award for what they did, not a prison sentence. I believe that causing animals pain by experimenting on them is morally wrong, and it is for that reason I conclude that you sometimes have to act on your conscience even if it conflicts with the law.
Maria: Well, first of all, they did know the risks going in. And secondly, they did break the law and effectively destroyed many of the experiments the lab was working on. Without the animals, they’re going to have to start over. As a result, I don’t think two years is too harsh a sentence. After all, suppose that a group you didn’t agree with broke in and caused damage to a business—would you be so sympathetic then? Doesn’t that suggest that what they did was wrong and they ought to be punished? Furthermore, don’t we have to set a clear example to society that illegal and destructive actions will not be tolerated, no matter what the reason?
This brief exchange is an illustration of two people engaging in dialogue, a systematic exchange of ideas. Participating in this sort of dialogue with others is one of the keys to thinking critically because it encourages you to see issues from various perspectives and to develop reasons to support your conclusions. It is this last quality of thinking critically—supporting conclusions with reasons—that we will be exploring in this section. When we offer reasons to support a conclusion, we are presenting an argument.

Argument A form of thinking in which certain statements (reasons) are offered in support of another statement (a conclusion).
In common speech, “argument” usually refers to a dispute or quarrel between people, often involving intense feelings (for example: “I got into a terrible argument with the idiot who hit the back of my car”). In philosophy, an argument is a form of thinking in which certain statements (reasons or premises) are offered in support of another statement (a conclusion).
Reasons or Premises Statements that support another statement (known as a conclusion), justify it, or make it more probable.
Conclusion A statement that explains, asserts, or predicts on the basis of statements (known as reasons or premises) that are offered as evidence for it.

In the dialogue between Katherine and Maria, each person presents an argument about what constitutes a just punishment for the illegal actions a group of animal rights activists. Katherine’s argument can be summarized as follows:
• Reason: When they acted to remove the animals from the testing laboratory, the group believed they were taking an ethically correct action.
• Reason: There are other more serious crimes for which the offenders don’t receive such stiff sentences.
• Reason: Sometimes you have to follow the dictates of your conscience even if that means disagreeing with an existing law, and my conscience tells me that causing animals unnecessary pain is wrong and should be halted.
• Conclusion: Therefore, a two-year sentence is an unjust punishment for the actions they committed.
Maria’s opposing argument can also be framed in terms of reasons and a conclusion:
• Reason: The group did know, or should have known, the risks (and potential punishment) when they took action against the laboratory.
• Reason: The group did in fact break the law and destroyed experiments that the laboratory had been conducting.
• Reason: Katherine might come to a different conclusion if she did not agree with the reason or “cause” that was motivating the group.
• Reason: Sometimes we have to set a clear example to society that illegal and destructive actions will not be tolerated, no matter what the reason.
• Conclusion: I don’t think that two years is too harsh a sentence.

Our language provides guidance in our efforts to identify reasons and conclusions. Certain key words, known as cue words, signal that a reason is being offered in support of a conclusion or that a conclusion is being announced on the basis of certain reasons. For example, in the brief exchange between Katherine and Maria, here are some cue words and phrases that signal a reason is being offered in support of a conclusion: it’s for that reason; after all; first of all; secondly; furthermore. And here are some cue words and phrases that signal that a conclusion is being offered based on certain reasons: you must agree; leads me to believe; I conclude; as a result; doesn’t that suggest. Here is a list of some other commonly used cue words for reasons and conclusions:
Cue Words Signaling Reasons
since in view of for because
as shown by may be inferred from as indicated by may be deduced from
given that may be derived from assuming that for the reason that
after all first of all secondly furthermore
Cue Words Signaling Conclusions

therefore then thus it follows that/
hence thereby showing demonstrates that as a result
allows us to infer (which) proves that suggests strongly (which) shows
you see that/ points to consequently implies that
agree that leads me to believe
Of course, identifying reasons, conclusions, and arguments involves more than looking for cue words. The words and phrases listed here do not always signal reasons and conclusions, and in many cases arguments are made without the use of cue words. However, cue words do help alert us that an argument is being made.
Evaluating Arguments
Arguments are evaluated in terms of their effectiveness or soundness through a process that investigates both the truth of the reasons and the validity of the conclusion. This evaluation centers on the following questions:
• 1. How true are the reasons being offered to support the conclusion?
• 2. To what extent do the reasons support the conclusion, or to what extent does the conclusion follow from the reasons offered?
• 3. Does the argument pass the tests of both truth and validity?

TRUTH: HOW TRUE ARE THE SUPPORTING REASONS?
The first aspect of the argument you must evaluate is the truth of the reasons that are being used to support a conclusion. Does each reason make sense? What evidence is being offered as part of each reason? Do you know each reason to be true based on your experience? Is each reason based on a source that can be trusted? You use these questions and others like them to analyze the reasons offered and to determine how true they are. Typically, evaluating the sort of beliefs usually found as reasons in arguments is a complex and ongoing challenge.
VALIDITY: DO THE REASONS SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION?
In addition to determining whether the reasons are true, evaluating arguments involves investigating the relationship between the reasons and the conclusion. When the reasons support the conclusion so that the conclusion follows from the reasons being offered, the argument is considered to be valid. (In formal logic, the term validity is reserved for deductively valid arguments in which the conclusions follownecessarily from the premises, which we will discuss in the next section.) If, however, the reasons do not support the conclusion so that the conclusion does not follow from the reasons being offered, the argument is considered to be invalid. For example, someone might make the following argument, which is invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the reasons offered.
Valid argument An argument in which the reasons support the conclusion so that the conclusion follows from the reasons offered.
Invalid argument An argument in which the reasons do not support the conclusion so that the conclusion does not follow from the reasons offered.

• Reason: Company X will not consider alternatives to animal testing.
• Reason: Company X makes products that are inferior.
• Conclusion: It is ethically wrong for this company to experiment on animals.
One way to focus on the concept of validity is to assume that all the reasons in the argument are true and then try to determine how probably they make the conclusion.
SOUNDNESS: DOES THE ARGUMENT PASS THE TESTS OF BOTH TRUTH AND VALIDITY?
When an argument includes both true reasons and a valid structure, the argument is considered to be sound. When an argument has either false reasons or an invalid structure, however, the argument is considered to be unsound. For example, consider the following argument:
Sound argument An argument that has both true reasons and a valid structure.
Unsound argument An argument that has either false reasons or an invalid structure.

• Reason: For a democracy to function most effectively, its citizens should be able to think critically about the important social and political issues.
• Reason: Education plays a key role in developing critical thinking abilities.
• Conclusion: Therefore, education plays a key role in ensuring that a democracy is functioning most effectively.
A good case could be made for the soundness of this argument because the reasons are persuasive and the argument structure is valid. Of course, someone might contend that one or both of the reasons are not completely true, which illustrates an important point about the arguments we construct and evaluate. Many of the arguments we encounter in life fall somewhere between complete soundness and complete unsoundness because we are often not sure if our reasons are completely true.
Deductive Arguments
Philosophers have classified arguments into two different categories, deductive arguments and inductive arguments. We will focus first ondeductive arguments, which are those most commonly associated with the study of logic. In a deductive argument, if the argument form is valid, and if you accept the supporting reasons (also called premises) as true, then you must necessarily accept the conclusion as true. For example, consider the following famous deductive argument:
Deductive argument An argument form in which one reasons from premises that are known or assumed to be true to a conclusion that follows necessarily from these premises.

• Reason/Premise: All men are mortal.
• Reason/Premise: Socrates is a man.
• Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
This argument is structured according to a valid argument form called the categorical syllogism, which we will examine next. Because the form is valid, accepting the premises of the argument as true means that the conclusion necessarily follows; it cannot be false. There are also, however, a large number of invalid deductive forms, one of which is illustrated in the following syllogism:
• Reason/Premise: All men are mortal.
• Reason/Premise: Socrates is a man.
• Conclusion: Therefore, all men are Socrates.
The following are some common valid deductive argument forms.
CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM.
A syllogism is an argument form that consists of two supporting premises and a conclusion. In a categorical syllogism, the premises and conclusion are all categorical statements, that is, statements about a category of things. In the example below, the categories are men andthings that are mortal.
Syllogism An argument form that consists of two premises and a conclusion.

• Premise: All A (men) are B (mortal).
• Premise: S in an A (Socrates is a man).
• Conclusion: Therefore, S is B (Socrates is mortal).
MODUS PONENS.
A second valid deductive form that we commonly use in our thinking goes by the name modus ponens—that is, “affirming the antecedent.” The antecedent is the first part of a hypothetical statement: “If I have prepared thoroughly.” The second part of a hypothetical statement is known as the consequent: “then I will do well.” In this kind of syllogism, a hypothetical statement is presented in the first premise, and the conditions of the antecedent are affirmed in the second premise.
• Premise: If A (I have prepared thoroughly), then B (I will do well).
• Premise: A (I have prepared thoroughly).
• Conclusion: Therefore, B (I will do well).
MODUS TOLLENS.
A third commonly used valid deductive form has the name modus tollens—that is, “denying the consequence.” Again, the first premise is a hypothetical statement (if/then), but the second premise focuses on the consequent (the then part of the statement). The conditions of the consequent are denied in the second premise.

• Premise: If A (Janice is a really good friend), then B (She will remember my birthday).
• Premise: Not B (Janice did not remember my birthday).
• Conclusion: Therefore, not A (Janice doesn’t really care about me).
DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM.
A fourth common form of a valid deductive argument is known as a disjunctive syllogism. The term disjunctive means presenting alternatives, as in the first premise of our example below. The second premise denies one of the alternatives and the conclusion affirms the remaining option.
• Premise: Either A (I left my wallet on my dresser) or B (I must have lost it).
• Premise: Not A (The wallet is not on my dresser).
• Conclusion: Therefore B (I have lost it).
Inductive Arguments
The previous section focused on deductive reasoning, an argument form in which one reasons from premises to a conclusion that follows necessarily from the premises. In this section we will examine inductive reasoning, an argument form in which one reasons from premises to a conclusion that is supported by the premises but does not follow necessarily from them. When you reason inductively, your premises provide evidence that makes it more or less probable (but not certain) that the conclusion is true. Consider these two conclusions arrived at using inductive reasoning:

Inductive argument An argument form in which one reasons from premises that are known or assumed to be true to a conclusion that is supported by the premises but does not necessarily follow from them.
• The solar system is probably the result of an enormous explosion—a “big bang”—that occurred billions of years ago.
• On the average, a person with a college degree will earn over $1,340,000 more in his or her lifetime than a person with just a high school diploma.
The first statement, about the origins of the solar system, is an example of a conclusion arrived at by causal reasoning. In this form of induction, an event (e.g., the creation of the solar system) is claimed to be the result of the occurrence of another event (e.g., the “big bang”). The evidence used to support this conclusion is too lengthy and complex to present here, but it is based on inferences drawn from observation. As you use your thinking abilities to try to understand the world you live in, you often ask the question “Why did that happen?” You assume that there is some factor (or factors) responsible for what is occurring, some cause (or causes) that results in the effect (or effects) you are observing. Causal reasoning is thus one of the basic patterns of thinking we use to organize and make sense of our experience.

Causal reasoning A form of inductive argument in which one event is claimed to be the result of the occurrence of another event.
The second statement, about the earning difference of two groups of people, is an example of a conclusion drawn from a type of inductive reasoning called empirical generalization. Empirical generalization involves reasoning from a limited sample to a general conclusion based on this sample. Ideally, researchers would interview everyone in the target population (in this case, wage earners), but this, of course, is hardly practical. Instead, they select a relatively small group of individuals from the target population, known as a sample, whom they have determined to adequately represent the group as a whole. For this type of reasoning to be valid, the sample size needs to be sufficient and the people sampled need to be truly representative of the target population. Researchers who use this method of reasoning have developed guidelines for judging the size and representativeness of samples.
Empirical generalization A form of inductive reasoning in which a general statement is made about an entire group (the “target population”) based on observing some members of the group (the “sample population”).

Informal Fallacies
To this point, we have been examining ways of reasoning which are logical and effective. However, there are other forms of reasoning that are not logical and, as a result, are usually not effective. These ways of pseudo-reasoning (false reasoning) are termed fallacies: arguments that are not sound because of various errors in reasoning. Fallacious reasoning is typically used to influence others. It seeks to persuade not on the basis of sound arguments and critical thinking but rather on the basis of emotional and illogical factors. There are many different kinds of fallacies that have been identified and catalogued over the centuries. In the next chapter, we will observe some of them being used by the opponents of Socrates, and other fallacies will come up in later chapters. For now, here is an overview of some common fallacies.
Fallacies Unsound arguments that are often persuasive because they usually appeal to our emotions and prejudices and because they often support conclusions that we want to believe are accurate.
FALLACIES OF FALSE GENERALIZATION.
This group of fallacies arises from errors in reaching a general conclusion from a group of particulars and in applying general ideas to specific instances:
• • Hasty generalization: As the name implies, this type of fallacy occurs when people try to reach a general conclusion too quickly, lacking a sufficient number of instances in the sample population to legitimately justify generalization to the target population. For example:
o My boyfriends have never shown any real concern for my feelings. My conclusion is that men are insensitive, selfish, and emotionally superficial.
o In my philosophy class we have been examining some of the obstacles to discovering truth. Therefore I conclude that it is impossible to ever discover truth.
• • Sweeping generalization: Another error in making generalizations involves the failure to take into account exceptions to the rule, “sweeping” the exceptions into a larger group.

o Vigorous exercise contributes to overall good health. Therefore, vigorous exercise should be practiced by recent heart attack victims, people who are out of shape, and women who are about to give birth.
o People should be allowed to make their own decisions, providing that their actions do not harm other people. Therefore, people who are trying to commit suicide should be left alone to do what they want.
• • False dilemma: This fallacy—also known as the “either/or” fallacy or the “black-or-white” fallacy—occurs when we are asked to choose between two extreme alternatives without being able to consider additional options. For example, someone may say, “Either we are completely free to make choices or everything we do is determined by factors outside our control and we have no freedom whatsoever. There’s nothing in between.”
CAUSAL FALLACIES.
In our attempts to make sense of the world, we are in a constant state of attributing causes to events and situations. Here are a few common fallacies that may arise when we connect cause and effect without thinking critically:

• • Questionable cause: The fallacy of questionable cause occurs when someone presents a causal relationship for which no real evidence exists. Superstitious beliefs, such as bad luck resulting from breaking mirrors, walking under ladders, or encountering black cats usually fall into this category, as does dreaming the winning lottery numbers. Many people feel that astrology, a system of beliefs tying one’s personality and fortunes in life to the position of the planets at the moment of birth, also falls into this category.
• • Misidentification of the cause: In causal situations we are not always certain about what is causing what—in other words, what is the cause and what is the effect? Misidentifying the cause is easy to do. For example, which are the causes and which are the effects in the following pairs of items? Why?
o • Drug dependency and emotional difficulties
o • Shyness and lack of confidence
o • Failure in school and personal problems
• • Post hoc ergo propter hoc: The translation of this Latin phrase is “After it, therefore because of it,” and it refers to those situations in which, because two things occur close together in time, we assume that one caused the other. For example, if your team wins the game each time you wear your favorite shirt, you might be tempted to conclude that the one event (wearing your favorite shirt) has some influence on the other event (winning the game). As a result, you might continue to wear this shirt “for good luck.”
• • Slippery slope: Slippery slope thinking asserts that one undesirable action will inevitably lead to a worse action, which will necessarily lead to a worse one still, all the way down the “slippery slope.” Although this progression may indeed happen, there is certainly no causal guarantee that it will. This fallacy is illustrated in the following advice:
o If you get behind on one credit card payment, it won’t be long before you’ll be behind on all of your bills and you’ll gradually lose control of your finances. In time your telephone and electricity will be turned off, and you’ll eventually get evicted from your apartment. You’ll have to drop out of school, your friends will desert you, and your life will be in shambles. You’ll live out the rest of your life as a homeless person, wandering the streets.

FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE.
Many fallacious arguments appeal for support to factors that have little or nothing to do with the argument being offered and so are labeled “fallacies of relevance.” In these cases, false appeals substitute for sound reasoning and a critical examination of the issues.
Have you experienced the appeal to authority?

Many people look to Oprah Winfrey and Dr. Phil for advice on the choices they need to make in their lives. Does this make sense?
• • Appeal to authority/tradition/bandwagon: Fallacies of this sort appeal to opinions outside of oneself to justify conclusions, rather than basing conclusions on critical analysis. Appeal to authority argues that we should agree with a point of view simply because it is endorsed by an “authority.” But authorities often conflict with one another, and in the final analysis we have to weigh all of the evidence and come to our own reasoned points of view, not uncritically believe what we are being told. Analogously, the fallacy ofappeal to tradition argues that a practice or way of thinking is “better” or right simply because it is traditional and it has “always been done that way.” Although traditional beliefs often express some truth or wisdom, they are also often misguided or false, as in traditional beliefs about the inferiority of women or minority groups. Finally, the fallacy bandwagon relies on the uncritical acceptance of other opinions because “everyone believes it.” People experience this all the time through peer pressure, when an unpopular view is squelched and modified by the group opinion. Of course, popularity is no guarantee of accuracy.
• • Appeal to emotion: This family of fallacies appeals to various emotions to encourage or manipulate others into agreement. It includes appeal to pity (“If you don’t give me an A, I’ll lose my scholarship”); appeal to fear (“If you don’t support my plan, the enemy will be emboldened”); and appeal to flattery (“Someone as smart as you can surely see the merits of my argument”).
• • Appeal to personal attack: This has been one of the most frequently used fallacies through the ages. Its effectiveness results from ignoring the issues of the argument and focusing instead on the personal qualities of the person making the opposing argument. This fallacy is also referred to as the ad hominem argument, which means “to the man” rather than “to the issue,” and poisoning the wellbecause the arguer tries to ensure that any water (argument) drawn from the opponent’s well (mind) will be treated as undrinkable (unsound).

thinking philosophically: EVALUATING ARGUMENTS
The media are fertile ground for hunting down fallacies because so many groups are interested in manipulating and influencing your thinking at any cost. Advertisers want you to buy their products; networks want you to watch their shows; politicians want you to support their careers; televangelists are hoping to gather you into their fold; and so on. Embark on a “fallacy hunt” and locate examples of five different kinds of fallacies illustrated in the media (newspapers, magazines, television, Internet). In each case, write an analysis of how the source is using fallacious reasoning to influence your thinking and behavior. After you’ve completed the project, pay special attention to how becoming aware of the ways fallacious reasoning is used helps us become aware of it and resist its subtle—and not so subtle—manipulation.
• • Red herring: Also known as “smoke screen” and “wild goose chase,” the red herring fallacy is committed by introducing an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the original issue being discussed. For example: “I really don’t believe that grade inflation is a significant problem in education. Everybody wants to be liked, and teachers are just trying to get students to like them.”

1.5 Branches of Philosophy
The investigations of philosophers over the centuries in many cultures can be classified by the questions that they explored. Described below are the traditional branches of philosophy, along with some of the central questions that they are endeavoring to answer. Of course, these divisions are somewhat artificial because philosophical issues and modes of inquiry overlap and interrelate. But there is also value to organizing them into coherent categories.
For some people, philosophy has a reputation of being removed from daily life, concerned with abstract questions to which there are no answers and about which most people don’t really care. And philosophers are sometimes stereotyped as impractical dreamers, with their heads in the clouds, separated from the lives and concerns of average people. The truth is that Western philosophy began in ancient Greece as a very practical activity, designed to help people better understand the world around them and to serve as a guide in living enlightened lives. In fact, Socrates spent his days in the public marketplace (the agora), discussing philosophical issues with all who were willing and challenging them to live reflective, virtuous lives. And, after all these centuries, the true spirit of philosophy remains at the core of our lives, helping us make sense of our world and create purposeful lives.
Major Branches of Philosophy
Branch of Philosophy Major Questions
Metaphysics: the study of the ultimate characteristics of reality or existence What is the nature of reality?
What is the nature of the self?
How are the mind and body related to each other?
Do we have personal freedom or are our choices limited?
What are the arguments for and against the existence of God?
Is there life after death?
Does life have meaning?
Epistemology: the study of knowledge, identifying and developing criteria and methodologies for what we know and why we know it What is truth?
Can we ever really know anything?

The questions and issues included in the various branches of philosophy are central to how you live your life: the way you think, the choices you make, the way you relate to other people, the issues you analyze, the problems you try to solve. In this section, we’ll introduce the various branches of philosophy, each of which will be explored in depth in the chapters that follow. As you learn about the subjects of philosophical inquiry, consider the ways in which philosophy might influence your daily life in practical and profound ways.
Metaphysics
Metaphysics involves the study of the most general or ultimate characteristics of reality or existence. It explores issues beyond the physical world such as the meaning of life, the existence of free will, the nature of mind, the fundamental principles of the universe, and the possibility of life beyond death. The philosopher Bertrand Russell provides the following definition:
• Metaphysics, or the attempt to conceive the world as a whole by means of thought, has been developed, from the first, by the union and conflict of two very different impulses, the one urging men towards mysticism, the other urging them toward science.
In other words, humans are motivated to understand the world of their experience in ways that are scientifically valid and clearly delineated. However, many of the most compelling issues in our lives are resistant to scientific analysis and evaluation. One doesn’t discover the meaning of life, the possibility of freedom, or the existence of an afterlife with microscopes and test tubes. We need to develop other means of investigation in order to discover these more elusive “mystical” dimensions of human life.
What is the nature of the “self”? is a question that is at the core of metaphysical inquiry. We will begin our study of metaphysics with this question in Chapter 3. Do people have souls? What is a “mind”? What essential qualities make each of us unique? Related to the nature of the “self” is the question of how are the mind and body related to each other? How does the mind influence the body and vice versa? What are the implications of the recent research on the relations between mind and brain? The surprisingly elusive questions “Who am I?” and “What is the nature of my ‘self’?” are the catalysts for living, and our success—or lack of success—influences every dimension of our lives. Even though we’ve been living with our “selves” our entire lives, we are still often strangers to our selves, as Friedrich Nietzsche observed: “We are unknown, we knowers, ourselves to ourselves; this has good reason. We have never searched for ourselves….” Just as relevant are the questions of how the self develops and what power we have to shape the person we want to become, questions that represent the intersection of personal identity, the nature of free choice, and the meaning of life.

Thus another important question for metaphysics is one that we will explore in Chapter 4, namely, Do we have free wills that enable us to make independent choices? Or are all of our actions determined by causes beyond our control? In what ways is our freedom limited? Can we increase our freedom by eliminating internal and external constraints?
Many people have naïve and inaccurate beliefs regarding their personal freedom. They often lack awareness of the many ways their freedom is limited and what they can do to increase their freedom. For example, we often find ourselves in limiting situations that we assume are beyond our control. Yet we have often contributed to creating these circumstances, and we can change them by making different choices. If you find yourself dissatisfied with your financial situation, your social group, your major—or virtually any other area of your life—there are likely alternative choices available that you haven’t thought about or considered. Studying philosophy can encourage you to expand your thinking, use your imagination to create new ways of viewing your current reality as well as future possibilities, and stimulate your imagination to create new ideas and alternatives.
thinking philosophically: ARE YOU WILLING TO QUESTION YOUR BELIEFS?
Reflect on some of your most closely held beliefs regarding “who” you are, whether you have a free will, your view of reality, and your religious beliefs. Why are beliefs in these areas often so difficult to explore deeply and critically? Have some of these beliefs been “off limits” for questioning? Can you envision the benefits of putting these beliefs to the test in order to create a rock-solid foundation for your philosophy of life?
One of the central questions metaphysics addresses is What is the nature of reality? Does the world exist independent of our perception of it? Do people experience the same or different realities? Is there an “ultimate” reality in the universe? The ancient Greek philosopher Plato offered a powerful metaphor that symbolically portrays the nature of reality and the path to enlightenment. According to Plato, most people do not experience genuine reality: Instead, they are restricted to seeing images created by others, designed to shape their minds and manipulate their thinking. We will explore this notion, embodied in Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, in Chapter 5. These issues are particularly relevant in the world today, when so much of our information about the world is filtered through the media. The information presented is always biased in the sense that those in charge have selected what information to include and the particular interpretation, spin, or slant they give it. In many cases, people passively accept the information they are given, placing themselves in jeopardy of attitude manipulation. How can studying philosophy help avoid this danger? By teaching us to critically evaluate the validity and objectivity of information, explore multiple perspectives, and develop independent and well-founded beliefs that we can use to guide our choices.

“The way God has been thought of for thousands of years is no longer convincing; if anything is dead, it can only be the traditional thought of God.”
HANNAH ARENDT
The nature of religious beliefs is also a metaphysical issue, addressing such questions as Does God exist? If so, what is the nature of God? Is there more than one God? Is God the same for different people? What is God’s relation to human events? What is the nature of divine revelation? If there is a God, why does God allow evil? A related area concerns the question Is there life after death? Is there life before birth? Is there communication between those who have died and those currently alive? Chapter 7 explores how different thinkers have addressed these questions in the philosophy of religion.
“The nature of God is a circle whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere.”
SAINT AUGUSTINE
Studying philosophy is not for the fainthearted—it requires uncommon courage to be willing to question some of your most closely held beliefs, as religious beliefs often are. But acting courageously in search of the truth is also a liberating and intoxicating experience. Why? Because being willing to question your beliefs puts you in control of your own intellectual destiny. You are no longer dependent on others to tell you what to think and believe—you have taken that authority for yourself. And because you are willing to follow the logic of your own reasoning, you are assured of reaching conclusions that are thoughtful, well-founded, and, most significantly, completely your own. You will have the confidence to discuss your beliefs in the arena of public opinion because you have already scrutinized the validity of your beliefs. And because your commitment is to the truth, rather than someone else’s agenda, you are open to revising your beliefs based on clearer thinking or more compelling reasons. Commitment to the truth does, in fact, “set you free,” and it gives you an unshakeable sense of intellectual security. You know what you believe, and you know why you believe it. And that confidence stimulates you to continue expanding your mind through a process of courageous questioning.

“There is no absolute knowledge. And those who claim it, whether scientists or dogmatists, open the door to tragedy. All information is imperfect, we have to treat it with humility. That is the human condition.”
JACOB BRONOWSKI
Epistemology
thinking philosophically HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS TRUE?
Reflect on your approach to the information you receive from the sources in your life: friends, family, teachers, books, television, newspapers, the Internet, magazines, and so on. How often do you make a special effort to question, analyze, and critically evaluate the information? How often do you tend to simply accept the information in the form it’s provided? In what ways would taking a more critical thinking approach to information help you arrive at well-supported knowledge?
Epistemology is the theory of knowledge. It seeks to establish a framework that we can use to arrive at genuine and accurate understanding. This involves identifying and developing criteria and methodologies for determining what we know and why we know it. Metaphysics and epistemology are interdependent, and answering the questions in the one area frequently involves answering the questions in the other area. For example, discovering the nature of reality, as one escaping from Plato’s cave, necessarily involves addressing questions of knowledge and truth. These integrated areas of metaphysics and epistemology are explored in Chapters 5 and 6.

The most basic question that epistemology seeks to answer is, Can we ever really know anything? How do we know when we don’tknow something? What is the difference between “belief” and “knowledge”? Why do some people believe that we’re “drowning” in information, but we’re “starved” for knowledge? Many people today believe that their opinions have value, no matter how uninformed and unsubstantiated, merely because they are their opinions. But from the standpoint of epistemology, beliefs have no real standing until they are evaluated by rigorous criteria in order to determine if they are worth endorsing.
“Unless you expect the unexpected you will never find truth, for it cannot be found by search or trail.”
HERACLITUS
The question What is truth? is naturally related to epistemology’s quest for knowledge. What are the roles of reason and experience in constructing knowledge and determining truth? Does truth evolve or is it unchanging? Can there be different “truths” for different people?
“The truth is cruel, but it can be loved, and it makes free those who have loved it.”
GEORGE SANTAYANA

We’re bombarded with information on a daily basis, and much of that information is false, incomplete, and/or biased. Studying philosophy gives you the thinking tools needed to sift through this tangled morass of information and arrive at knowledge that is clear, insightful, and well supported with reasons and evidence. The fact is that all information is “biased” in the sense that it reflects the needs and interests of the sources providing it. To construct intelligent knowledge, we need to become aware of the “lenses” through which we and others view the world, lenses that shape and influence our points of view. Additionally, we should never be content with just one point of view. Instead, we should always strive to view situations and issues from a variety of contrasting perspectives to develop a well-rounded and balanced understanding. Unfortunately, many people tend to accept uncritically the information they encounter, lacking both the initiative and thinking tools to analyze and evaluate it.
Ethics
“There is therefore but one categorical imperative, namely, this: Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
IMMANUEL KANT
Ethics involves the study of moral values and principles. The study of ethics is derived from the Greek word ethos, which refers to moral purpose or “character”—as in “a person of upstanding character.” Ethics and morals are terms that refer to the principles that govern our relationships with other people: the ways we ought to behave, the rules and standards that we should employ in the choices we make.
The question of How should we treat other people? is central to the study of ethics. Are there universal moral values that apply to all people? Or are moral values relative to cultural norms or personal preferences? What moral principles should we use to guide our decisions?
What are our moral responsibilities?

The study of ethics explores our obligations to act in the interest of others as well as ourselves. Do you think we are “our brothers’ keepers”? Or do you believe in “every man for himself”?

Ethics is also concerned with questions related to the purpose of life, such as Is there a “good life” for humans? Do we have moral responsibilities to others? Are we our “brothers’” and “sisters’” keepers? What is the ultimate goal of our lives? How can we achieve our moral potential?
The question of What is the relation between moral values and religion? is another issue that has been a focus of ethics throughout history. What role does belief in a divine being play in moral conduct? Does one need to believe in God to be a moral person? Why do different religions agree about many moral values? Why do they disagree? What is the foundation for a humanistic code of ethics?
On a more practical, day-to-day level, ethics is also concerned with How do we decide on the moral rightness of social issues? such as capital punishment, euthanasia, lying, human rights, abortion, cloning, pornography, and so on. Slavery was once legal and considered to be morally acceptable by many people in the United States. Were these people morally wrong, or did the moral rules change? How can we determine the right views on moral issues that we are confronted with in today’s world? In Chapter 9, we will consider a social issue—do animals have rights? Does the ethical principle on which human equality rests also apply to other beings?
“An action then may be said to be conformable to the principle of utility … when the tendency it has to augment the happiness of the community is greater than any it has to diminish it.”
JEREMY BENTHAM
Creating yourself to be a wise and knowledgeable person entails developing an enlightened moral compass that will guide your decisions. People typically rely on what they “feel” is right when faced with challenging moral dilemmas. But how we “feel” is an unreliable moral guide. The only way to ensure that we are making informed and appropriate moral decisions is to develop a clear ethical code that we can use to guide us, as a student observes in the following passage:
“Live not as though there were a thousand years ahead of you. Fate is at your elbow; make yourself good while life and power are still yours.”
MARCUS AURELIUS

thinking philosophically DO YOU HAVE A MORAL PHILOSOPHY?
Think about some of the particularly confusing and challenging moral decisions that you’ve had to make in your life. What made these decisions so difficult? Do you believe that you have a clear and accurate moral compass that you can use to guide you when complicated moral dilemmas arise in the future? What are some of the moral areas of your life in which you would like to have a clearer set of values?
• Taking this class has enlightened my moral compass and provided me with a moral foundation which I will cultivate throughout my lifetime. Before I began reflecting on my moral values, I made choices based on if I “felt” they were the right things to do. I never gave much thought to my decisions or the reasons for them, only that they were right for me and that they did not impose on other people. Now that I have studied the ethical principles of several philosophers, I will approach moral dilemmas with a clearer understanding of why I make the choices I do. The teachings of Immanuel Kant have made me realize that I should not consider my actions as affecting only me; that I should also consider the consequences affecting any other people involved: “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only.” Finally, in whatever choices I make, I am aware that I must take responsibility for the consequences, whether good or bad.
• Joshua Bartlett

Political and Social Philosophy
Political and social philosophy involves the study of social values and political forms of government. It explores the various ways in which people should organize and govern themselves. This involves analyzing the values on which society should be based and the role of social justice and individual rights. Questions debated by political and social philosophers will be explored in Chapter 10, “What Is Social Justice?”
“Politics must conform to the essence and aims of society, not to the passions of rulers.”
PAUL HENRI THIRY, BARON D’HOLBACH
One of the core questions of this branch of philosophy is what is the most enlightened form of government? Who has the right to exercise power? What are the limits of the state?
“It is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal.”
ARISTOTLE
A related question but one that has more immediate relevance for most people is what is the nature of justice? What individual rights are people entitled to? What is the relationship between the needs of the state and personal liberties? What are the different concepts of justice, and how should they be applied?

“The precepts of the laws are these: to live honorably, to injure no other man, to render to every man his due.”
JUSTINIAN I
Are citizens entitled to universal health care?

In this mural, The History of Medicine in Mexico, and the People Demanding Health, Diego Rivera dramatizes the struggle of the poor for access to a health care system that favors the rich. Social and political philosophy explores questions about social justice, human rights, and government responsibilities.
(Diego Rivera [1866–1957]. The History of Medicine in Mexico, The People Demanding Health, 1953. [Detail] Fresco, approx. 7.4 × 10.8 m. Hospital de la Raza, Mexico City, D.F., Mexico. Photo: Art Resource, NY. © 2003 Banco de Mexico Diego Rivera & Frida Kahlo Museums Trust. Av. Cinco de Mayo No. 2, Col. Centro, Del. Cuauhtemoc 06059, Mexico, D.F. Reproduction authorized by the Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes y Literatura.)
Philosophical study about political and social themes equips us not only to understand but to act. As citizens, we all have a responsibility to construct a society in which government expresses the will of an enlightened population. To ensure that we live in a just society, we have to be active participants in that society, in its institutions, and in the public discourse that shapes our nation’s policies. We live in a world rife with injustice, persecution, and war: Thinking philosophically and acting effectively are not luxuries; they are essential to create the kind of world in which we all want to live.

Is it art?

Twentieth-century artists began challenging audiences to consider new ideas about what constitutes art. The contemporary artist Matthew Barney uses his own body as the basis for elaborate images based on mythological stories of his own invention.
(Matthew Barney, Cremaster 3: Five Points of Fellowship. 2002. C-print in acrylic frame. 54″ × 44″ [137 × 112 cm.] Edition of 6 + 2 AP. Courtesy Barbara Gladstone Gallery.)
Aesthetics
Aesthetics involves the study of beauty and art. It analyzes efforts to establish standards for beauty in all of its various manifestations. And it explores the nature and purpose of art in human affairs. Because of space limitations, we are not able to devote a chapter to aesthetics.
One of the oldest questions in the philosophy of art is what is the nature of beauty? How do we identify principles of beauty and artistic value? Are there universal standards of beauty, or are they relative to cultural and individual taste? Is there one core concept of beauty or many different concepts?
Another question aesthetics deals with is what is art? Modern and contemporary artists have challenged traditional notions that art should be beautiful, represent reality, or even be an object for permanent display. The philosophy of art helps us understand the conceptual issues and controversies surrounding the art of today, as well as questions such as: Should art be used for social and political purposes? Should the government be allowed to censor “artistic expression” that it considers obscene? Our world is increasingly infused with the power of visual images, which shape and influence our thinking in profound ways. We need to develop our ability to critically evaluate these images as well as ideas that are presented in written and oral form, and a significant part of understanding the meaning of images is understanding the aesthetic principles on which they are constructed.
“Art is a lie which makes you realize the truth.”
PICASSO

1.6 Reading Critically: Working with Primary Sources
In addition to developing and refining your critical thinking abilities, thinking philosophically also involves studying the ideas of great thinkers who have created coherent frameworks for understanding every dimension of human experience. There is no point in “reinventing the wheel” when brilliant minds have already made significant progress in understanding the most complex and challenging issues in life. So learning to think philosophically involves developing your critical thinking abilities while reading and analyzing the ideas of exceptional philosophers, present and past. The Reading Critically boxes that follow philosophical texts are designed to support you in this endeavor.
“Beauty in things exists in the mind which contemplates them.”
DAVID HUME
In the following selection from his book The Problems of Philosophy, the British philosopher Bertrand Russell addresses the core question that we have considered in this chapter—What is the value of philosophy? The excerpt provides an excellent opportunity to see a philosophical mind at work.

Bertrand Russell (1872–1970).

Russell was a British philosopher who was one of the founders of modern logic. In The Principles of Mathematics (1903), and with Alfred North Whitehead in Principia Mathematica (1910–1913), he advanced the view that all of mathematics could be derived from logical premises. He also wrote on a broad range of other subjects (education, marriage, politics, history, religion, science, ethics) and was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950. Also known for his many spirited antiwar and antinuclear protests, Russell was a prominent and controversial public figure.
Bertrand Russell, from The Value of Philosophy
Having now come to the end of our brief and very incomplete review of the problems of philosophy, it will be well to consider, in conclusion, what is the value of philosophy and why it ought to be studied. It is the more necessary to consider this question, in view of the fact that many men, under the influence of science or of practical affairs, are inclined to doubt whether philosophy is anything better than innocent but useless trifling, hair-splitting distinctions, and controversies on matters concerning which knowledge is impossible.
This view of philosophy appears to result, partly from a wrong conception of the ends of life, partly from a wrong conception of the kind of goods which philosophy strives to achieve. Physical science, through the medium of inventions, is useful to innumerable people who are wholly ignorant of it; thus the study of physical science is to be recommended, not only, or primarily, because of the effect on the student, but rather because of the effect on mankind in general. Thus utility does not belong to philosophy. If the study of philosophy has any value at all for others than students of philosophy, it must be only indirectly, through its effect upon the lives of those who study it. It is in these effects, therefore, if anywhere, that the value of philosophy must be primarily sought.
But further, if we are not to fail in our endeavour to determine the value of philosophy, we must first free our minds from the prejudices of what are wrongly called “practical” man. The “practical” man, as this word is often used, is one who recognizes only material needs, who realizes that men must have food for the body, but is oblivious of the necessity of providing food for the mind. If all men were well off, if poverty and disease had been reduced to their lowest possible point, there would still remain much to be done to produce a valuable society; and even in the existing world the goods of the mind are at least as important as the goods of the body. It is exclusively among the goods of the mind that the value of philosophy is to be found; and only those who are not indifferent to these goods can be persuaded that the study of philosophy is not a waste of time.
Philosophy, like all other studies, aims primarily at knowledge. The knowledge it aims at is the kind of knowledge which gives unity and system to the body of the sciences, and the kind which results from a critical examination of the grounds of our convictions, prejudices, and beliefs. But it cannot be maintained that philosophy has had any very great measure of success in its attempts to provide definite answers to its questions. If you ask a mathematician, a mineralogist, a historian, or any other man of learning, what definite body of truths has been ascertained by his science, his answer will last as long as you are willing to listen. But if you put the same questions to a philosopher, he will, if he is candid, have to confess that his study has not achieved positive results such as have been achieved by other sciences. It is true that this is partly accounted for by the fact that, as soon as definite knowledge concerning any subject becomes possible, this subject ceases to be called philosophy, and becomes a separate science. The whole study of the heavens, which now belongs to astronomy, was once included in philosophy; Newton’s great work was called “the mathematical principles of natural philosophy.” Similarly, the study of the human mind, which was a part of philosophy, has now been separated from philosophy and has become the science of psychology. Thus, to a great extent, the uncertainty of philosophy is more apparent than real: those questions which are already capable of definite answers are placed in the sciences, while those only to which, at present, no definite answer can be given, remain to form the residue which is called philosophy.
This is, however, only a part of the truth concerning the uncertainty of philosophy. There are many questions—and among them those that are of the profoundest interest to our spiritual life—which, so far as we can see, must remain insoluble to the human intellect unless its powers become of quite a different order from what they are now. Has the universe any unity of plan or purpose, or is it a fortuitous concourse of atoms? Is consciousness a permanent part of the universe, giving hope of indefinite growth in wisdom, or is it a transitory accident on a small planet on which life must ultimately become impossible? Are good and evil of importance to the universe or only to man? Such questions are asked by philosophy, and variously answered by various philosophers. But it would seem that, whether answers be otherwise discoverable or not, the answers suggested by philosophy are none of them demonstrably true. Yet, however slight may be the hope of discovering an answer, it is part of the business of philosophy to continue the consideration of such questions, to make us aware of their importance, to examine all the approaches to them, and to keep alive that speculative interest in the universe which is apt to be killed by confining ourselves to definitely ascertainable knowledge…. The value of philosophy is, in fact, to be sought largely in its very uncertainty. The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason. To such a man the world tends to become definite, finite, obvious; common objects rouse no questions, and unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected. As soon as we begin to philosophize, on the contrary, we find that even the most everyday things lead to problems to which only very incomplete answers can be given. Philosophy, though unable to tell us with certainty the true answer to the doubts which it raises, is able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom. Thus, while diminishing our feeling of certainty as to what things are, it greatly increases our knowledge as to what they may be; it removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who have never travelled into the region of liberating doubt, and it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an unfamiliar aspect.
Apart from its utility in showing unsuspected possibilities, philosophy has a value—perhaps its chief value—through the greatness of the objects which it contemplates, and the freedom from narrow and personal aims resulting from this contemplation. The life of the instinctive man is shut up within the circle of his private interests: family and friends may be included, but the other world is not regarded except as it may help or hinder what comes within the circle of instinctive wishes. In such a life there is something feverish and confined, in comparison with which the philosophic life is calm and free. The private world of instinctive interests is a small one, set in the midst of a great and powerful world which must, sooner or later, lay our private world in ruins. Unless we can so enlarge our interests so as to include the whole outer world, we remain like a garrison in a beleaguered fortress, knowing that the enemy prevents escape and that ultimate surrender is inevitable. In such a life there is no peace, but a constant strife between the insistence of desire and the powerlessness of will. In one way or another, if our life is to be great and free, we must escape this prison and this strife.
One way of escape is by philosophic contemplation. Philosophic contemplation does not, in its widest survey, divide the universe into two hostile camps—friends and foes, helpful and hostile, good and bad—it views the whole impartially. Philosophic contemplation, when it is unalloyed, does not aim at proving that the rest of the universe is akin to man…. In contemplation, on the contrary, we start from the non-Self, and through its greatness the boundaries of Self are enlarged; through the infinity of the universe the mind which contemplates it achieves some share in infinity.
Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy: Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation; but above all because through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.
Bertrand Russell, The Problems of Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1912). Copyright 1912. Reprinted by permission of Oxford University Press.

“Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves.”
< READING CRITICALLY >: Analyzing Russell on the Value of Philosophy
• ? According to Russell, the “practical” man does not understand that “the goods of the mind are at least as important as the goods of the body.” Explain what you think he means by this statement.
• ? One reason that philosophy does not provide definite answers to its questions is that “as soon as definite knowledge concerning any subject becomes possible, this subject ceases to be called philosophy, and becomes a separate science.” Explain what Russell means and how this relates to the characterization of philosophy as the “mother of all disciplines.”
• ? A second reason that Russell believes philosophy does not provide definite answers to its questions is that many of its questions “must remain insoluble to the human intellect unless its powers become of quite a different order from what they are now.” Identify five such questions and explain why the answers are likely to remain insoluble.
• ? “The value of philosophy is, in fact, to be sought largely in its very uncertainty. The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the cooperation or consent of his deliberate reason. To such a man the world tends to become definite, finite, obvious; common objects rouse no questions, and unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected. As soon as we begin to philosophize, on the contrary, we find that even the most everyday things lead to problems to which only very incomplete answers can be given.” Explain what Russell means in this passage and how it relates to Socrates’ admonition, “The unexamined life is not worth living.”
• ? According to Russell, “Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation; but above all because through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.” Explain in your own words what Russell means in this passage. How do his views on the ultimate aim of philosophy compare with those of Perictione, the Greek philosopher writing over 2,000 years earlier (p. 7). Can you identify additional reasons for studying philosophy based on your work in this chapter?

1.7 Making Connections: The Search for a Meaningful Life
This first chapter has been designed to introduce you to the discipline of philosophy and to suggest ways that studying philosophy can enrich your life. Studying philosophy is unique because as you develop your mind by learning how to think philosophically, you are also enlarging yourself as a person—the perspective from which you view the world, the concepts and values you use to guide your choices, and the impact you have on the world as a result of those choices. Learning to think philosophically does not mean simply gaining certain intellectual tools—it involves your personal transformation. Everybody “thinks”—Homo sapiens means “thinking man”—but most people don’t “think” very well. By learning to think philosophically, you can develop your mind into a powerful, sophisticated resource that will enrich all dimensions of your life. It will initiate a process that transforms the way you view yourself and conduct your business in the world.
We all long to live lives that are meaningful and purposeful, as Viktor Frankl expresses so eloquently in the following passage:
• Man’s search for meaning is the primary motivation in his life. This meaning is unique and specific in that it must and can be fulfilled by him alone; only then does it achieve a significance which will satisfy his own will to meaning.
This insight by Dr. Frankl, a psychiatrist and concentration camp survivor, penetrates to the soul of who we are. A well-known Viennese psychiatrist in the 1930s, Dr. Frankl and his family were arrested by the Nazis, and he spent three years in the Auschwitz concentration camp. Every member of his family, including his parents, his siblings, and his pregnant wife, was killed. He himself miraculously survived, enduring the most unimaginably abusive and degrading conditions. Following his liberation by Allied troops, he wrote Man’s Search for Meaning, an enduring and influential work, which he began on scraps of paper during his internment. Since its publication in 1945, it has been read by millions of people in twenty languages. Its success reflects the hunger for meaning that people are experiencing, trying to answer a question that, in the author’s words, “burns under their fingernails.” This hunger expresses the pervasive meaning lessness of our age, the “existential vacuum,” in which many people exist.
Dr. Frankl discovered that even under the most inhumane of conditions, it is possible to live a life of purpose and meaning. But, for the majority of prisoners at Auschwitz, a meaningful life did not seem possible. Immersed in a world that no longer recognized the value of human life and human dignity, which robbed them of their will and made them objects to be exterminated, most prisoners suffered a loss of their values. Prisoners who did not struggle against this spiritual destruction lost their feeling of being individuals, beings with a mind, with inner freedom and personal value. Their existence descended to the level of animal life, plunging them into a depression so deep that they became incapable of action. No entreaties, no blows, no threats would have any effect on this apathetic paralysis, underscoring the Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky’s observation: “Without a firm idea of himself and the purpose of his life, man cannot live, and would sooner destroy himself than remain on earth, even if he was surrounded with bread.”

How do we discover the meaning of life?

Viktor Frankl discovered that, even under the most inhumane of conditions, it is possible to have a meaningful life, defined by the ways we choose to respond to life’s challenges. Do you believe that this is true? Why?
Dr. Frankl found that the meaning of his life in this situation was to try to help his fellow prisoners restore their psychological health. He had to find ways for them to look forward to the future: a loved one waiting for his return, a talent to be used, or perhaps work yet to be completed. These were the threads he tried to weave back into the patterns of meaning in these devastated lives. His efforts led him to the following epiphany:
• We had to learn ourselves, and furthermore we had to teach the despairing men, that it did not matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us. We needed to stop asking about the meaning of life but instead to think of ourselves as those who were being questioned by life, daily and hourly. Our answer must consist not in talk and meditation, but in right action and in right conduct. Life ultimately means taking the responsibility to find the right answer to its problems and to fulfill the tasks which it constantly sets for each individual.

We each long for a life of significance, to feel that in some important way our life has made a unique contribution to the world and to the lives of others. We each strive to create our self as a person of unique quality, someone who is admired by others as extraordinary. We hope for lives characterized by unique accomplishments and lasting relationships that will distinguish us as memorable individuals both during and after our time on earth. Unfortunately, we often don’t achieve these lofty goals. To discover the meaning of our lives, we need to understand “who” we are. And we live in an age in which many people are not sure “who” they are or whether in fact their lives haveany significant meaning whatsoever.
When we are asked such questions as “Who are you?” or “What is the meaning of your life?” we often lack any idea how to respond. But an even more revealing symptom of our confusion and alienation is the fact that we rarely even pose these questions, to ourselves or to others. We are too busy “living” to wonder why we are living or who the person is that is doing the living. But can we afford to be too busy to find meaning in our lives? Our lives depend on our answer to this question. Not our biological lives necessarily, but the life of ourspirit. We so often cruise along on autopilot—days slipping into weeks, weeks merging into years, years coalescing into a life—without confronting these important questions. If we are to become human in the fullest sense, achieving our distinctive potentials and living a life of significance, we must first have what the theologian Paul Tillich characterized as “the courage to be.”
There is a terrible price to pay for this loss of wonder and lack of meaning, for such a loss corrodes any life, eating it away from the inside until only a shell remains. The existentialist novelist Albert Camus expressed it this way:
• To lose one’s life is a little thing and I shall have the courage to do so if it is necessary; but to see the meaning of this life dissipated, to see our reason for existing disappear, that is what is unbearable. One cannot live without meaning.
Many people are in fact living with a diminished sense of meaning, and they struggle to fill the void within themselves by frantically pursuing power, money, pleasure, thrills, mind-altered states, or the latest cultural fad. Yet these compulsive cravings only serve to reveal the lackof purpose in their lives, poor substitutes for a life built around authentic purpose and genuine meaning. Dr. Frankl provided an eloquent analysis of the desperate situation in which we find ourselves:

• Modern men and women are caught in an existential vacuum, the total and ultimate meaninglessness of their lives. They lack the awareness of a meaning worth living for. They are haunted by the experience of their inner emptiness, a void within themselves. The existential vacuum is a widespread phenomenon of the 20th century…. No instinct tells them what they have to do, and no tradition tells them what they ought to do; soon they will not know what they want to do.
This, then, is the real significance of Socrates’ challenge, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Socrates’ unambiguous message is that when we live our lives unreflectively, simply reacting to life’s situations and not trying to explore its deeper meanings, then our lives have diminished value. When unreflective, we are not making use of the distinctive human capacity to think deeply about important issues and develop thoughtful conclusions about ourselves and our world.
Thinking philosophically in our current world is typically not a simple matter. It’s a fast-paced world in which we are bombarded by overwhelming amounts of information and incessant demands on our time. It’s not unusual to feel that we are rushing from deadline to deadline, skating on the surface of life, meeting our endless responsibilities, and seeming to be in perpetual motion like hamsters on an exercise wheel. It’s difficult to find the time to reflect deeply about important questions and to have in-depth discussions with others regarding significant issues of mutual concern. We’re so busy caught up in the process of living that we simply don’t make the time or effort to plumb the depths of ourselves, reflect on the meaning of our existence, shape the direction of our lives, and create ourselves as unique and worthy individuals. Yet if we are to take Socrates’ challenge seriously, making time to think deeply is exactly what we must do if our lives are to have genuine significance.
thinking philosophically: WHAT DO YOU HOPE TO LEARN?
This course in philosophy is going to provide you with a unique opportunity to respond to Socrates’ challenge by prompting you to explore profound ideas and develop powerful intellectual abilities. This first chapter is designed to be a personal invitation for you to begin—or continue—your own personal philosophical journey. Think about the philosophical themes and ideas that you have examined in this chapter and then write a paper that explains your personal goals for this course. Discuss the insights and knowledge you would like to achieve and the ways you would like to develop your mind.

writing about philosophy: ANALYZING YOUR BELIEFS
The Assignment
As we noted earlier in the chapter, every person “has” a philosophy of life—a collection of beliefs that is used to guide his or her thoughts and actions. These beliefs, formed over the years of your life, influence that way you see the world and the choices that you make. You may not be aware of all your beliefs—some may be deeply buried in your consciousness—but they can still influence you. Of course, an individual’s philosophy of life can also contain beliefs that are wildly inaccurate, biased, or destructive. “Doing” philosophy involves thinking critically about your beliefs to ensure that they are the most accurate and enlightened beliefs possible.
This assignment is an opportunity for you to begin thinking critically about the beliefs you have formed. The Thinking Philosophicallyactivity on page 11 poses questions that relate to the various branches of philosophy. For example:
• • “What moral beliefs influence your behavior towards others?” relates to Ethics
• • “Do you believe that your choices are free?” relates to Metaphysics
• • “How do you know when you ‘know’ something is true?” relates to Epistemology
• • “Are all people entitled to basic human rights” relates to Social and Political Philosophy
• • “What role do religious beliefs play in your life?” relates to Philosophy of Religion
• • “What do you consider to be ‘beautiful’?” relates to Aesthetics
Select a number of your responses (suggested by your professor) and think critically about them by applying the Critical Thinking Model described on pages 12–16. This will involve critically examining your beliefs by responding to the following guidelines:
• 1. State you initial point of view.
• 2. Define your point of view more clearly.
• 3. Give an example of your point of view.
• 4. Explore the origin of your point of view.
• 5. Identify your assumptions.
• 6. Offer the reasons, evidence, and arguments that support your point of view.
• 7. Consider other points of view.
• 8. Arrive at a conclusion, decision, solution, or prediction.
• 9. Consider the consequences.
Your responses to this activity will serve as a useful point of reference. As you immerse yourself in the course, you will discover that as your abilities to think philosophically improve, your beliefs about the world are becoming clearer, more accurate, and better founded.

visual summary
1 chapter review
Why Study Philosophy?
• • Philosophy, or the love and pursuit of wisdom, is as much a way of living and process of thinking as it is a body of knowledge. Our responsibility as thoughtful, critical citizens is to define for ourselves our own “philosophy of life”—and then to do philosophy by continually testing that philosophy against new knowledge and experience.
[pp. 4–5] Defining Philosophy
• • Philosophy has its origins in the human capacity for wonder. The activity of philosophy is a rigorous, critical, and honest process of testing and discussing our beliefs. In that activity is implied a conflict, or “dialectic”; in doing philosophy, we continually test ideas and concepts against their opposites, working toward synthesis. That synthesis, or unity, is a goal of philosophy: to improve the quality of our lives by enlightening and broadening our minds.

Thinking Philosophically: Becoming a Critical Thinker
• • To “do philosophy” effectively requires developing the attributes of critical thinking. These attributes include adopting different perspectives, making informed decisions, analyzing complex issues, establishing appropriate goals, communicating effectively, critically evaluating information, asking questions, and exchanging ideas with others (Socratic analysis).

Understanding Arguments
• • The branch of philosophy known as logic seeks to establish the rules of correct reasoning, clear understanding, and valid argumentation.
• • We can evaluate arguments in terms of their soundness by investigating both the truth of the reasons and the validity of the conclusion.
• • In a deductive argument, if the argument form is valid and the supporting reasons are true, then it follows that the conclusion will be true. In an inductive argument, the supporting reasons make it more or less probable—but not certain—that the conclusion is true.
• • Arguments that contain informal fallacies may seem persuasive but in fact are based on errors in reasoning.
[pp. 16–24]

for further reading, viewing & research
Philosophy Texts in MyPhilosophyLab
• • The Value of Philosophy, Bertrand Russell
Films
• • American Beauty (1999) What are the dangers of “sleepwalking through life”? Lester Burnham lives a seemingly perfect life in suburbia with his high-powered wife and adolescent daughter. But he is depressed with his mundane existence until he develops a crush on his daughter’s friend. His actions in the wake of this fantasy have powerful effects on himself and all those around him.

• • It’s a Wonderful Life (1947) How do people find meaning in seemingly hopeless situations? George Bailey is a compassionate man who has devoted his life and resources to his town and family. But when his business fails, threatening the stability of the life he has created, he contemplates suicide. An angel appears to show him why his life is meaningful and valuable.
• • Life Is Beautiful (1997) Is it possible to create meaning in desperate circumstances? A charismatic and playful Jewish bookkeeper refuses to lose hope or give up when he, his wife, and his young son are sent to a Nazi concentration camp. Instead, he finds ways to communicate with his family and, through humor and playacting, attempts to convince his son that the camp is an elaborate game.
• • Schindler’s List (1993) How does one find a purpose in life? This film is based on the true story of Oskar Schindler, a businessman who intended to exploit Jewish labor to amass a personal fortune. Witnessing the horrors of the Holocaust profoundly affects his perspective, and he then uses his business to save 1,100 Jews from extermination in the gas chambers at Auschwitz. It is a story of personal transformation, self-sacrifice, and the ability of a single person to influence the lives of many.
Literature

• • Hamlet, William Shakespeare. Following his father’s murder, the title character in Shakespeare’s famous tragedy contemplates revenge. In doing so, he addresses profound ethical and metaphysical themes, including the nature of reality, the nature of evil, the nature of madness, the mystery of death, and the possibility or impossibility of attaining true knowledge about the world and one’s self.
• • Man’s Search for Meaning, Viktor E. Frankl. Begun on scraps of paper during his internment in a Nazi concentration camp, Frankl’s harrowing account both poses and answers the question of how one can find meaning and purpose in the most inhumane and devastating circumstances.
• • Meditations, Marcus Aurelius. The reflections of this Roman emperor and warrior, written during his military campaigns, address the complexities of the human condition. Though trained in Stoic philosophy, Marcus Aurelius anticipates many of the themes of Christianity as he meditates on both life and death.
• • Slaughterhouse Five, Kurt Vonnegut. An American soldier, Billy Pilgrim, travels backwards and forwards in time after being captured by Germans in World War II. Billy’s journey is a philosophical one as Vonnegut raises questions about fate and free will, fiction and reality, the absurdity of war, and the effects of such a war on the human psyche.

Branches of Philosophy
The traditional branches of philosophy are
• • Metaphysics—The study of the ultimate characteristics of reality or existence (What is the nature of reality? Does God exist?)
• • Epistemology—The study of the construction of knowledge (What is truth? Can we ever really know anything?)
• • Ethics—The study of moral values and principles (How should we treat other people? Is there a “good life” for humans?)
• • Political and social philosophy—The study of social values and political forms of government (What is the nature of justice? What is the most enlightened form of government?)
• • Aesthetics—The study of beauty, art, and taste (What is the nature of beauty? What is art?)
• • Logic and critical thinking—The study of correct reasoning, clear understanding, and valid arguments (What are the logical principles of correct reasoning? Why do many people think ineffectively?)
• • There is considerable overlap and nuance between these different categories.
[pp. 24–31] Reading Critically: Working with Primary Sources

• • Thinking philosophically also involves studying the ideas of great thinkers. You will develop your critical thinking abilities while reading and analyzing the ideas of exceptional philosophers, present and past. Bertrand Russell’s essay on the value of philosophy provides the first opportunity to practice these skills.
KEY TERMS
argument
reasons or premises
conclusion
valid argument
invalid argument
sound argument
unsound argument
deductive argument
syllogism
inductive argument
causal reasoning
empirical generalization
fallacies

[pp. 31–34] chapter 2 what is the philosopher’s way?: SOCRATES AND THE EXAMINED LIFE
Where does philosophy begin?

Raphael’s mural, The School of Athens, depicts the early Greek philosophers engaged in reflection, discussion, and debate. We will start the philosophical journey with Socrates, whose life embodied the philosopher’s way.
(Raphael, The School of Athens. Vatican Museums, Rome, Italy. Scala/Art Resource, NY)
The Socratic Method
Seeking clarity and truth through penetrating questioning and astute analysis
Socrates’ Ethos
The goal of life is to “know thyself” and improve our souls through virtuous living

Socrates’ Trial
Using his legal defense to embody his ethical values and principles of rational inquiry
Socrates’ Death
Becoming a heroic martyr to enlightened thinking and virtuous living by refusing to compromise the values that defined his life

PHILOSOPHERS AND THINKERS IN THIS CHAPTER (DATES ARE APPROXIMATE)
• Thales ¦ 62?–546 B.C.E.
• Anaximenes ¦ ?–528 B.C.E.
• Pythagoras ¦ 570–497 B.C.E.
• Heraclitus ¦ 540–480 B.C.E.
• Parmenides ¦ 510–450 B.C.E.
• Anaxagoras ¦ 500–428 B.C.E.
• Socrates ¦ 469–399 B.C.E.
• Democritus ¦ 460–370 B.C.E.
• Thrasymachus ¦ 459–400 B.C.E.
• Xenophon ¦ 444–357 B.C.E.
• Plato ¦ 427–347 B.C.E.
• Aristotle ¦ 384–322 B.C.E.
2.1 Socrates: A Model for Humanity
When you reflect on your own personal and intellectual development, you can likely identify key people in your life who stimulated your thinking, challenged your limited perspective, and inspired your spirit to soar to new and unexpected levels. Who are some of these people? How did they stimulate you and enrich your life? Do they continue to influence you, even though you may no longer be in touch with them?
For people living in Athens, Greece, twenty-five hundred years ago, Socrates was such a person. Several hundred years previously, the Greek thinker Heraclitus had warned, “One ought not to talk or act as if he were asleep,” cautioning against the tendency of many people to live their lives as sleepwalkers: drifting along with life’s current, unreflective, unthinking. Socrates embraced Heraclitus’s challenge as his life mission, characterizing himself as a “gadfly,” an annoying, biting insect, attached “to a horse that is large and well-bred but rather sluggish from its size, and needing to be aroused. It seems to me that the god has attached me like that to the state, for I am constantly alighting upon you at every point to rouse, persuade, and reproach each of you all day long.”

Centuries later, Socrates is still relevant to us today with the same compelling immediacy with which he spoke to his fellow Athenians. Too often we are drowsy sleepwalkers, shuffling through life, submerged in mundane daily tasks, predictable habits, restricted visions of ourselves and who we can be. More than ever we need the gadfly of Socrates to wake us from our dozing, energize our thinking, and open our mind’s eye to the depths of our souls and the wonders of the universe. Being shaken awake is not usually a pleasant experience, and Socrates noted, “You are indignant, as drowsy persons are, when they are awakened,” tempted initially to “sleep on undisturbed for the rest of your lives.” But if we rouse ourselves to full alertness, our minds can become catalysts of creative energy, infusing our lives with vibrant emotions, penetrating ideas, and galvanizing experiences, as expressed in the following student passage:
• Beginning with Socrates’ call to arms, this course has aided me considerably in my philosophical journey. I have learned to think more critically, to doubt, instead of accepting all that is “intravenously” fed to me through my environment. I discovered what it is to truly make a free decision and what it is to be moral. I read about many intriguing philosophers and their insightful convictions. But most of all I had the opportunity to grow as a person and create my own philosophy of life.
• Danielle Malkusz
A Man of Greece
Here’s an opportunity for you to use your imagination. Erase from your mind your entire scientific understanding of the world. Imagine that you and all of the people in your culture explain events in the natural world through superstition, fairy tales, and religion. The sun rises in the morning because it wishes to. Rain needed to grow crops is dependent on the pleasure of the gods. Issues of sickness and health, life and death, reflect unseen spirits living among us. Your personal destiny is entirely determined by the position of the planets.
As strange as these beliefs are to our modern consciousness, this was very much the state of affairs in the ancient world. Although understanding of the world progressed in various cultures, it was invariably inhibited by nonscientific factors. The Chinese, Babylonians, Mayans, and Egyptians had developed advanced practical technology in areas such as construction (the pyramids) and astronomy (predicting solar and lunar eclipses), and they had made impressive gains in mathematics. But in every case, superstition, myths, and religion infiltrated the processes of reason and observation. For example, Babylonian knowledge of astronomy was intertwined with an unshakeable belief in astrology, and Egyptian advancements in mathematics were permeated with religious superstition.
What is the nature of reality?

Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Parmenides were three “pre-Socratic” philosophers who offered answers to this and other philosophical questions.

Although the ancient Greeks had pervasive beliefs in superstition, myths, and religion as well, they were also able to take a progressively fresh view, approaching the natural world using the powerful lenses of reason and observation to create an intelligible picture of the universe. In so doing, they avoided the limiting effects of superstition, myth, and religion that had influenced other cultures. This new philosophic approach first surfaced between 600 and 500 B.C.E. with a group of “pre-Socratic” thinkers who were particularly interested in identifying the underlying essence of the universe. Thales proposed that the primal element of the universe was water; Anaximenessuggested it was air; and Heraclitus contended that it was fire because “All is change.” Democritus advanced the prescient view that all matter in the universe was composed of indivisible atoms, and Anaxagoras anticipated modern cosmology in proposing that the entire universe is composed of matter in motion, though he also maintained that what he called Mind (nous) was the cause of the ordered universe. Pythagoras was convinced that the fundamental principles of the universe were mathematical relations (a view that foreshadowed the thinking of Albert Einstein a few thousand years later). Parmenides was an accomplished mathematician who believed that there was a necessary, static, unchanging unity running throughout all of what is in flux in the world of experience. Although these early efforts were somewhat off the mark, the approach they used, based fundamentally on reason and observation, laid the foundation for Western civilization.

Socrates was the son of Sophroniscus, a sculptor, and Phaenarete, a midwife, whose careers were to serve as rich metaphors for Socrates throughout his life, as he used the skills of practical wisdom to “shape” the mind and help others “give birth” to new understanding. Socrates was mentored by some of the great philosophers of his time, learning cosmology from Anaxagoras, rhetoric from Aspasia (who had taught Pericles), and a question-and-answer approach to knowledge from Parmenides. Unlike the great pre-Socratic thinkers, Socrates was not as concerned with the physics of the natural world as he was with the psychology of the mind, and, as he describes in Plato’s dialogue Phaedo, he decided to develop his own methods of searching for knowledge based on the underlying intuition that all things have an intelligent cause directed toward what is best. In the words of the Roman philosopher Cicero (106–43B.C.E.), Socrates brought philosophy “out of the clouds and into the market place,” into the cities and houses of people. He loved the exploration and interplay of ideas in discussions with others, and it was through these experiences that he developed what has come to be known as the Socratic Method. This method used a dynamic approach of questioning and intellectual analysis to draw answers out of people rather than lecture them.
Socratic Method
Investigation of complex issues through a question-and-answer format.
Socrates left no writing of his own, so all of what we know about him comes through other sources. The richest source of his ideas comes from the Dialogues, short dramas written by Socrates’ student and disciple, Plato. Although Plato wrote these masterful and enduringDialogues years after Socrates’ death, most experts agree that at least the initial Dialogues (Euthyphro, The Apology, Crito) are faithful portrayals of Socrates’ ideas. As far as Plato’s later Dialogues are concerned, there are varying opinions regarding the extent to which they express Socrates’ views or Plato’s views, though there was undoubtedly a great deal of agreement between the two.
Plato (427–347 B.C.E.).

Ancient Greek philosopher of extraordinary significance in the history of ideas. Plato not only preserved Socrates’ teachings for future generations but also contributed original ideas on a wide range of issues such as morality, politics, metaphysics, and epistemology.

The other major source of our knowledge of Socrates comes from another of his students, Xenophon, a soldier and writer whose best-known work is his Memorabilia. In one of his writings he records Socrates asking him, “Where does one go to learn to become an honest man?” When Xenophon is at a loss for words, Socrates responds, “Come with me and I’ll show you.”
Xenophon (c. 444–c. 357 B.C.E.)

Biographer of Socrates and his student as a youth. In addition to four works on Socrates, Xenophon wrote histories and practical treatises on leadership, horsemanship, hunting, and economics. Also a warrior, he fought for the Greeks and then for their enemies, the Spartans.
A Midwife of Ideas
Imagine again: It’s a beautiful morning, and you decide to take a stroll in the agora, the bustling, noisy marketplace of your native Athens. It’s a large area on the north side of the hill of the Acropolis, and the agora is clearly where the action is. Vendors have set up their stalls and are selling everything you might imagine, and then some, as the comic poet Eubulus explains:
Agora Open marketplace in Athens, a place where crowds would gather for political speech and discussion.

• You will find everything sold together in the same place in Athens: figs, witnesses to summonses, bunches of grapes, turnips, pears, apples, givers of evidence, roses, medlars, porridge, honeycombs, chickpeas, lawsuits, beestings-puddings, myrtle, allotment machines, lambs, water clocks, laws, indictments.
What draws you to the agora is not the fruits, vegetables, or water clocks, however—it’s the spirited conversations that are taking place among the citizens. In fact, the word agora is derived from the Greek verb agoreuein, which means “to speak,” “to address,” “to harangue,” and that’s exactly what you’re looking for—food for thought. You make your way to the Stoa of Zeus Eleutherios, a shady, colonnaded stretch of the agora, and there, as expected, you see a crowd of people clustered around several men engaged in an animated discussion. Even above the general din of the market you can hear the audience laughing and offering comments as they listen intently to the conversation. As you move closer, you see that one of the discussants is a handsome youth, beautifully proportioned and very well dressed, like many of the men and women at the agora. The other man is striking because of his physical unattractiveness: His heavily bearded face frames a balding, knobby head; broad snubbed nose; bulging eyes; and protruding lips. This arresting head is set atop a powerfully built, stocky torso; bowed legs; and a paunch that he himself described as “a stomach rather too large for convenience,” that he perennially announces he intends to “dance off.” He is clothed in a worn and somewhat tattered cloak, in stark contrast to the exquisite fabric adorning many of those at the market.
This remarkable figure is Socrates, known to all in Athens and widely considered to be the wisest man in Greece. You move closer. As soon as you begin hearing his resonant voice, experiencing the charismatic influence of his persona, and considering the clarity and insight of his ideas, all thoughts of his physical appearance disappear. As Socrates’ friend Alcibiades (a man whose life Socrates had saved with uncommon valor during a horrific battle with Sparta) once noted, Socrates was like the little statues of the Silens that were sold at the stone carvers’ booths—physically ugly in superficial appearance but “on being opened, are found to have images of the gods inside them.” It is clear to you why Socrates is so idolized and respected by so many in Athens, particularly the spirited and intellectual young men. Socrates is a crown jewel in your native city, and you have come to learn and be entertained as he wields his brilliant intellect to, as he explained, “find who is wise and who pretends to be wise but isn’t,” a quest that he vowed to continue into the afterlife.
The agora was Socrates’ true home—intellectually, emotionally, spiritually—and he loved the crowds and human energy of this social core, as Xenophon explains: “For early in the morning he used to go to the walkways and gymnasia, to appear in the agora as it filled up, and to be present wherever he would meet with the most people.” Once teased by his friend Phaedrus for “never setting foot in the country or going outside the city walls,” Socrates rejoined, “Look at it my way, my good friend. It is because I love knowledge, and it is the people in the city who teach me, not the country or the trees.”
Where do you think philosophically?

Socrates thrived on the intellectual life of the agora (the marketplace), where he could be sure to find others ready to engage in debate about philosophical ideas.
Socrates’ claim that it was “the people in the city who teach me” seems genuine, as one of his recurring themes was his role as an intellectual “midwife,” assisting others in the birth of their ideas. The metaphor of “midwife” is particularly appropriate for Socrates, as this was his mother’s profession:
• The obstetrics which I practice is the same as that of all midwives, except that they practice on women, while I do so on men. They deal with the body, and I deal with the mind…. I myself am empty of wisdom, which is why the god Apollo makes me attend to the wisdom of others, and prevents me from giving birth myself.

Socrates believed that his special wisdom consisted in his ability to stimulate and guide others in the philosophical exploration of profound questions, enabling them to “give birth” to their own understanding.
The Wisest of Men?
• You remember Chaerephon. From youth upwards he was my comrade…. Once he went to Delphi and ventured to put this question to the oracle—he asked if there was any man who was wiser than I. The priestess answered that there was no one.
• Socrates in The Apology
The Oracle at Delphi.

According to the revered Oracle at Delphi, no man was wiser than Socrates. What does the use of oracles suggest about the culture of ancient Greece? How does Socrates apply reason within that culture?
(© Bildarchiv Pressischer Kulturbestiz/Art Resource)
In ancient Greece, an oracle was a religious shrine where a specially designated priestess would provide answers on behalf of the gods to questions asked by visitors. The most famous oracle was the oracle at Delphi, which was housed in the great temple to the god Apollo. This temple was the most sacred sanctuary for the ancient Greeks, and they considered it the center of the world, marking the site with a large conical stone, the omphalos, meaning navel or center.

For at least twelve centuries, the oracle at Delphi spoke on behalf of the gods, advising rulers, citizens, and philosophers on everything from their sex lives to affairs of state. The oracle was always a woman, her divine utterances made in response to a petitioner’s request. Before a prophetic session, the oracle would descend into a basement cell and breathe in the sacred fumes. Then, in a trance, at times in a frenzy, she would answer questions, give orders, and make prophecies. In a fascinating epilogue, archeologists have recently determined that the oracle probably came under the influence of ethylene—a sweet-smelling gas once used as an anesthetic. In light doses, it produces feelings of aloof euphoria and inspirational visions.
The oracle’s announcements exerted wide influence, and one of the most famous and admired was that no man was wiser than Socrates, a pronouncement delivered when he was only thirty years old. Yet as the following passage from Plato’s dialogue The Apology reveals, Socrates did not accept this authoritative statement at face value. Consistent with his commitment to rational investigation, he set out to gather evidence to prove or disprove its truth.

Plato, from The Apology
When I [Socrates] heard of the oracle I began to reflect: What can the god mean by this riddle? I know very well that I am not wise, even the smallest degree. Then what can she mean by saying that I am the wisest of men? It cannot be that she is speaking falsely, for she is a god and cannot lie. For a long time I was at a loss to understand her meaning.
Then, very reluctantly, I turned to seek for it in this manner: I went to a man who was reputed to be wise, thinking that there, if anywhere, I should prove the answer wrong, and meaning to point out to the oracle its mistake, and to say, “You said that I was the wisest of men, but this man is wiser than I am.” So I examined the man—I need not tell you his name, he was a politician—but this was the result, Athenians. When I conversed with him I came to see that, though a great many persons, and most of all he himself, thought that he was wise, yet he was not wise. Then I tried to prove to him that he was not wise, though he fancied that he was; and by so doing I made him indignant, and many of the bystanders. So when I went away, I thought to myself, I am wiser than this man: neither of us knows anything that is really worthwhile, but he thinks that he has knowledge when he has not, while I, having no knowledge, do not think that I have. I seem, at any rate, to be a little wiser than he is on this point: I do not think that I know what I do not know. Next I went to another man who was reputed to be still wiser than the last, with exactly the same result. And there again I made him, and many other men, indignant….
Athenians, I must tell you the truth: by the god, this was the result of the investigation which I made at the god’s bidding: I found that the men whose reputation for wisdom stood highest were nearly the most lacking in it, while others who were looked down on as common people were much more intelligent….
But, my friends, I believe that the god is really wise, and that by this oracle he meant that human wisdom is worth little or nothing. I do not think that he meant that Socrates was wise. He only made use of my name and took me as an example, as though he would say to men; He among you is the wisest who, like Socrates, knows that in truth his wisdom is worth nothing at all.

“He among you is the wisest who, like Socrates, knows that in truth his wisdom is worth nothing at all.”
This passage articulates Socrates’ character and philosophy of life in a fashion consistent with all that we know of him. Rather than basking in the glow of the oracle’s pronouncement that there is no wiser man than he, Socrates immediately begins thinking critically:
• • What does it mean to say “no one is wiser?”
• • Is the statement true, particularly because I don’t believe that I am so wise?
• • How can I go about determining the accuracy of the statement?
For Socrates, everything in human experience should be open to critical scrutiny, not in a negative destructive way, but in the constructiveeffort to achieve clearer understanding. Socrates is convinced that reason is the path to the truth, not opinion or conjecture, and he is willing to follow rational inquiry wherever it might lead—even if it means demonstrating that he is not the wisest man! So he embarks on his own experimental exploration, interviewing the people thought to be the wisest in Athens, using his Socratic Method, which we will analyze in the next section.

The results? Under the penetrating analysis of his questioning inquiry, Socrates discovers that those people thought to be wise are unable to articulate their ideas with clarity, logical soundness, and compelling rationale. In fact, it is their smug self-certainty that has inhibited their search for wisdom—they think they’ve already achieved it! Socrates’ search reveals another element of his character: his obvious delight in unmasking pretension, deflating oversized egos, and revealing the emptiness and illogic of unexamined beliefs.
Characteristically, Socrates concludes that his investigations have not “proven” that he is the wisest man—only that he is “a little wiser” than others because he recognizes his lack of true wisdom. This echoes the memorable statement by the Chinese philosopher Confucius (sixth to fifth century B.C.E.): “He who knows he is a fool is not a great fool.”
< READING CRITICALLY >: Analyzing Socrates on Wisdom and Humility
• ? How do you think most people would respond to being told that they are the most intelligent person in their community? Why do you think Socrates reacts as he does?
• ? In another part of the Apology, Socrates explains how he interviewed people who were exceptionally talented in one particular area, such as poetry or the arts. He found that these people believed that “because of their poetry (or other talent), they thought that they were the wisest of men in other matters too, which they were not.” Describe several examples of people you know who are talented in one area and who believe that they are exceptionally wise in other areas as well.
• ? Socrates is a very complex individual; and, when we read Plato’s dialogues, in which he appears as the main character, we need to be attentive to the many layers of meaning, intricate logic, and subtlety in his nuanced use of language. Do you think that he really believes that he is only a “little wiser” than others, and that his advantage is solely due to his acceptance of the fact that he is not wise? Why or why not? Why is the admission of ignorance the beginning of wisdom?

2.2 The Socratic Method
• Socrates: Tell me, Euthydemus, have you ever gone to Delphi?
• Euthydemus: Yes, twice.
• Socrates: And did you observe what is written on the temple wall—“Know thyself”?
• Euthydemus: I did.
• Socrates: And did you take no thought of that inscription, or did you attend to it, and try to examine yourself, and ascertain what sort of character you are?
This excerpt from Xenophon’s autobiography Memorabilia expresses one of Socrates’ central themes, as well as the approach he preferred to communicate his ideas to others. As we discovered in the first chapter, the keystone to Socrates’ philosophy was his conviction that “The unexamined life is not worth living.” This is the insight that Socrates wants Euthydemus to understand and embrace; but, instead of exhorting or “preaching” to him, Socrates uses a sequence of carefully crafted questions to help Euthydemus achieve this understanding by means of his own efforts. “Have you ever gone to Delphi?” An innocent enough question. “Did you observe the inscription written on the wall—‘Know thyself?’” Socrates begins to focus in on his central point. “Did you take no thought of that inscription, or did you attend to it …?” In other words, Socrates is asking, did you ignore the inscription so as to continue your life as a sleepwalker, or did you use the message as a catalyst to examine who you are and whom you want to become? With three brief questions, Socrates has challenged Euthydemus to think about his life in profound terms. In his role as an educational midwife, Socrates is striving to draw out from Euthydemus a reflective insight that he will take seriously and act on. For Socrates, philosophy was best practiced in conversation with others, and this was an activity that he engaged in with great enthusiasm. “Conversation” did not simply mean “talking”—it was instead a disciplined and investigative give-and-take, probing complex issues in a question-and-answer format. This dynamic exchange of ideas was characterized by Plato as a dialectic, which is derived from a Greek word for conversation, and its goal was to achieve a deep, clear, rationally founded understanding of the most significant areas of human experience: knowledge, justice, morality, religion, beauty, goodness, and the traits of good character such as courage and piety.
Dialectic From the Greek word for “to argue” or “converse,” a dynamic exchange or method involving contradiction or a technique for establishing an informed conclusion.
In most instances, Socrates would begin with a general definition of an important concept, such as justice, and then use his dialectical method to seek an understanding of the essential nature of the central concept. To arrive at this point of clarity, Socrates first worked to clear away the debris of inadequate and inconsistent definitions, typically at the expense of his dialogue partner.
In the following passage from Plato’s most famous dialogue, Republic, Socrates engages with a formidable opponent, Thrasymachus (c. 459–c. 400 B.C.E.), a leading Sophist of the day. The Sophists were an influential group of traveling educators who, for a fee, would teach people how to argue persuasively. They were, in general, interested in teaching the rhetorical techniques and tricks needed to win an argument at all costs, rather than determining what was “true” or “right” through collaborative investigation. In this sense, they were diametrically opposed to Socrates’ quest for genuine knowledge and universal truth. In fact, many Sophists were “relativists” and “skeptics,” philosophical views that contend that knowledge is only a matter of opinion and truth is always relative to a particular context. From this vantage point, universal truth and genuine knowledge simply don’t exist: Each person and culture determine their own version of “truth” and “knowledge.” Relativism and skepticism are philosophical theories that we will explore in great depth in later chapters.
Sophists Influential group of traveling educators who would teach rhetoric and oration for a fee. Many Sophists believed truth to be relative.

Before the aggressive Thrasymachus bursts onto the scene in the following passage, Socrates has been having a relatively calm and civilized discussion with a number of participants, considering and discarding a variety of efforts to define the essential nature of “justice.”

Plato, from The Republic
While we had been talking Thrasymachus had often tried to interrupt, but had been prevented by those sitting near him, who wanted to hear the argument concluded; but when we paused … he was no longer able to contain himself and gathered himself together and sprang on us like a wild beast, as if he wanted to tear us in pieces. Polemarchus and I [Socrates] were scared stiff, as Thrasymachus burst out and said, “What is all this nonsense, Socrates? Why do you go on in this childish way being so polite about each other’s opinions? If you really want to know what justice is, stop asking questions and then playing to the gallery by refuting anyone who answers you. You know perfectly well that it is easier to ask questions than to answer them. Give us an answer yourself, and tell us what you think justice is. And don’t tell me that it’s duty, or expediency, or advantage, or profit, or interest. I won’t put up with nonsense of that sort; give me a clear and precise definition.”

In stark contrast to the preceding atmosphere of thoughtful exchanges and mutual respect, Plato portrays Thrasymachus as loud, sarcastic, and insulting, often on the verge of physical violence. This should be interesting!
Plato, from The Republic
I [Socrates] was staggered by his attack and looked at him in dismay. If I had not seen him first I believe I should have been struck dumb; but I had noticed him when our argument first began to annoy him, and so managed to answer him, saying diffidently: “Don’t be hard on us, Thrasymachus. If we have made any mistake in the course of our argument, I assure you we have not done so on purpose. For if we were looking for gold, you can’t suppose that we would willingly let mutual politeness hinder our search and prevent our finding it. Justice is much more valuable than gold, and we aren’t likely to cramp our efforts to find it by any idiotic deference to each other. I assure you we are doing our best. It’s the ability that we lack, and clever chaps like you ought to be sorry for us and not get annoyed with us.”
Notice how clever Socrates is in handling this aggressive assault. Thrasymachus charges like an angry bull, and Socrates deftly steps aside and lets him go galloping past. It’s a form of verbal judo that Socrates perfected: Instead of meeting aggression with aggression, or backing down in the face of the onslaught, Socrates turns the aggressive energy of his opponent against him, leaving Thrasymachus (in this case) looking foolish when Socrates explains, “If we have made any mistake in the course of our argument, I assure you we have not done so on purpose.”
Another thing to note is Socrates’ exquisite use of irony, a form of rhetoric that has at least two conflicting levels of meaning—a literal or obvious level and a hidden or real level. So when Socrates says, “It’s the ability that we lack, and clever chaps like you ought to be sorry for us and not get annoyed with us,” there are two messages:
Irony A form of rhetoric that has at least two conflicting levels of meaning—an obvious one and a hidden one.

• • Literal, obvious meaning: You are much more intelligent than we are, so please be patient with us.
• • Hidden, real meaning: You think you’re more intelligent, but you’re really a pretentious buffoon, which I intend to demonstrate to everyone here.
Socrates was a master of irony and used it to expertly create a false sense of security in his dialogue partners and create the conditions for unmasking their foolishness and ignorance.
Plato, from The Republic
Thrasymachus laughed sarcastically, and replied, “There you go with your old affectation, Socrates. I knew it, and I told the others that you would never let yourself be questioned, but go on shamming ignorance and do anything rather than give a straight answer.”
“That’s because you’re so clever, Thrasymachus,” I [Socrates] replied, “and you know it. You ask someone for a definition of twelve and add, ‘I don’t want to be told that it’s twice six, or three times four, or six times two, or four times three; that sort of nonsense won’t do.’ You know perfectly well that no one would answer you on those terms. (This person) would reply, ‘What do you mean, Thrasymachus; am I to give none of the answers you mention? If one of them happens to be true, do you want me to give a false one?’ And how would you answer him?”
“That’s not a fair parallel,” he replied.
“I don’t see why not,” I said: “but even if it is not, we shan’t stop anyone else answering like that if he thinks it fair, whether we like it or not.”
“So I suppose that is what you are going to do,” he said; “you’re going to give one of the answers I barred.”
“I would not be surprised,” said I, “if it seemed to me on reflection to be the right one.”
“What if I give you a quite different and far better definition of justice? What plea will you enter then?”
“The plea of ignorance: for those who don’t know must learn from those who do.”
“You must have your joke,” said he, “but you must pay your costs as well.” [Thrasymachus is having his own “joke” by suggesting that Socrates pay him his customary fee for “instructing” him.] “I will when I have any cash.”
“The money’s all right,” said Glaucon; “we’ll pay up for Socrates. So let us have your definition, Thrasymachus.”
“I know,” he replied, “so that Socrates can play his usual tricks, never giving us his own views but always asking others to explain theirs and refuting them.”
“But what am I to do?” I asked. “I neither know nor profess to know anything about the subject, and even if I did I’ve been forbidden to say what I think by no mean (insignificant) antagonist. It’s much more reasonable for you to say something, because you say you know, and really have something to say. Do please do me a favour and give me an answer, and don’t grudge your instruction to Glaucon and the others here.”
Glaucon and the others backed up what I had said, and it was obvious that Thrasymachus was anxious to get the credit for the striking answer he thought he could give: but he went on pretending he wanted to win his point and make me reply. In the end, however, he gave in, remarking, “So this is the wisdom of Socrates: he won’t teach anyone anything, but goes round learning from others and is not even grateful.”
To which I replied, “It’s quite true, Thrasymachus, to say I learn from others, but it’s not true to say I’m not grateful. I am generous with my praise—the only return I can give, as I have no money. You’ll see in a moment how ready I am to praise any view I think well founded, for I’m sure the answer you’re going to give will be that.”

Thrasymachus is clever enough to recognize Socrates’ preference for having others propose ideas and definitions, which he would then critically analyze through relentless, incisive questioning. Socrates’ goal was to achieve a deep understanding of essential truths through the process of uncovering unjustified claims to knowledge, exposing logical inconsistencies, and gradually making his discussion partners aware of their lack of rational understanding of things they thought they knew. This dialectical analysis of concepts is unique in recorded history, because it is the first systematic use of reason for its own sake in philosophy. And as Thrasymachus rightly notes, it is very difficult to propose and defend a definition of a complex idea like “justice,” particularly when faced with the prospect of being carved up by the surgical blade of Socrates’ formidable intelligence. Yet despite his wariness and insistence that Socrates be the one to offer a definition of justice, Thrasymachus can’t help taking center stage with what he believes to be the truthful definition of justice.
Plato, from The Republic
“Listen then,” [Thrasymachus] replied. “I define justice or right as what is in the interest of the stronger party. Now where is your praise? I can see you’re going to refuse it.”
“You shall have it when I [Socrates] understand what you mean, which at present I don’t. You say that what is in the interest of the stronger party is right; but what do you mean by interest? For instance, Polydamas the athlete is stronger than us, and it’s in his interest to eat beef to keep it; we are weaker than he, but you can’t mean that the same diet is in our interest and so right for us.”
“You’re being tiresome, Socrates,” he returned, “and taking my definition in the sense most likely to damage it.”
“I assure you I’m not,” I said: “you must explain your meaning more clearly.”
“Well then, you know that some states are tyrannies, some democracies, some aristocracies? And that in each city power is the hands of the ruling class?”
“Yes.”
“Each ruling class makes laws that are in its own interest, a democracy democratic laws, a tyranny tyrannical ones and so on; and in making these laws they define as ‘right’ for their subjects what is in the interest of themselves, the rulers, and if anyone breaks their laws he is punished as a ‘wrongdoer.’ That is what I mean when I say that ‘right’ is the same thing in all states, namely the interest of the established ruling class; and this ruling class is the ‘strongest’ element in each state, and so if we argue correctly we see that ‘right’ is always the same, the interest of the stronger party…. Consider how the just man always comes off worse than the unjust. For instance, in any business relations between them, you won’t find the just man better off at the end of the deal than the unjust. Again, in their relations with the state, when there are taxes to be paid the unjust man will pay less on the same income, and when there’s anything to be got he’ll get it all. Thus if it’s a question of office, if the just man loses nothing else he will suffer from neglecting his private affairs; his honesty will prevent him appropriating public funds, and his relations and friends will detest him because his principles will not allow him to push their interests. But quite the reverse is true of the unjust man … the man … who can make profits in a big way: he’s the man to study if you want to find how much more private profit there is in wrong than in right…. So we see that injustice, given scope, has greater strength and freedom and power than justice; which proves what I started by saying, that justice is the interest of the stronger party, injustice the interest and profit of oneself.”

Thrasymachus has presented a forceful definition of “justice” that is consistent with the Sophist’s penchant for skepticism regarding universal truths—namely, there is no universal definition of justice. Justice is simply what is in the interest of the stronger party, the person (or people) who have the authority to command what they think is “just” and “right.” We can sum up this view with the aphorism, Might makes right. And Thrasymachus provides a rationale that on the surface seems to have some intuitive credibility.
When we examine various cultures around the world and throughout history, it is often the case that the most powerful individuals create a form of government that serves their interests, and make laws to ensure that the general populations act in ways that also contribute to their interests. But the real question that Thrasymachus is not addressing is whether we would consider all of these forms of government equally just. In other words, if we compare a tyrannical form of government, such as Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler or the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, with democratic forms of government such as Germany today or the United States, would we consider the tyrannies to be as “just” as the democracies? Although it’s true that Hitler and Stalin defined what was “right” in their eyes, does that mean that it wasreally “right”? Or was it a perversion of what is truly “right” and “just”?
The same logic applies to the other examples Thrasymachus uses: comparing a “just” (honest) person with an “unjust” (dishonest) person in doing business, paying taxes, and going into politics. Thrasymachus’s argument is that a dishonest person will come out on top in business deals, cheat on his taxes, and corruptly use his political position to steal for himself and help his friends. But even if all of this is true, does it prove that the dishonest man is a genuine example of a “just” man, simply because he has accumulated more money through dishonest and corrupt behavior? Just the fact that Thrasymachus uses such terms as just and unjust, honest and dishonest, suggests that these concepts have meaning that goes beyond simply exploiting others and stealing money. The question is, how is Socrates going to reveal the problems inherent in the might makes right point of view?
Plato, from The Republic
“Now,” I [Socrates] said, “I understand your meaning, and we must try to find out whether you are right or not. Your answer defines ‘right’ and ‘interest’ … but adds the qualification ‘of the stronger party.’”
“An insignificant qualification, I suppose you will say.”
“Its significance is not yet clear; what is clear is that we must consider whether your definition is true. For I quite agree that what is right is an ‘interest’; but you add that it is the interest ‘of the stronger party,’ and that’s what I don’t know about and want you to consider.”
“Let us hear you.”
“You shall,” said I. “You say that obedience to the ruling power is right and just?”
“I do.”
“And are those in power in the various states infallible or not?”
“They are, of course, liable to make mistakes,” he replied.
“When they proceed to make laws, then, they may do the job well or badly.”
“I suppose so.”
“And if they do it well the laws will be in their interest, and if they do it badly they won’t, I take it.”
“I agree.”
“But their subjects must obey the laws they make, for to do so is right.”
“Of course.”
“Then according to your argument it is right not only to do what is in the interest of the stronger party but also the opposite.”
“What do you mean?”
“My meaning is the same as yours, I think. Let us look at it more closely. Did we not agree that when the ruling powers order their subjects to do something they are sometimes mistaken about their own best interest, and yet that it is right for the subject to do what his ruler enjoins?”
“I suppose we did.”
“Then you must admit that it is right to do things that are not in the interest of the rulers, who are the stronger party; that is, when the rulers mistakenly give orders that will harm them and yet (so you say) it is right for their subjects to obey those orders. For surely, my dear Thrasymachus, in those circumstances it follows that it is ‘right’ to do the opposite of what you say is right, in that the weaker areordered to do what is against the interest of the stronger.”

In like a bull, out like a lamb. Socrates has clearly dismantled Thrasymachus’s position by reducing it to a contradiction. In logical terms, this form of argument is known by the Latin phrase reductio ad absurdum, which means “reducing to absurdity,” achieved in this case by forcing Thrasymachus to acknowledge that his view of justice results in believing two contradictory definitions:
• • Justice, or the right action, is doing what is in the interest of the stronger.
• • Justice, or the right action, is doing what is not in the interest of the stronger.
How does Socrates put a clever debater like Thrasymachus in such a logically untenable position? He has led Thrasymachus to state the following:
• A. Right actions are what is in the interest of the stronger.
• B. Obedience to the ruling power is right.
• C. Rulers are liable to make mistakes, issuing laws that are not in their interest.
These three claims can lead to a conflict: a ruler could issue a law against his interest (C), and then by B it is right to follow the law, but by A it is not right to follow the law. Thus Thrasymachus must give up one of the three statements.

Of course, the real problem for Thrasymachus is what we noted earlier: Defining “right” as whatever the powers that be say “right” is does not address the question of whether what they say is “right” and “just” is really “right” and “just.” That’s why Socrates is able to force Thrasymachus to acknowledge the self-contradictory nature of his position—because his definition of “right” and “justice” is not based on a clearly defined standard but instead is “relative” to human desire, which is notoriously inconsistent.
This brief excerpt reveals the intellectual power of the Socratic Method, as well as the formidable logical and interpersonal skills that Socrates brought to each encounter. Based on all we know, he could be an intimidating and infuriating discussion partner—brilliant, devious, capable of biting sarcasm and irony. It’s no wonder that people were drawn to him and his conversational performances, and it is also no surprise that those he had made to look foolish often developed an abiding anger toward him, an accumulated enmity that would end up contributing to his death.
< READING CRITICALLY >: Analyzing a Socratic Dialogue
• ? Review the central argument proposed by Thrasymachus carefully: How might you go about strengthening the argument to better withstand the critique by Socrates?
• ? Describe an incident in which you got into an argument with someone with an aggressive discussion style (à la Thrasymachus). What was the outcome? Then describe how you might have adopted Socrates’ “bull fighter” or “jujitsu” style in deflecting the aggression and moving the discussion in a more productive direction. How might the outcome have been different?
• ? There are many instances in everyday experience when people use a might makes right philosophy. For example:
o “Why should you go to bed now? Because I’m your parent, and I said so.”
o “I don’t want to hear any more questions about my policy—that is, if you want to keep your job. The right thing for you to do is to follow the procedure I gave you.”
o “I gave you a low grade on your Shakespeare paper because your interpretation simply isn’t right: It’s too far out of what I consider to be the mainstream of scholarly critique.”
Describe an incident in which someone has presented you with a might makes right philosophy of justice. Then compose a brief dialogue that demonstrates how Socrates might have handled the situation.

2.3 Socrates’ Central Concern: The Soul
For Socrates, the central concern of philosophy is the psyche, the “true self” or “soul.” What is the soul? It is your core identity, your unique spirit that makes you distinctively you. This is your authentic personality, your distinctive character. Your soul is the source of your deepest thoughts and highest aspirations, the unique life force that shapes and defines itself through choices made on a daily basis. According to Socrates, your soul is “immortal and imperishable, and after death should continue to exist in another world.”
Psyche The true self or “soul,” which is immortal and imperishable.
Every soul seeks happiness, Socrates believes, and there is a clearly defined path to achieving happiness, though many don’t choose to take it. The only people who are truly happy are those who are virtuous and wise, who live reflective, “examined” lives and strive to behave rightly and justly in every area of their lives. These people create souls that are good, wise, and courageous and as a result they achieve genuine and lasting happiness.
But many people are not happy because they have not pursued virtue and wisdom. Out of ignorance, they have devoted their lives to accumulating material possessions, indulging themselves in mindless pleasure, enlarging their reputations and inflating their egos, and using their relationships with others to further their own interests. These are the “sleepwalking” individuals in life, the people who are only going through the motions of living. Rather than creating souls of shimmering virtue and dazzling insight, their souls are diseased and corrupted, their lives lacking significance and happiness.
It is for this reason that Socrates saw himself as a “physician of the soul,” seeking to help cure people of the disease of their spirits. Socrates believed that people were not inherently evil, they were simply unaware of how they ought to live to achieve what they most desire—happiness and fulfillment. In the following passage, taken from the Apology, Socrates explains his life mission to the people sitting in judgment of him.
Plato, from The Apology
Men of Athens, I honour and love you; but I shall obey God rather than you, and while I have strength I shall never cease from the practice and teaching of philosophy, exhorting anyone whom I meet and saying to him after my manner: You, my friend—a citizen of the great and mighty and wise city of Athens—are you not ashamed of heaping up the greatest amount of money and honour and reputation, and caring so little about wisdom and truth and the greatest improvement of the soul, which you never regard or heed at all? And if the person with whom I am arguing, says: Yes, but I do care; then I do not leave him or let him go at once; but I proceed to interrogate and examine and cross-examine him, and if I think that he has no virtue in him, but only says that he has, I reproach him with undervaluing the greater, and overvaluing the less. And I shall repeat the same words to everyone I meet, young and old, citizen and alien, but especially to the citizens….
For know that this is the command of the god; and I believe no greater good has happened to this state than my service to the god. For I do nothing but go about persuading you all, old and young alike, not to take thought for your persons or your properties, but first and chiefly to care about the greatest improvement of your soul. I tell you that virtue is not given by money, but that from virtue comes money and every other good of man, public as well as private. This is my teaching.
Socrates’ conviction that the improvement of the soul is the central project of philosophy and indeed, the preeminent life project for each one of us, is the foundation of his core teachings:
• • The unexamined life is not worth living. Socrates was convinced that we have a moral obligation to achieve our full human potential, “actively exercising our soul’s powers,” which is the Greek definition of happiness (eudaemonia). When we live our lives unreflectively, not actively exploring deeper questions such as “Who am I?” and “What is the meaning of my life?” then our lives have diminished value. Yet most disturbing to Socrates was the fact that his fellow citizens so rarely even posed these questions, to themselves or to others. They were too busy “living” to wonder why they were living or developing a profound understanding of whowas doing the living. And if Socrates was alive today, it is likely that he would be at least as concerned regarding the “sleepwalking” of people in our culture and world as he was then. The gift of human reason provides us with the extraordinary ability not just to live but to critically examine our lives to make them as productive and worthwhile as possible. If we are to become human in the fullest sense, achieving our distinctive potential and genuine happiness, then we must live “an examined life.”
• • The truth lies within each of us. By living an examined life, we can discover the principles of right thinking and action within us. In our effort to improve our souls and make them more godlike, we need only to apply the divine gift of reason to look deep within ourselves and discover immutable, universal truths. Of course, this process is aided tremendously by engaging in shared explorations with others through dialectical conversations. But the ultimate answers lie within us. Socrates also extends this concept of implicit knowledge to other insights regarding the nature of reality, such as mathematics. In the dialogue Meno, he offers a compelling demonstration to his friend Menon to prove that “there is no such thing as teaching, only remembering.” He interviews an uneducated Greek slave boy, beginning with the concept of a 2′ × 2′ square, and then uses a series of skillful questions to successfully elicit some of the basic rules of geometry (for example, If a 2′ × 2′ space is 4 square feet, what must be the dimensions of an 8′ space?) Socrates concludes, “Now then, Menon, what do you think? Was there one single opinion which the boy did not give as his own? … Then if he did not get them in this life, is it not clear now that he had them and had learnt at some other time?” (Meno). Socrates’ belief that we each possess implicit knowledge that we can discover through reflective critical analysis of our own minds fits well with his belief in the immortality of the soul: We brought this knowledge with us when our souls entered this life on Earth.

Are we a society of sleepwalkers?

Socrates warned the citizens of Athens against “sleepwalking through life.” Do you think citizens of our culture run a similar risk of “rushing through life” without taking the time to reflect deeply on the meaning of life and the state of their souls?
• • We should strive for excellence in all areas of life. As previously mentioned, the Greeks in general and Socrates in particular believed that happiness was a consequence of actively exercising all of our soul’s powers, and Socrates was a living example of this commitment. History emphasizes the excellence he achieved in developing his intellect and his extraordinary skills as an educator through his ongoing discussions. But he was fully committed to achievement in other areas as well. As a youth Socrates was apprenticed to his father, a sculptor, and according to one tradition, he worked on the masterful The Three Muses in Their Habits, which adorned the Acropolis. When the Peloponnesian War broke out with neighboring Sparta, Socrates was drafted into service as a foot soldier (hoplite), armed with a shield and a sword. Despite his lowly rank, he distinguished himself with uncommon valor. In the midst of one battle he spied his friend, Alcibiades, lying wounded on the ground. He fought his way to him, slung him over his shoulder, and carried him to safety through a mass of armed enemy soldiers.
Who exemplifies Socrates’ teachings?

Socrates believed that we should live examined lives and have the courage to act on our principles despite the challenges we encounter, qualities exhibited by Mohandas Gandhi in leading India to independence in the first half of the twentieth century and by Nelson Mandela in helping to liberate South Africa from the oppression of apartheid. What individuals would you include as exemplars of Socrates’ ideals?
During the battle of Delium, his army broke ranks and retreated before the advancing Spartans. Socrates stood his ground and was the last Athenian soldier to join his comrades. For Socrates, a good and honorable life entailed making full use of all of one’s gifts: intellectually, creatively, courageously. And as we shall see, his intellectual and physical courage dominated the final chapter of his life, his trial and execution.
• • No one knowingly does evil. For Socrates, goodness and wisdom were partners, inextricably connected at their roots. He believed that virtue and excellence (arete) of the soul is the consequence of knowledge (epistêmê) and wisdom (sophia). It is by determined and clearheaded thinking that we develop an understanding of the rigorous standards of conduct that humans should follow, individually and socially. By training our minds to explore the central questions in life regarding justice, morality, and goodness, we cannot help but become good persons ourselves. Because all people want to be happy, and genuine happiness is the result of living an enlightened, examined life, then people will naturally live morally upright lives so that they can achieve authentic happiness. So why doesn’t everyone choose to emulate Socrates’ model of virtue and wisdom? Because they are ignorant. They want to be happy, but they are misguided in how to go about achieving this. They believe, like Thrasymachus, that they will become happy by accumulating money, becoming powerful, indulging their senses, or controlling other people. They don’t realize that these venal pursuits will not only inhibit their quest for happiness but also corrupt their souls. Their only hope is to recognize that they need to pursue virtue and wisdom to be genuinely happy, and once they achieve this profound insight, this is the life path that they will choose.

Arete Virtue and excellence.
Epistêmê The Greek word most often translated as knowledge, while technê is translated as either craft or art.
Sophia Wisdom.
• • “It is better to suffer wickedness than to commit it.” Why be moral? As just noted, Socrates’ response is that becoming a moral person is the only way to become a truly happy, psychologically healthy person. Often adages are clichéd and empty of meaning, but for Socrates, the idea that “Virtue is its own reward” contains a substantial measure of truth, a point he expresses in his observation that doing wrong “will harm and corrupt that part of ourselves that is improved by just actions and destroyed by unjust actions.” As a thinking individual, you create yourself through the choices that you make much as a sculptor gradually forms a figure through countless cuts of the chisel. If you create yourself as a moral person, you create a person of character and worth, with an acute sense of right and wrong and the power to choose appropriately. But if, out of ignorance, you don’t choose to create yourself as a moral person, your soul gradually becomes corrupted. You lose your moral sensitivity, developing a moral blindness that handicaps your ability to see yourself or the world clearly. It is no wonder that Socrates believed that “It is better to suffer wickedness than to commit it.” Choosing immorality binds your hands, one loop of thread at a time, until your freedom of movement disappears. Although virtuous people enjoy healthy personalities and spiritual wholeness, immoral people are corrupted at their core, progressively ravaged by a disease of the spirit. And because our soul is immutable and eternal, it is impossible for a virtuous person to ever be harmed by others in any meaningful, lasting sense, and it is for this reason also that, Socrates believes, a virtuous person should have no fear of death.

< READING CRITICALLY >: Analyzing the Core Teachings of Socrates
• ? When you think about your “self,” what image comes to mind? Describe, as best you can, the entity that Socrates refers to as your “soul”: that core identity that distinguishes you from every other living creature. Do you think this identity is immortal? Why or why not?
• ? Socrates posed the following challenge to his fellow citizens: “… are you not ashamed of heaping up the greatest amount of money and honour and reputation, and caring so little about wisdom and truth and the greatest improvement of the soul?” Do you think that this challenge is still relevant today? Explain your reasoning.
• ? Socrates believes that the most important truths already exist within our minds—we need only develop our powers of reflective analysis to discover them. Do you agree with this view? What might be examples of “truths” that exist within every person’s mind?
• ? According to Socrates, no one knowingly does evil. Immoral conduct is always the result of ignorance, and if people are educated regarding the “right” way to act, they will necessarily do it. Do you agree with this view? Have you ever known the “right” thing to do but suffered from a “failure of will” and ended up doing the wrong thing? If so, how would Socrates analyze your experience?

2.4 The Trial and Death of Socrates
Although Socrates lived an exemplary and influential life, if it hadn’t been for his trial and ultimate execution, it is very possible that we would not be studying him today. These events were so dramatic and the principles they embodied so profound and timeless that they elevated Socrates to a near mythic level.
These final extraordinary days in Socrates’ life are captured in Plato’s dialogue Apology, a term that refers to a philosophical defense of an action or viewpoint. At the age of seventy, Socrates finds himself at the court of Athens on trial for his life due to allegations that he has “corrupted the youth” of Athens and that he “does not believe in the gods whom the state believes in, but in other new divinities.” As in the case of many political trials of this sort throughout history, these charges were merely a cover for more sinister forces at work. Socrates was indeed unpopular with many influential citizens and political leaders because he had encouraged people throughout his life not to blindly accept authority or the pronouncements of self-appointed “wise” people. Instead, in his countless discussions in the agora, he insisted by word and example that people think for themselves and that all ideas be held up to the scrutiny of critical analysis to determine their value and truth.
Socrates had also developed enemies because of his political views, especially during the two greatest political convulsions in Athens’ history. In 411 and again in 404, the Athenian democracy was overthrown by a group led by antidemocratic aristocrats. In both cases forces committed to democracy were able to overcome the dictators. The rebellion in 411 (“The rule of the 400”) was initiated by one of Socrates’ star students, Alcibiades, who oversaw a four-month reign of terror. The rebellion in 404 was initiated by two students of Socrates who are featured in a number of Plato’s dialogues—Critias and Cheredon. Their savage rule lasted eight months. Never in the history of Athens were basic rights and property as threatened as in those two aristocratic dictatorships. Yet there is no evidence that Socrates, during those fateful conflicts and their humane resolution, took part in either the overthrow or the restoration of democracy. He sided neither with the disaffected aristocrats who seized power nor with the democrats they killed or expelled from the city. Nor are these crucial events in Greek history addressed in any of Plato’s dialogues. Socrates was aware of the criticism he had provoked by his abstention from politics, and he explained at his trial that his famous daimonion—the inner voice, or guiding spirit he claimed to possess—had warned him against engaging in politics. “A man who really fights for the right, if he is to preserve his life for even a little while, must be a private citizen, not a public man.” Socrates may have believed that his mission was outside of the political process, acting as an independent “gadfly” to rouse and inspire people to follow an enlightened path in life. Whatever the reason, his lack of political involvement engendered real-world political consequences.
Finally, Socrates was also the target of a vindictive father, Anytus, who was the man behind the charges against him. Several years earlier, the son of Anytus had come to study with Socrates and was so inspired that he decided to pursue philosophy instead of working in the family leather-tanning business. Enraged by his son’s decision, Anytus arranged for Meletus, a young, unsuccessful poet with a sarcastic streak, to bring the obviously concocted charges against Socrates. Under Athenian law, Socrates’ jury was 501 citizens, a cross-section of the 45,000 free citizens living in Athens.
Let’s explore this last and most dramatic chapter in Socrates’ life and examine how he applied his philosophical convictions to the greatest challenge he had ever faced. Plato’s account of the trial begins at the Court of Justice with an opening statement by Socrates, which is following a statement of the charges against him by his accusers.

Plato, from The Apology
I cannot tell what impression my accusers have made upon you, Athenians. For my own part, I know that they nearly made me forget who I was, so believable were they; and yet they have scarcely uttered one single word of truth. But of all their many falsehoods, the one which astonished me most was when they said that I was a clever speaker, and that you must be careful not to let me mislead you. I thought that it was most impudent of them not to be ashamed to talk in that way; for as soon as I open my mouth they will be refuted, and I shall prove that I am not a clever speaker in any way at all—unless, indeed, by a clever speaker they mean a man who speaks the truth. If that is their meaning, I agree with them that I am a much greater orator than they. My accusers, then I repeat, have said little or nothing that is true; but from me you shall hear the whole truth. Certainly you will not hear an elaborate speech, Athenians, dressed up, like theirs, with words and phrases. I will say to you what I have to say, without preparation, and in the words which come first, for I believe that my cause is just; so let none of you expect anything else. Indeed, my friends, it would hardly be seemingly for me, at my age, to come before you like a young man with his specious phrases. But there is one thing, Athenians, which I do most earnestly beg and entreat of you. Do not be surprised and do not interrupt with shouts if in my defense I speak in the same way that I accustomed to speak in the market place, at the tables of the moneychangers, where many of you have heard me, and elsewhere. The truth is this. I am more than seventy years old, and this is the first time that I have ever come before a law court; so your manner of speech here is quite strange to me. If I had been really a stranger, you would have forgiven me for speaking in the language and the fashion of my native country; and so now I ask you to grant me what I think I have a right to claim. Never mind the style of my speech—it may be better or it may be worse—give your whole attention to the question, Is what I say just, or is it not? That is what makes a good judge, as speaking the truth makes a good advocate.

These initial remarks reveal a vintage Socrates. Fully aware of Socrates’ effectiveness in thinking, reasoning, and persuading, his accusers have attempted to undermine his effectiveness by “warning” the jury not to be misled by his cleverness as a speaker. In logical terms, this is a fallacy known as “poisoning the well,” in which the attempt is made to discredit someone’s point of view before they even have an opportunity to speak. Socrates recognizes this threat to his credibility and immediately turns the threat back against his accusers by asserting that his only cleverness is “speaking the truth,” and if this is what they mean, then he is indeed “clever.” One of the many fascinating qualities of Socrates was the fact that, despite the power of his intellect, his language was plainspoken and direct. He avoided the elaborate and ornate language that the Sophists were prone to use, instead choosing to express himself as clearly as possible. It is for this reason that he asks the court not to object or interrupt him for using his familiar, vernacular form of expression rather than the more formal language customary in the court. Instead, he requests that the court focus solely on the content of what he is saying—is it just or not? After all of those years of conversing with and educating people in every imaginable situation, Socrates cannot resist educating the jury as well, advising them that focusing on the justice of the ideas “is what makes a good judge, as speaking the truth makes a good advocate.” In other words, he will speak the truth; they need only concentrate on understanding the justice of his case. “Be careful of Socrates’ cleverness.” Once again, he has outmaneuvered his opponents with a clearly articulated display of rhetorical artistry.
Socrates then goes on to say:
Plato, from The Apology
I have to defend myself, Athenians, first against the old false accusations of my old accusers, and then against the later ones of my present accusers. For many men have been accusing me to you, and for very many years, who have not uttered a word of truth; and I fear them more than I fear Anytus and his associates, formidable as they are. But, my friends, those others are still more formidable for they got hold of most of you when you were children, and they have been more persistent in accusing me untruthfully and have persuaded you that there is a certain Socrates, a wise man, who speculates about the heavens, and who investigates things that are beneath the earth, and who can make the weaker reasons appear the stronger. These men, Athenians, who spread abroad this report are the accusers whom I fear; for their hearers think that persons who pursue such inquiries never believe in the gods. Then they are many, and their attacks have been going on for a long time, and they spoke to you when you were at the age most readily to believe them, for you were all young, and many of you were children, and there was no one to answer them when they attacked me. And the most unreasonable thing of all is that I do not even know their names; I cannot tell you who they are except when one happens to be a comic poet. But all the rest who have persuaded you, from motives of resentment and prejudice, and sometimes it may be, from conviction, are hardest to cope with. For I cannot call any one of them forward in court to cross-examine him. I have, as it were, simply to spar with shadows in my defense, and to put questions which there is no one to answer. I ask you, therefore, to believe that, as I say, I have been attacked by two kinds of accusers—first, by Meletus and his associates, and, then, by those older ones of whom I have spoken. And, with your leave, I will defend myself first against my old accusers; for you heard their accusations first, and they were much more forceful than my present accusers are.
Well, I must make my defense, Athenians, and try in the short time allowed me to remove the prejudice which you have been so long a time acquiring. I hope that I may manage to do this, if it be good for you and for me, and that my defense may be successful; but I am quite aware of the nature of my task, and I know that it is a difficult one. Be the outcome, however, as is pleasing to God, I must obey the law and make my defense.
thinking philosophically: COUNTERING PERSONAL ATTACKS
• • One of the attacks against Socrates was an example of “poisoning the well,” attempting to undermine his credibility before he even had an opportunity to make his case. Has this technique ever been used against you? Can you describe it? What do you think is the best way to counter this sort of attack?
• • Socrates was also the victim of people spreading false and damaging rumors about him. Can you describe a situation in which this has happened to you? Did these rumors influence the opinions of other people toward you? How did you respond to these attacks? How would you respond if they occur in the future?
In this passage Socrates is acknowledging the difficulty of overcoming deeply ingrained prejudice. Throughout his life, he contends, there have been those who have spread malicious lies about him, constructing an untrue portrayal of him as one “who speculates about the heavens,” “who can make the weaker reasons appear the stronger,” and who doesn’t “believe in the gods.” This prolonged character assassination has been particularly insidious because the young men comprising the jury began hearing these lies as children, when their minds were still malleable and their views of the world still being formed. So to judge him fairly, Socrates is warning, they’re going to have to think critically by becoming aware of and setting aside their prejudices against him.

One of the most frustrating elements about personal attacks is that the originators tend to create their mischief behind your back rather than confronting you directly, forcing you to “spar with shadows.” But Socrates does name one person who, for some reason, conducted a long-running public campaign to ridicule and discredit him: the “comic poet” Aristophanes (c. 448–380 B.C.E.), the Greek dramatist who authored such classic plays as The Birds and The Clouds. For example, in response to Socrates’ metaphoric characterization of himself as a “midwife” to men’s understanding, Aristophanes contended that too often Socrates produced only a “miscarriage of ideas.” In his playThe Clouds he even—sarcastically—features Socrates as a major airhead with his head “in the clouds.”
Socrates continues his defense in the following passage:
Plato, from The Apology
Let us begin from the beginning, then, and ask what is the accusation which has given rise to the prejudice against me, which was what Meletus relied on when he brought his indictment. What is the prejudice which my enemies have been spreading about me? I must assume that they are formally accusing me, and read their indictment. It would run somewhat in this fashion: Socrates is a wrongdoer who meddles with inquiries into things beneath the earth and in the heavens and who makes the weaker reason appear the stronger, and who teaches others these same things. That is what they say; and in the comedy of Aristophanes (Clouds) you yourselves saw a man called Socrates swinging round in a basket and saying that he walked on the air, and prattling a great deal of nonsense about matters of which I understand nothing, either more or less. I do not mean to disparage that kind of knowledge if there is anyone who is wise about these matters. I trust Meletus may never be able to prosecute me for that. But the truth is, Athenians, I have nothing to do with these matters, and almost all of you are yourselves my witnesses of this. I beg all of you who have heard me discussing, and they are many, to inform your neighbors and tell them if any of you have ever heard me discussing such matters, either more or less. That will show you that the other common stories about me are as false as this one.
But the fact is that not one of these is true. And if you have heard that I undertake to educate men, and make money by so doing, that is not true either, though I think that it would be a fine thing to be able to educate men….
Perhaps some of you may reply: But, Socrates, what is the trouble with you? What has given rise to these prejudices against you? You must have been doing something out of the ordinary. All these stories and reports of you would never have arisen if you had not been doing something different from other men. So tell us what it is, that we may not give our verdict in the dark. I think that that is a fair question, and I will try to explain to you what it is that has raised these prejudices against me and given me this reputation. Listen, then: some of you, perhaps, will think that I am joking, but I assure you that I will tell you the whole truth. I have gained this reputation, Athenians, simply by reason of a certain wisdom. But by what kind of wisdom? It is by just that wisdom which is perhaps human wisdom. In that, it may be, I am really wise …
You remember Chaerephon. From youth upwards he was my comrade; and also a partisan of your democracy, sharing your recent exile and returning with you. You remember, too, Chaerephon’s character—how vehement he was in carrying through whatever he took in hand. Once he went to Delphi and ventured to put this question to the oracle—I entreat you again, my friends, not to interrupt me with your shouts—he asked if there was any man who was wiser than I. The priestess answered that there was no one. Chaerephon himself is dead, but his brother here will confirm what I say.
Astutely, Socrates addresses the common belief that “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” by undertaking to explain how the campaign to ridicule and discredit him came about. In doing so, he’s making use of a very effective discussion strategy, namely, anticipating a potential criticism or counterargument against your position and then providing an explanation to counter it.
His explanation is explored earlier in this chapter (pages 46–48). Not convinced of the accuracy of the oracle’s pronouncement that there was no man wiser than he, Socrates sets out to investigate this claim by interviewing men reputed to be wise. Under the scrutiny of his penetrating questions, he discovers, of course, that these supposed “wise men” are not wise at all. The result of his tenacious questioning and stripping away of arrogance and pretension? His victims and their friends became angry and resentful of Socrates, creating over the years a growing number of people interested in destroying his reputation and ultimately destroying him.
In addition, Socrates had over the years attracted a large number of mainly young disciples who considered him to be “the bravest, most wise and most upright man of our times.” Like the son of his chief accuser, Anytus, they sought to emulate him and his questioning techniques, performing the same debunking of false knowledge that their teacher was so fond of. The predictable result was the allegation by those unsympathetic to Socrates that he was “corrupting the young.”
Plato, from The Apology
From this examination, Athenians, has arisen much fierce and bitter indignation, and from this a great many prejudices about me, and people say that I am “a wise man.” For the bystanders always think that I am wise myself in any matter wherein I refute another. But, my friends, I believe that the god is really wise and that by this oracle he meant that human wisdom is worth little or nothing. I do not think that he meant that Socrates was wise. He only made use of my name, and took me as an example, as though he would say to men: He among you is the wisest who, like Socrates, knows that in truth his wisdom is worth nothing at all.
Besides this, the young men who follow me about, who are the sons of wealthy persons and have the most leisure, take pleasure in hearing men cross-examined. They often imitate me among themselves; they try their hands at cross-examining other people. And, I imagine, they find plenty of men who think that they know a great deal when in fact they know little or nothing. Then the persons who are cross-examined get angry with me instead of with themselves, and say that Socrates is an abomination and corrupts the young. When they are asked, Why, what does he do? what does he teach? They do not know what to say …
What I have told you, Athenians, is the truth: I neither conceal nor do I suppress anything, small or great. Yet I know that it is just this plainness of speech which rouses indignation. But that is only a proof that my words are true, and that the prejudice against me, and the causes of it, are what I have said. And whether you look for them now or hereafter, you will find that they are so.
Having illuminated the accumulated prejudice against him by people whom he has publicly revealed to be “ignorant pretenders to knowledge they don’t possess” or those who resent him because of his unvarnished critique of the decadent morals and corrupt political values of many of his fellow citizens, Socrates turns his attention to the matter at hand: the specific charges brought against him by Meletus, the front man for the angry and vindictive tanner, Anytus. It’s time for Socrates to demonstrate his Socratic Method to the court, at the expense of Meletus.
Plato, from The Apology
What I have said must suffice as my defense against the charges of my first accusers. I will try next to defend myself against Meletus, that “good patriot,” as he calls himself, and my later accusers. Let us assume that they are a new set of accusers, and read their indictment, as we did in the case of the others. It runs thus. He says that Socrates is a wrongdoer who corrupts the youth, and who does not believe in the gods whom the state believes in, but in other new divinities. Such is the accusation. Let us examine each point in it separately. Meletus says that I do wrong by corrupting the youth. But I say, Athenians, that he is doing wrong, for he is playing a solemn joke by lightly bringing men to trial, and pretending to have zealous interest in matters to which he has never given a moment’s thought. Now I will try to prove to you that it is so.
Come here, Meletus. Is it not a fact that you think it very important that the young should be as excellent as possible?
• Meletus: It is.
• Socrates: Come then, tell the judges who is it who improves them? You care so much, you must know. You are accusing me, and bringing me to trial, because, as you say, you have discovered that I am the corrupter of the youth. Come now, reveal to the gentlemen who improves them. You see, Meletus, you have nothing to say; you are silent. But don’t you think that this is shameful? Is not your silence a conclusive proof of what I say—that you have never cared? Come, tell us, my good sir, who makes the young better citizens?
• Meletus: The laws.
• Socrates: That, my friend, is not my question. What man improves the young, who starts with the knowledge of the laws?
• Meletus: The judges here, Socrates.
• Socrates: What do you mean, Meletus? Can they educate the young and improve them?
• Meletus: Certainly.
• Socrates: All of them? Or only some of them?
• Meletus: All of them.
• Socrates: By Hera, that is good news! Such a large supply of benefactors! And do the listeners here improve them, or not?
• Meletus: They do.
• Socrates: And do the senators?
• Meletus: Yes.
• Socrates: Well then, Meletus, do the members of the assembly corrupt the young or do they again all improve them?
• Meletus: They, too, improve them.
• Socrates: Then all the Athenians, apparently, make the young into good men except me, and I alone corrupt them. Is that your meaning?
• Meletus: Most certainly; that is my meaning.
• Socrates: You have discovered me to be most unfortunate. Now tell me: do you think that the same holds good in the case of horses? Does one man do them harm and everyone else improve them? On the contrary, is it not one man only, or a very few—namely, those who are skilled with horses—who can improve them, while the majority of men harm them if they use them and have anything to do with them? Is it not so, Meletus, both with horses and with every other animal? Of course it is, whether you and Anytus say yes or no. The young would certainly be very fortunate if only one man corrupted them, and everyone else did them good. The truth is, Meletus, you prove conclusively that you have never thought about the youth in your life. You exhibit your carelessness in not caring for the very matters about which you are prosecuting me.Now be so good as to tell us, Meletus, is it better to live among good citizens or bad ones? Answer, my friend. I am not asking you at all a difficult question. Do not the bad harm their associates and the good do them good?
• Meletus: Yes.
• Socrates: Is there any man who would rather be injured than benefited by his companions? Answer, my good sir; you are obliged by the law to answer. Does nary one like to be injured?
• Meletus: Certainly not.
• Socrates: Well then, are you prosecuting me for corrupting the young and making them worse, intentionally or unintentionally?
• Meletus: For doing it intentionally.
• Socrates: What, Meletus? Do you mean to say that you, who are so much younger than I, are yet so much wiser than I that you know that bad citizens always do evil, and that good citizens do good, to those with whom they come in contact, while I am so extraordinarily stupid as not to know that, if I make any of my companions evil, he will probably injure me in some way, and as to commit this great evil, as you allege, intentionally? You will not make me believe that, nor anyone else either, I should think. Either I do not corrupt the young at all or, if I do, I do so unintentionally: so that you are lying in either case. And if I corrupt them unintentionally, the law does not call upon you to prosecute me for an error which is unintentional, but to take me aside privately and reprove and instruct me. For, of course, I shall cease from doing wrong involuntarily, as soon as I know that I have been doing wrong. But you avoided associating with me and educating me; instead you bring me up before the court, where the law sends persons, not for instruction, but for punishment.

What an excellent example of Socrates’ ability to slice through confused thinking and emotionally charged generalities to arrive at a clear delineation of the truth! And to do so in such an entertaining way, in a form combining persuasive logic with subtle irony. Socrates begins by engaging Meletus’s services in deconstructing the emotionally laden charge that Socrates has been “corrupting the young.” Drawing on his years as an educator, Socrates explores the question, “What is the process of shaping a people’s thinking and characters?” Meletus quite rightly acknowledges that numerous people influence our development over a long period of time, echoing the African proverb, “It takes a village to raise a child.” But if that’s the case, Socrates wonders, then how is it possible that he, as a solitary individual, could possibly nullify the influence of all the people the youth of Athens have been taught and influenced by? It’s irrational and defies belief. As Socrates notes: “The young would certainly be very fortunate if only one man corrupted them, and everyone else did them good.”
What are the influences on character?

Do you agree with Socrates that the formation of a person’s thinking and character is typically the result of many influences throughout their lives? What about cases where a cult leader is able to exert control over others’ thinking? Contrast that type of mind control with the Socratic method of questioning and dialectical exploration.
Further, Socrates presses Meletus, what incentive would Socrates have to influence the youth of Athens to be evil rather than good? Creating evil disciples would only end up hurting himself, so it only makes sense to believe that he has been trying to influence people to be good. If he has made mistakes in this quest, they have obviously been unintentional, in which case he should be educated, not punished. But of course the truth is that these are not real charges, they are simply excuses to attempt to hurt Socrates, genuinely “impious” efforts for which he has only contempt:
Plato, from The Apology
Meletus says that I do wrong by corrupting the youth. But I say, Athenians, that he is doing wrong, for he is playing a solemn joke by lightly bringing men to trial, and pretending to have zealous interest in matters to which he has never given a moment thought…. The truth is, Meletus, you prove conclusively that you have never thought about the youth in your life. You exhibit your carelessness in not caring for the very matters about which you are prosecuting me.
Having demolished the charge of “corrupting the youth,” Socrates now addresses the allegation that he “does not believe in the gods whom the state believes in, but in other new divinities”:
Plato, from The Apology
… now tell us, Meletus, how do you say that I corrupt the young? Clearly, according to your indictment, by teaching them not to believe in the gods the state believes in, but other new divinities instead. You mean that I corrupt the young by that teaching, do you not?
• Meletus: Yes, most certainly I mean that.
• Socrates: Then in the name of these gods of whom we are speaking, explain yourself a little more clearly to me and to these gentlemen here. I cannot understand what you mean. Do you mean that I teach the young to believe in some gods, but not in the gods of the state? Do you accuse me of teaching them to believe in strange gods? If that is your meaning, I myself believe in some gods, and my crime is not that of absolute atheism. Or do you mean that I do not believe in the gods at all myself, and I teach other people not to believe in them either?
• Meletus: I mean that you do not believe in the gods in any way whatever.
• Socrates: You amaze me, Meletus! Why do you say that? Do you mean that I believe neither the sun nor the moon to be gods, like other men?
• Meletus: I swear he does not, judges; he says that the sun is a stone, and the moon earth.
• Socrates: My dear Meletus, do you think that you are prosecuting Anaxagoras? (a pre-Socratic philosopher who believed that the entire universe is composed of matter in motion governed by the principle of mind (nous) You must have a very poor opinion of these men, and think them illiterate, if you imagine that they do not know that the works of Anaxagoras of Clazomenae are full of these doctrines. And so young men learn these things from me, when they can often buy places in the theater for a drachma at most, and laugh at Socrates were he to pretend that these doctrines, which are very peculiar doctrines, too, were his own. But please tell me, do you really think that I do not believe in the gods at all?
• Meletus: Most certainly I do. You are a complete atheist.
• Socrates: No one believes that, Meletus, not even you yourself. It seems to me, Athenians, that Meletus is very insolent and reckless, and that he is prosecuting me simply out of insolence, recklessness and youthful bravado. For he seems to be testing me, by asking me a riddle that has no answer. Will this wise Socrates, he says to himself, see that I am joking and contradicting myself? Or shall I outwit him and everyone else who hears me? Meletus seems to me to contradict himself in his indictment: it is as if he were to say, Socrates is a wrongdoer who does not believe in the gods, but who believes in the gods. But that is mere joking.Now, my friends, let us see why I think that this is his meaning. Do you answer me, Meletus; and do you, Athenians, remember the request which I made to you at the start, and do not interrupt me with shouts if I talk in my usual way.Is there any man, Meletus, who believes in the existence of things pertaining to men and not in the existence of men? Make him answer the question, my friends, without these interruptions. Is there any man who believes in the existence of horsemanship and not in the existence of horses? Or in flute-playing and not in flute-players? There is not, my friend. If you will not answer, I will tell both you and the judges. But you must answer my next question. Is there any man who believes in the existence of divine things and not in the existence of divinities?
• Meletus: There is not.
• Socrates: I am very glad that these gentlemen have managed to extract an answer from you. Well then, you say that I believe in divine beings, whether they be old or new ones, and that I teach others to believe in them; at any rate, according to your statement, I believe in divine beings. That you have sworn in your indictment. But if I believe in divine beings, I suppose it follows necessarily that I believe in divinities. Is it not so? It is. I assume that you grant that, as you do not answer. But do we not believe that divinities are either gods themselves or the children of gods? Do you admit that?
• Meletus: I do.
• Socrates: Then you admit that I believe in divinities. Now, if these divinities are gods, then, as I say, you are joking and asking a riddle, and asserting that I do not believe in the gods, and at the same time that I do, since I believe in divinities…. You must have indicted me in this manner, Meletus, either to test me or because you could not find any crime that you could accuse me of with truth. But you will never contrive to persuade any man with any sense at all that a belief in divine things and things of the gods does not necessarily involve a belief in divinities, and in the gods, and in heroes.But in truth, Athenians, I do not think that I need say very much to prove that I have not committed the crime for which Meletus is prosecuting me. What I have said is enough to prove that. But I repeat it is certainly true, as I have already told you, that I have aroused much indignation. That is what will cause my condemnation if I am condemned; not Meletus nor Anytus either, but that prejudice and suspicion of the multitude which have been the destruction of many good men before me, and I think will be so again. There is no fear that I shall be the last victim.
Socrates wastes no time in demolishing the remaining accusations Meletus has brought against him at the behest of Anytus. He begins by demanding a clear definition of the key concepts under discussion—in this case, the accusation that Socrates is corrupting the young “by teaching them not to believe in the gods the state believes in, but other new divinities instead.” In fact, the insistence on “defining your terms” has been a core strategy of philosophy ever since Socrates introduced it. Why is it so important to begin discussions with a clear and precise definition of key terms and concepts? Because those definitions form the bedrock of analysis. If the concepts are permitted to remain vague and ambiguous, it’s impossible to make meaningful progress in the analysis and exploration of those terms. That’s exactly why so many discussions and debates go awry, because vague, imprecise definitions encourage each party to “fill in” their own meanings, encouraging miscommunication and conceptual confusion. So Socrates presses Meletus:
Plato, from The Apology
I cannot understand what you mean. Do you mean that I teach the young to believe in some gods, but not in the gods of the state? Do you accuse me of teaching them to believe in strange gods? If that is your meaning, I myself believe in some gods, and my crime is not that of absolute atheism. Or do you mean that I do not believe in the gods at all myself, and I teach other people not to believe in them either?
Meletus, forced to commit himself to a precise definition of what he means, rather than hiding behind the vague characterization of “corrupting the young by teaching them new divinities,” wastes no time in fashioning a semantic noose and hanging himself: “I mean that you do not believe in the gods in any way whatever … you are a complete atheist.” But Meletus has already acknowledged in his indictment that Socrates believes in some gods—just not the “state-approved” gods. In the same way that Thrasymachus ends up contradicting himself as he struggles to define and redefine “might makes right,” so Meletus now finds himself in the position of maintaining that Socrates is a wrongdoer who does not believe in gods, but who believes in the gods. Reductio ad absurdum!
Despite administering the coup de grâce to Meletus’s feeble argument, Socrates goes on to pursue an intriguing line of reasoning that will foreshadow one of the strongest arguments for the existence of God—the argument by design—used consistently during the past several thousand years. The “argument by design” reasons that
• • every dimension of the universe displays design and purpose.
• • design and purpose implies a designer who is responsible for creating the design and purpose.
• • therefore, God—the supernatural designer—must exist.
Notice how Socrates’ line of reasoning echoes the fundamental structure of this argument:
Plato, from The Apology
Is there any man, Meletus, who believes in the existence of things pertaining to men and not in the existence of men? … Is there any man who believes in the existence of horsemanship and not in the existence of horses? Or in flute-playing and not in flute-players? … Is there any man who believes in the existence of divine things and not in the existence of divinities?
Socrates concludes this section by noting that although he has conclusively demonstrated his innocence with respect to the charges brought against him, he recognizes those charges are masquerading more sinister forces attempting to destroy him: the anger he has aroused by a lifetime of critically examining the beliefs and values of his fellow citizens, as well as the “prejudice and suspicion of the multitude which have been the destruction of many good men before me, and I think will be so again.” This last phrase is a chilling prediction of his soon-to-be-decided fate, a concern underscored by his next sentence, “There is no fear that I shall be the last victim.”
Yet despite his belief that he is likely to be found guilty for reasons that had nothing to do with the “official” charges against him, Socrates had no intention of providing the court with an easy way out of the situation they had constructed. He realized that if he promised to cease the philosophical activity that he had practiced for his entire adult life, the court would likely forgo any serious punishment. But he wanted to make clear to them that discontinuing his life work was not an option that he would ever consider. If they were intent on finding him guilty, then they would have to take the responsibility of sentencing him to death.
“[W]ealth, and every other good thing which men have, whether in public or in private, comes from virtue …”
Plato, from The Apology
I will never do what I know to be evil, and shrink in fear from what I do not know to be good or evil. Even if you acquit me now, and do not listen to Anytus’s argument that, if I am to be acquitted, I ought never to have been brought to trial at all, and that, as it is, you are bound to put me to death because, as he said, if I escape all your sons will be utterly corrupted by practicing what Socrates teaches. If you were therefore to say to me: Socrates, this time we will not listen to Anytus; we will let you go, but on this condition, that you give up this investigation of yours, and philosophy; if you are found following those pursuits again, you shall die. I say, if you offered to let me go on these terms, I should reply: Athenians, I hold you in the highest regard and affection, but I will be persuaded by the god rather than by you; and as long as I have breath and strength I will not give up philosophy and exhorting you and declaring the truth to every one of you whom I meet, saying, as I am accustomed, “My good friend, you are a citizen of Athens, a city which is very great and very famous for its wisdom and strength—are you not ashamed of caring so much for the making of money and for fame and prestige, when you neither think nor care about wisdom and truth and the improvement of your soul?” … For know that the god has commanded me to do so. And I think that no greater good has ever befallen you in Athens than my service to the god. For I spend my whole life in going about and persuading you all to give your first and greatest care to the improvement of your souls, and not till you have done that to think of your bodies or your wealth; and telling you that virtue does not come from wealth, but that wealth, and every other good thing which men have, whether in public or in private, comes from virtue. If then I corrupt the youth by this teaching, these things must be harmful; but if any man says that I teach anything else, there is nothing in what he says. And therefore, Athenians, I say, whether you are persuaded by Anytus or not, whether you acquit me or not, be sure I shall not change my way of life; no, not if I have to die for it many times….
Do not interrupt me, Athenians, with your shouts. Remember the request which I made to you, and do not interrupt my words. I think that it will profit you to hear them. I am going to say something more to you, at which you may be inclined to protest, but do not do that. Be sure that if you put me to death, who am what I have told you that I am, you will do yourselves more harm than me. Meletus and Anytus can do me no harm: that is impossible, for I am sure it is not allowed that a good man be injured by a worse. They may indeed kill me, or drive me into exile, or deprive me of my civil rights; and perhaps Meletus and others think those things great evils. But I do not think so. I think it is a much greater evil to do what he is doing now, and to try to put a man to death unjustly. And now, Athenians, I am not arguing in my own defense at all, as you might expect me to do, but rather in yours in order (that) you may not make a mistake about the gift of the god to you by condemning me. For if you put me to death, you will not easily find another who, if I may use a ludicrous comparison, clings to the state as a sort of gadfly to a horse that is large and well-bred but rather sluggish from its size, and needing to be aroused. It seems to me that the god has attached me like that to the state, for I am constantly alighting upon you at every point to rouse, persuade, and reproach each of you all day long. You will not easily find anyone else my friends, to fill my place; and if you are persuaded by me, you will spare my life. You are indignant, as drowsy persons are, when they are awakened, and, of course, if you are persuaded by Anytus, you could easily kill me with a single blow, and then sleep on undisturbed for the rest of your lives, unless the god in his care for you sends another to rouse you.
< READING CRITICALLY >: Analyzing Socrates on Trial
• ? Explain what Socrates means when he says, “that virtue does not come from wealth, but that wealth, and every other good thing which men have, whether in public or in private, comes from virtue.” Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not?
• ? Explain what Socrates means when he says, “Be sure that if you put me to death, who am what I have told you that I am, you will do yourselves more harm than me.” Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not?
• ? Explain why Socrates compares himself to a “gadfly.” Identify a person in your life who acts as your own personal Socratic “gadfly” and explain why.
• ? Identify people in our culture who function as Socratic “gadflies.” Select one such person and conduct research to develop more information about him or her that you can share with your classmates.
Socrates is now ready to make his final statement—his summation—to the court before they pass judgment on him. Although it was common for the accused to plead for mercy and even bring friends and relatives in to induce the sympathy of the judges and jury, Socrates found this sort of conduct distasteful and inappropriate. He felt strongly that the court should render its decision based on a fair and just interpretation of the case against him, a case that he feels was transparently false and laughable.
Plato, from The Apology
Well, my friends, this, and perhaps more like this, is pretty much what I have to say in my defense. There may be some one among you who will be indignant when he remembers how, even in a less important trial than this, he begged and entreated the judges, with many tears, to acquit him, and brought forward his children and many of his friends and relatives in Court in order to appeal to your feelings; and then finds that I shall do none of these things, though I am in what he would think the supreme danger. Perhaps he will harden himself against me when he notices this: it may make him angry, and he may cast his vote in anger. If it is so with any of you—I do not suppose that it is, but in case it should be so—I think that I should answer him reasonably if I said: My friend, I have relatives too, for, in the words of Homer, “I am not born of an oak or a rock” but of flesh and blood; and so, Athenians, I have relatives, and I have three sons, one of them a lad, and the other two still children. Yet I will not bring any of them forward before you and implore you to acquit me. And why will I do none of these things? It is not from arrogance, Athenians, nor because I lack respect for you—whether or not I can face death bravely is another questions—but for my own good name, and for your good name, and for the good name of the whole state. I do not think it right, at my age and with my reputation, to do anything of that kind. Rightly or wrongly, men have made up their minds that in some way Socrates is different from the mass of mankind. And it will be shameful if those of you who are thought to excel in wisdom, or in bravery, or in any other virtue, are going to act in this fashion. I have often seen men of reputation behaving in an extraordinary way at their trial, as if they thought it a terrible fate to be killed, and as though they expected to live forever if you did not put them to death. Such men seem to me to bring shame upon the state…. Those of you, Athenians, who have any reputation at all ought not to do these things, and you ought not to allow us to do them; you should show that you will be much more ready to condemn men who make the state ridiculous by these pitiful pieces of acting, than men who remain quiet.
But apart from the question of reputation, my friends, I do not think that it is right to entreat the judge to acquit us, or to escape condemnation in that way. It is our duty to convince him by reason. He does not sit to give away justice as a favor, but to pronounce judgment; and he has sworn, not to favor any man whom he would like to favor, but to judge according to law. And, therefore, we ought not to encourage you in the habit of breaking your oaths; and you ought not to allow yourselves to fall into this habit, for then neither you nor we would be acting piously. Therefore, Athenians, do not require me to do these things, for I believe them to be neither good nor just nor pious; and, more especially, do not ask me to do them today when Meletus is prosecuting me for impiety. For were I to be successful and persuade you by my entreaties to break your oaths, I should be clearly teaching you to believe that there are no gods, and I should be simply accusing myself by my defense of not believing in them. But, Athenians, that is very far from the truth. I do believe in the gods as no one of my accusers believes in them: and to you and to God I commit my cause to be decided as is best for you and for me.
(He is found guilty by 281 votes to 220.)
281 to 220! Looking at this event through our lenses over twenty-five hundred years later, it seems incredible that Socrates could have been found guilty, based on such flimsy, unsubstantiated charges. But the truth is, every culture is vulnerable to powerful emotions that can skew rational judgment. For example, during World War II, irrational fear and ethnic prejudice influenced President Franklin Roosevelt and the U.S. Congress to imprison Japanese American citizens in internment camps for the duration of the war. And several years later, Senator Joseph McCarthy used a widespread fear of Communism to conduct “hearings” that ruined the lives of many innocent citizens, based on unsubstantiated allegations.
When Socrates says, “Rightly or wrongly, many have made up their minds that in some way Socrates is different from the mass of mankind,” he is surely speaking the truth. Even in his closing statement, his concern is for the souls of his judges and for Athens in general, for he knows that they will soon regret such an unjust persecution: “And it will be shameful if those of you who are thought to excel in wisdom, or in bravery, or in any other virtue, are going to act in this fashion.” He was a person for whom his principles were more important than anything, even his own life.
How is it possible that a revered figure like Socrates could have been convicted in the Athenian court of a capital crime based on such flimsy, unsubstantiated charges?

The truth is that every culture is vulnerable to powerful emotions that can skew rational judgment and destroy innocent lives, like the national anti-communist hysteria created by Senator Joseph McCarthy and his witchhunt “hearings.”
It is for this reason that Socrates refused to make emotional appeals to the court. Such false appeals have a long and infamous history in human affairs, and they are one of the more popular “fallacies.” As we saw in Chapter 1, fallacies are unsound arguments that are often persuasive because they can appear to be logical and because they usually appeal to our emotions and prejudices. As Socrates points out, appealing to the court for pity or sympathy to influence them find him innocent or lessen his punishment is illogical, and it would be a violation of their oaths to decide the case based on justice. Although Socrates is convinced that he has proven conclusively that the charges against him are false, he does not want to be found innocent for the wrong—illogical—reasons. For him, a commitment to the principles of clear thinking, logical soundness, and honesty are absolute and unwavering.

In the Athenian legal system, once a person was found guilty and a punishment proposed, the convicted person was entitled to propose a lesser punishment. In Socrates case, Meletus and Anytus have asked for the death penalty: An appropriate counterproposal would be on the order of agreeing to exile or paying a substantial fine. Once again, Socrates departs from the norm, and in this instance, it seals his fate.
Plato, from The Apology
I am not indignant at the verdict which you have given, Athenians, for many reasons. I expected that you would find me guilty; and I am not so much surprised at that as at the numbers of the votes. I certainly never thought that the majority against me would have been so narrow. But now it seems that if only thirty votes had changed sides, I should have escaped. So I think that I have escaped Meletus, as it is; and not only have I escaped him, for it is perfectly clear that if Anytus and Lycon had not come forward to accuse me, too, he would not have obtained the fifth part of the votes, and would have had to pay a fine of a thousand drachmae.
So he proposes death as the penalty. Be it so. And what alternative penalty shall I propose to you, Athenians? What I deserve, of course, must I not? What then do I deserve to pay or to suffer for having determined not to spend my life in ease? I neglected the things which most men value, such as wealth, and family interests, and military commands, and popular oratory, and all the political appointments, and clubs, and factions, that there are in Athens; for I thought that I was really too honest a man to preserve my life if I engaged in these matters. So I did not go where I should have done no good either to you or to myself. I went, instead, to each one of you privately to do him, as I say, the greatest of services, and tried to persuade him not to think of his affairs until he had thought of himself and tried to make himself as good and wise as possible, nor to think of the affairs of Athens until he had thought of Athens herself; and to care for other things in the same manner. Then what do I deserve for such a life? Something good, Athenians, if I am really to propose what I deserve; and something good which it would be suitable to me to receive. Then what is a suitable reward to be given to a poor benefactor who requires leisure to exhort you? There is no reward, Athenians, so suitable for him as a public maintenance in the Prytaneum. It is a much more suitable reward for him than for any of you who has won a victory at the Olympic games with his horse or his chariots. Such a man only makes you seem happy, but I make you really happy; and he is not in want, and I am. So if I am to propose the penalty which I really deserve, I propose this—a public maintenance in the Prytaneum.
Perhaps you think me stubborn and arrogant in what I am saying now, as in what I said about the entreaties and tears. It is not so, Athenians; it is rather that I am convinced that I never wronged any man intentionally, though I cannot persuade you of that, for we have discussed together only a little time. If there were a law at Athens, as there is elsewhere, not to finish a trial of life and death in a single day, I think that I could have persuaded you; but now it is not easy in so short a time to clear myself of great prejudices. But when I am persuaded that I have never wronged any man, I shall certainly not wrong myself, or admit that I deserve to suffer any evil, or propose any evil for myself as a penalty. Why should I? Lest I should suffer the penalty which Meletus proposes when I say that I do not know whether it is a good or an evil? Shall I choose instead of it something which I know to be an evil, and propose that as a penalty? Shall I propose imprisonment? And why should I pass the rest of my days in prison, the slave of successive officials? Or shall I propose a fine, with imprisonment until it is paid? I have told you why I will not do that. I should have to remain in prison, for I have no money to pay a fine with. Shall I then propose exile? Perhaps you would agree to that. Life would indeed be very dear to me if I were unreasonable enough to expect that strangers would cheerfully tolerate my discussions and reasonings when you who are my fellow citizens cannot endure them, and have found them so irksome and odious to you that you are seeking now to be relieved of them. No, indeed, Athenians, that is not likely. A fine life I should lead for an old man if I were to withdraw from Athens and pass the rest of my days in wandering from city to city, and continually being expelled. For I know very well that the young men will listen to me wherever I go, as they do here; and if I drive them away, they will persuade their elders to expel me, and if I do not drive them away, their fathers and kinsmen will expel me for their sakes.
Perhaps someone will say, “Why cannot you withdraw from Athens, Socrates, and hold your peace?” It is the most difficult thing in the world to make you understand why I cannot do that. If I say that I cannot hold my peace because that would be to disobey the god, you will think that I am not in earnest and will not believe me. And if I tell you that no better thing can happen to a man than to discuss virtue every day and the other matters about which you have heard me arguing and examining myself and others, and that an unexamined life is not worth living, then you will believe me still less. But that is so, my friends, though it is not easy to persuade you. And, what is more, I am not accustomed to think that I deserve any punishment. If I had been rich, I would have proposed as large a fine as I could pay: that would have done me no harm. But I am not rich enough to pay a fine unless you are willing to fix it at a sum within my means. Perhaps I could pay you a mina, so I propose that. Plato here, Athenians, and Crito, and Critobulus, and Apollodorus bid me propose thirty minae, and they will be sureties for me. So I propose thirty minae. They will be sufficient sureties to you for the money.
(He is condemned to death by a vote of 361 to 140.)

It’s something of an understatement to observe that Socrates’ remarks regarding his proposed punishment of death were not well received—eighty men who had voted to find him innocent switched sides to recommend the death penalty! Why? Because Socrates had failed to demonstrate either remorse or respect for the power of the court. It was customary for men facing the death penalty to take extreme measures, pleading for mercy, covering themselves with dirt and tearing their clothes to symbolize their remorse, rolling on the ground while wailing in anguish. Further, they were expected to acknowledge the authority of the court, speaking deferentially and demonstrating their utmost respect. Socrates did none of this. Instead, consistent with his self-proclaimed role as a “gadfly,” he revealed the errors of their thinking in convicting him and warned them against corrupting their souls if they didn’t act justly. Rather than propose serious counterpenalties, he recommended that the court award him a special honor for his years of service to Athens and provide him with a pension! Instead of offering to pay a hefty fine, he suggested paying a comparatively miniscule amount (a mina), which he asked his friends to increase to 30 minae. In short, Socrates displayed clearly and entertainingly his total contempt for the bogus case that had been brought against him and his moral disapproval of the role that the judges and jury were playing in the personal vendetta against him. Not surprisingly, the court was not amused, preferring to extinguish the gadfly rather than enduring its ongoing bites.
The Death of Socrates, by Jacques Louis David.

The 18th century French painter David portrayed Socrates as undaunted at the prospect of death, philosophically engaged even while reaching for the cup of poison. Plato is seated on the far left, his writing beside him on the floor. Crito grasps Socrates’ robes. Do you think Socrates should have tried to escape death, or did his decision show wisdom?
Despite his unwillingness to adhere to court custom, Socrates does make a compelling case for himself. Why should he be punished if he has “never wronged any man intentionally”? If he has only sought to elevate and enlighten all he came into contact with by having them understand that “an unexamined life is not worth living,” why should he propose exile as a punishment, when it would mean, as an old man, wandering strange lands and annoying people who don’t know him with his philosophical inquiries? Or why should he propose paying a hefty fine, when it would mean going to prison indefinitely because he did not have the resources to pay for it? And why should he agree to terminate his teaching and philosophical inquiries, because this would mean abandoning his life work and disobeying the gods he believes have given him a mandate to wake people from their unthinking slumbers? But the judges and jury were in no mood to even hear these questions, much less provide thoughtful responses before passing judgment. Their anger spoke, not their reason, condemning Socrates to death and, ironically, immortality as a martyr to reason and moral principle.
Although many people react to a murder verdict against them with stunned silence, for Socrates it was simply another opportunity to reflect deeply on the human issues that the trial and its outcome provoked.
Plato, from The Apology
You have not gained very much time, Athenians, and, as the price of it, you will have an evil name for all who wish to revile the state, and they will say that you put Socrates, a wise man, to death. For they will certainly call me wise, whether I am wise or not, when they want to reproach you. If you would have waited for a little while, your wishes would have been fulfilled in the course of nature; for you see that I am an old man, far advanced in years, and near to death. I am saying this not to all of you, only to those who have voted for my death. And to them I have something else to say. Perhaps, my friends, you think that I have been convicted because I was wanting in the arguments by which I could have persuaded you to acquit me, if, that is, I had thought it right to do or to say anything not in arguments, but in impudence and shamelessness—because I would not plead before you as you would have liked to hear me plead, or appeal to you with weeping and wailing, or say and do many other things which I maintain are unworthy of me, but which you have been accustomed to from other men. But when I was defending myself, I thought that I ought not to do anything unworthy of a free man because of the danger which I ran, and I have not changed my mind now. I would very much rather defend myself as I did, and die, than as you would have had me do, and live. Both in a lawsuit and in war, there are some things which neither I nor any other man may do in order to escape from death. In battle, a man often sees that he may at least escape from death by throwing down his arms and falling on his knees before the pursuer to beg for his life. And there are many other ways of avoiding death in every danger if a man is willing to say and to do anything. But, my friends, I think that it is a much harder thing to escape from wickedness than from death, for wickedness is swifter than death. And now I, who am old and slow, have been overtaken by the slower pursuer: and my accusers, who are clever and swift, have been overtaken by the swifter pursuer—wickedness. And now I shall go away, sentenced by you to death; and they will go away, sentenced by truth to wickedness and injustice. And I abide by this award as well as they. Perhaps it was right for these things to be so; and I think that they are fairly measured.
And now I wish to prophesy to you, Athenians, who have condemned me. For I am going to die, and that is the time when men have most prophetic power. And I prophesy to you who have sentenced me to death that a far more severe punishment than you have inflicted on me will surely overtake you as soon as I am dead. You have done this thing, thinking that you will be relieved from having to give an account of your lives. But I say that the result will be very different. There will be more men who will call you to account, whom I have held back, though you did not recognize it. And they will be harsher toward you than I have been, for they will be younger, and you will be more indignant with them. For if you think that you will restrain men from reproaching you for not living as you should, by putting them to death, you are very much mistaken. That way of escape is neither possible nor honorable. It is much more honorable and much easier not to suppress others, but to make yourselves as good as you can. This is my parting prophecy to you who have condemned me.
“But, my friends, I think that it is a much harder thing to escape from wickedness than from death, for wickedness is swifter than death.”
For those who voted to condemn Socrates to death, his powerful and ominous response must have been disturbing, sowing the first seeds of doubt into what they had just done. Socrates’ profound insight into human nature gave him the talent to be an uncanny prognosticator of future events.
Plato, from The Apology
You have not gained very much time, Athenians, and, as the price of it, you will have an evil name for all who wish to revile the state, and they will say that you put Socrates, a wise man, to death. For they will certainly call me wise, whether I am wise or not, when they want to reproach you.
Socrates seems to understand that, despite the people he has annoyed and the enemies he has made, his reputation as a wise and honest man seeking to discover the truth and elevate those around him is secure and that once the hysteria surrounding his trial has been punctured by his death, the majority of people will come to their senses and recognize the enormous folly—and injustice—of what they have done. This is precisely what happened. Within days following his execution, the city of Athens declared a period of mourning, closing the schools and businesses in honor of their finest citizen. And, in an ironic reversal of fortune, his chief accuser, Meletus, was condemned to death, and the chief orchestrator of the trial against him, Anytus the tanner, was banished from Athens. As a crowning tribute, the sculptor Lysippus was commissioned to create a bronze statue that was placed on the Sacred Way.

But Socrates’ prescience seems to go far beyond the events immediately following his death when he states:
Plato, from The Apology
But, my friends, I think that it is a much harder thing to escape from wickedness than from death, for wickedness is swifter than death. And now I, who am old and slow, have been overtaken by the slower pursuer: and my accusers, who are clever and swift, have been overtaken by the swifter pursuer—wickedness. And now I shall go away, sentenced by you to death; and they will go away, sentenced by truth to wickedness and injustice. And I abide by this award as well as they. Perhaps it was right for these things to be so; and I think that they are fairly measured.
This last sentence suggests that he understands that his death is necessary in order for his revolutionary beliefs to have their fullest impact on future generations, etching wickedness and righteousness indelibly on the consciousness of mankind. Through death, Socrates rose to archetypal status, his life and death embodying a compelling model for all people to emulate.
Confronting death, Socrates is unwavering in his certainty that he has lived a life that is just and true, and he is secure in his confidence that no harm can come to one who has lived such a life. For a just and true individual, death cannot be something to be feared.
Plato, from The Apology
And if we reflect in another way, we shall see that we may well hope that death is a good. For the state of death is one of two things: either the dead man wholly ceases to be and loses all consciousness or, as we are told, it is a change and migration of the soul to another place. And if death is the absence of all consciousness, and like the sleep of one whose slumbers are unbroken by any dreams, it will be a wonderful gain. For if a man had to select that night in which he slept so soundly that he did not even dream, and had to compare with it all the other nights and days of his life, and then had to say how many days and nights in his life he had spent better and more pleasantly than this night, I think that a private person, nay, even the great King himself, would find them easy to count, compared with the others. If that is the nature of death, I for one count it a gain. For then it appears that all time is nothing more than a single night. But if death is a journey to another place, and what we are told is true—that there are all who have died—what good could be greater than this, my judges? Would a journey not be worth taking, at the end of which, in the other world, we should be released from the self-styled judges here and should find the true judges who are said to sit in judgment below…. And above all, I could spend my time in examining those who are there, as I examine men here, and in finding out which of them is wise, and which of them thinks himself wise when he is not wise. What would we not give, my judges, to be able to examine the leader of the great expedition against Troy, or Odysseus, or Sisyphus, or countless other men and women whom we could name? It would be an infinite happiness to discuss with them and to live with them and to examine them. Assuredly there they do not put men to death for doing that. For besides the other ways in which they are happier than we are, they are immortal, at least if what we are told is true.
And then in an extraordinary moment of personal transcendence, Socrates looks beyond himself and his immanent death to reassure and comfort those close to him. This moment, he explains, was destined by fate and serves a higher purpose than the end of his life. Far from being a tragedy, his death at this moment is the right thing to happen, ordained by the gods and releasing him from the difficulties that are an inescapable part of life. All he asks, as he prepares to drink the hemlock, is that they nurture his sons, treating them in the same way Socrates has treated his friends. And then with calm determination, Socrates embraces his fate, making a final statement that expresses the mystery that each one of us must ultimately confront.
Plato, from The Apology
And you, too, judges, must face death hopefully, and believe this as a truth that no evil can happen to a good man, either in life or after death. His fortunes are not neglected by the gods; and what has happened to me today has not happened by chance. I am persuaded that it was better for me to die now, and to be released from trouble; and that was the reason why the sign never turned me back. And so I am not at all angry with my accusers or with those who have condemned me to die. Yet it was not with this in mind that they accused me and condemned me, but meaning to do me an injury. So far I may blame them.
Yet I have one request to make of them. When my sons grow up, punish them, my friends, and harass them in the same way that I have harassed you, if they seem to you to care for riches or for any other thing more than virtue; and if they think that they are something when they are really nothing, reproach them, as I have reproached you, for not caring for what they should, and for thinking that they are great men when really they are worthless. And if you will do this, I myself and my sons will have received justice from you.
But now the time has come, and we must go away—I to die, and you to live. Whether life or death is better is known to God, and to God only.
2.5 Making Connections: Socrates’ Legacy
This is the only chapter in this book that is devoted to just one philosopher. Why does Socrates merit that distinction and the careful analysis we have given his life and ideas? Why is he often termed “the father of Western philosophy”? Does he deserve this exalted title? Let’s examine the evidence so that you can judge for yourself:
• • Socrates was the catalyst for a significant advancement in human consciousness. Prior to Socrates, thinkers and writers had focused their attention on past events and the physical universe. Taking as his cue the inscription at Delphi, “Know thyself,” Socrates was the first important Western thinker to focus the light of human reason and intelligence on human beings themselves. For the first time in recorded history, humans became the subjects of systematic study—our psyches, our moral aspirations, our relationships with one another, our quest for self-understanding and meaningful lives, our souls. Socrates was in deadly earnest when he announced, “The unexamined life is not worth living.”
• • Socrates was an archetypal thinker, a quintessential model of rational inquiry. Socrates believed in the supreme importance of thinking as well as possible, and for him, everything in human experience was an appropriate subject for exploration and critical analysis. He developed a method of dialectical inquiry that was qualitatively different than anything the world had seen, and which continues to be the bedrock of philosophical thought. Using penetrating questions, Socrates’ method insisted on the criteria of logical soundness, clear definitions, consistency, and freedom from self-contradiction. He insisted on:
o • establishing clear starting points.
o • viewing issues from multiple perspectives.
o • exploring logical connections and the consequences of beliefs.
o • expressing publicly one’s own thinking process and inviting others to respond.
o • being willing to follow the argument wherever it might lead.
o • being open to revising one’s opinions based on new insight.
What is Socrates’ legacy?

Socrates’ commitment to rational inquiry lived on through his disciplines and became the standard for Western culture. This picture depicts Plato’s disciple Aristotle (384–322 B.C.E.) teaching a youthful Alexander the Great of Macedonia. Alexander would eventually conquer the Persian empire, bringing Socratic ideas with him. What Socratic ideas do you recognize as being an integral part of our culture?
All of these higher-order intellectual operations have come to be woven into human culture since he taught them over twenty-five hundred years ago.
• • Socrates was committed to making our actions reflect our convictions. For Socrates, striving to think well meant striving to live well, developing consistent and rigorous standards of conduct and then following through with the choices that we make. For Socrates, there was no distinction between theory and practice, thought and action—in the virtuous person, they are the same. There is an intimate connection between knowledge and virtue, and as we gain intellectual understanding, we should naturally live more enlightened lives.

thinking philosophically: IS SOCRATES RELEVANT TODAY?
Consider the following quote of Socrates: “My good friend, you are a citizen of Athens, a city which is very great and very famous for its wisdom and strength—are you not ashamed of caring so much for the making of money and for fame and prestige, when you neither think nor care about wisdom and truth and the improvement of your soul?” Do you think it would be accurate to substitute “the United States” for “Athens”? Identify some examples from our culture that suggest that people care more about making money and achieving fame and prestige than they do about pursuing wisdom, truth, and the improvement of their souls. How would you evaluate your values in relation to Socrates’ exhortation?
• • Socrates believed that philosophical inquiry was a social activity. In contrast to the “ivory tower” dreamer, Socrates found his greatest pleasure engaging in passionate and energetic discussions with others. Socrates was certainly capable of deep, introspective thought.Alcibiades records an incident that occurred when Socrates was in the military. Socrates had arisen early to ponder a particularly difficult problem. He struck a contemplative pose and remained there, oblivious to the world, throughout the day and the following night, to the amazement of his fellow soldiers. But for Socrates, the real testing of one’s ideas came through the rough-and-tumble exchanges with others, creating that extraordinary chemistry that results when human minds come into contact with one another.
• • Socrates was a heroic martyr to enlightened thinking and virtuous living. It wasn’t just that he died but rather that he diedwillingly for the moral principles and values on which his life was constructed. There were numerous ways he could have avoided death, but all of them would have meant betraying his principles and violating his character in some significant way. Not that all great thinkers made the same courageous choice that he did. Some years later, Aristotle, when faced with a similar decision, chose to be exiled from Athens rather than put to death. Galileo, under threat of death from the Catholic Inquisition, recanted his belief that Earth orbits around the sun and then spent twenty years under house arrest, supposedly doing penance for his “blasphemous” beliefs. But for Socrates, his choice was never in doubt, and he confronted with stirring courage and heartrending eloquence. Socrates’ trial, and Plato’s literary genius in recreating it with such eloquence and power, epitomizes the eternal struggle between reason and chaos, enlightenment and ignorance, integrity and corruption. The writer I. F. Stone observed:
o … His martyrdom, and the genius of Plato, made him a secular saint, the superior man confronting the ignorant mob with serenity and humor. This was Socrates’ triumph and Plato’s masterpiece. Socrates needed the hemlock, as Jesus needed the Crucifixion, to fulfill a mission.
Socrates seemed to sense that fulfilling his mission on Earth meant dying for the beliefs that he had lived for. And it is both his extraordinary life and his memorable death that securely fixes Socrates as an archetypal figure worthy of our thoughtful study and personal emulation.
writing about philosophy: A SOCRATIC DIALOGUE
The Assignment
Throughout history, people of high moral character have faced punishment, imprisonment, and even death rather than forsake their guiding principles. In Socrates’ case, he was unwilling to renounce his commitment to searching for wisdom, examining himself and others, and exhorting others to live virtuously and attend to their souls. Other people have been unwilling to renounce their religious beliefs, surrender their commitment to personal and political freedom, or behave in a way that they considered to be immoral.
Think about your deepest convictions for which you would be willing to face imprisonment or death. Imagine yourself in a court setting, similar to Socrates, in which you have one final chance to persuade your accusers that you do not deserve to die, even though you are unwilling to renounce your beliefs. Then compose a Socratic dialogue between yourself and your accusers in which you use penetrating questioning and compelling logic to make your case. Members of the class will act as your jury, deciding whether you have made a strong enough case to survive or whether you will be condemned. Your dialogue should embody the qualities of Socratic analysis. Begin generating ideas for this assignment by listing all the reasons, evidence, and arguments that support of your position and then listing the arguments that oppose it. Refer to the list of fallacies on pages 22–24 to see if your accusers’ arguments contain any errors that you can expose in your questioning. Try to find a contradiction in your opponent’s position so that you can dismantle his or her argument, as Socrates did with Thrasymachus (page 53). Then draft the exchange of ideas, perhaps even giving your accuser a personality, like the aggressive Thrasymachus, while you remain calm and reasonable, like Socrates. Introduce your dialogue with a short description of the situation that has led to your trial and the charges against you. Conclude with a concise summary of your convictions and your commitment to that ideal.

Student Essay
SOCRATIC DIALOGUE by Gina Szeto
This sample paper was written by a student who imaginatively recreates her father’s experience as a victim of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China in 1968, a radical political movement led by Mao Zedong that closed schools and virtually severed China’s relations with the outside world. Most books were prohibited in China at the time, so her father formed associations with people who smuggled books in and out of closed libraries. As a result of these actions he was accused of being a traitor to China, a crime punishable by death, and he was brought before the Court of Justice for trial. In this dialogue Gina explores the nature and implications of political freedom in a culturally repressive society.
• Gina: Two years ago, before the Cultural Revolution began, I was preparing to take my entrance exams. I, like the Red Guards, devoted myself to Mao, never questioning his policies or authority. Since then, my days have been filled with public humiliations and Red Guard raids. Why, when I was at the top of my class, would Mao force me to the countryside and forbid me from learning, from reading, from thinking? I began to question whether my blind devotion to Mao Zedong was more foolish than following the intuitive belief that I, and all Chinese people, had a right to do these things.I am here today to convince you that I am not a traitor to China. But even more significantly I am here to ask whether a blind adherence to party policies could be more detrimental to China than cultivating a generation to read, think, and imagine and to question how just it is to be incarcerated and put to death for thinking, reading, and learning. I am here today to convince you of our basic right to do these things.
• Court: These are questions of a Western mind.
• Gina: Too much attention is spent discarding ideas based on criteria that have no relationship to the idea’s content. More time needs to be devoted to determining whether the idea is true, if is applicable, and, if it is, how it can be put to use. Don’t you agree?
• Court: In conceiving a Western idea, the assumption is that it will be applied in a Western society, a society that is politically and culturally very different than ours.
• Gina: I am in no way implying that we should adopt all political, economic, and social policies endorsed by the West. I am asking if an idea that happens to be Western in origin should be discarded simply because it is Western? What criteria are used to determine the value of an idea?
• Court: Mao is the leader of China. His policies and authority should never be questioned. When his authority is questioned, China is questioned, and our society will fall into chaos. This is done for the well-being of everyone.
• Gina: Isn’t it somewhat naïve to assume that, despite countless failed and evolving attempts over human history to develop absolute and certain knowledge, only Mao has the answer? Is Mao not also a human, like you and me? Hasn’t he, despite his best intentions, experienced failure nonetheless?
• Court: Yes, I suppose that’s accurate.
• Gina: Isn’t it therefore more productive to acknowledge the frailty of the human condition, the uncertainty of our notion of truth, and in so doing, keep our minds, and therefore theories and policies in the public sector, open to progress, flexible in the face of adversity and change? Or is it more productive to construct absolute and rigid policies, which are themselves a product of the political and social climate of the time, at the expense of truth, at the expense of our people?
• Court: I don’t know.
• Gina: What are we if we cannot think, rationalize, or question? At the most, animals; at the least, puppets. Ideas should be judged for the content and efficacy with little regard to their source. Does it not make sense to critically evaluate the ideas on which policies are based?
• Court: Mao has examined all these things for us already. He has taken all the necessary and logical steps to ensure his policies are accurate.
• Gina: Do plants need sunlight to survive?
• Court: Yes, plants need the sun to survive.
• Gina: How do you know?
• Court: From what I see. Plants don’t grow well in the dark.
• Gina: So you reasoned, from your observation and experience, that plants need sunlight to survive. If Mao told us that plants grow best in the dark, don’t we have an obligation to investigate that theory? Don’t we all have a right to determine truth, however mundane, for ourselves?
• Court: Ideally, yes. But if everyone sought out to find his or her own “truth” nothing would be accomplished. Immorality would be rampant.
• Gina: If one believes that by nature we are corrupt and immoral. A closer and more thoughtful inspection of human nature reveals a universal desire to coexist freely, peacefully, and responsibly. Legislation that takes into consideration these natural inclinations can only produce a community willing to live by those laws. When policies deprive that same community of intuitively basic human rights, like freedom, the community suffers.Prohibiting books and learning, curtailing education, and forcing youth to the countryside are deprivations of freedom both mentally and physically. What have the Chinese people done to warrant such punishment?
• Court: They do not know any better.
• Gina: Is it more likely that a generation of thinkers educated in history, science, and logic will detect and ultimately rectify unsound economic and social policies or a generation of illiterate farmers? What is the best defense if and when our country comes under foreign invasion? Is brute force enough or is strategy a necessary component?
• Court: Of course strategy is necessary, and Mao will devise those plans.
• Gina: And all other proposals are useless. Mao is the brain, and we are his limbs.
• Court: It is for the welfare of all.
• Gina: If my purpose is simply to exist, to breathe, and not use my inherent ability to think, rationalize, or question, then I would rather not live. A sentiment, as you know, shared by the thousands that have committed suicide over the past decade. If this is Mao’s purpose for the People’s Republic, he would do no worse if more resources were allocated toward building machines and robots because they will not rebel, they will not fight for the right to be free; because they, unlike us, inherently are not capable of freedom.
• Court: How do you know we are free?
• Gina: I cannot be certain, philosophically. I can be certain, however, that if I am not free, it is not because Mao Zedong, a man made of flesh and bone, tells me I am not. As much as anyone else tries to repress or contain me by physical means, killing or incarcerating me, that person will never defeat me. Defeat exists only when I relinquish my intellectual and emotional judgment to the man you hail the Savior of the People’s Republic.

visual summary
2 chapter review
Socrates: A Model for Humanity
• • Socrates, a Greek philosopher who lived twenty-five hundred years ago, created the conceptual framework and method of inquiry for Western consciousness and culture. Among his revolutionary approaches to understanding the social and natural world was to bring philosophy into the marketplace, or agora, provoking discussion and debate among people and setting the foundations for academic and political discourse as practiced throughout much of the world today. Socrates did not leave any writing of his own. What we know of his rhetoric, his style, and his thought has come down to us through the Dialogues, a series of dialectical conversations written by Socrates’ student Plato.
KEY TERMS
Socratic Method
agora

[pp. 42–48] The Socratic Method
• • The Socratic Method uses questions and analysis to draw people into an exchange of ideas regarding a central concept, in an attempt to get at the essential nature of that concept. Sometimes coaxing, occasionally sarcastic, and frequently combative, the Socratic Method as practiced by Socrates sought to strip away pretensions, inconsistencies, and false ideas to get at a universal truth.
• • Among the opponents of Socrates were the Sophists, educators who believed that “truth” was relative (that is, dependent on context) and “knowledge” merely a matter of opinion.
KEY TERMS
dialectic
Sophists
irony
[pp. 48–54] for further reading, viewing & research
Philosophy Texts in MyPhilosophyLab
• • The Apology, Plato
• • The Republic, Plato
Films
• • 12 Angry Men (1957) What are the primary causes of prejudice, and how do they affect justice? A jury decides the fate of a young man accused of murdering his father. A guilty verdict will result in a mandatory death sentence. The case appears to be open and shut until one juror challenges the others to move beyond their prejudices and presumptions to address the facts before arriving at a decision.
• • Cool Hand Luke (1967) How can the spirit be free while the body is imprisoned? When Luke Jackson is sent to prison camp, he refuses to submit to the tyrannical authority of the camp’s captain. His repeated escapes and attempts to bring meaning and fraternity to the other prisoners only provoke the anger of the captain, who makes it his mission to break Luke’s spirit.
• • Good Night, and Good Luck (2005) What methods are appropriate for protesting injustice? Based on a true story, this film depicts the conflict between journalist Edward R. Murrow and Senator Joseph McCarthy during the anti-communist committee hearings of the 1950’s—hearings that destroyed the careers of many and created hysteria in the country. In spite of pressure from his television station to remain silent, as well as threats that he would be the next target of government investigation, Murrow openly criticized and exposed the scare tactics employed by the committee.

• • Malcolm X (1992) How can one find meaning in an unjust world? Based on the autobiography, this film follows the life of the famous African American leader. After his father is killed by the Ku Klux Klan, Malcolm Little becomes a gangster before discovering the Nation of Islam in prison. He subsequently becomes a militant political activist fighting against racism for the rights of African Americans, who advocated black pride, black power, identity politics, and economic self-reliance. When he is assassinated, he becomes a martyr for human rights and equality.
• • On the Waterfront (1954) What does it mean to have the courage of your convictions? A former prize-fighter turned longshoreman, Terry Malloy (portrayed by Marlon Brando), is faced with the decision of whether or not to stand up to corrupt union bosses after the murder of one of his colleagues is covered up. Over the course of the film, Malloy assesses his past, struggles to take responsibility for his present, and considers the person he wants to become.
• • One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1975) What does it mean to be sane? A criminal, Randle Patrick McMurphy, pretends to be insane to avoid a prison sentence. He is sent to a mental institution where a tyrannical nurse uses any means necessary to force the patients into numbed submission. Based on the book of the same name, the film follows McMurphy’s attempts to save himself and his fellow inmates from the oppressive authority of the mental hospital.
Literature
• • An Enemy of the People, Henrik Ibsen. A doctor discovers that the industry that supports his town’s economy is also contaminating the water system. As he tries to reveal the truth and protect the health of innocent people, the doctor is met with resistance on the part of the town’s politicians, members of the media, and eventually his fellow citizens who come to view him as the “enemy.” In spite of this, the doctor remains committed to speaking out against a corrupt system and the majority that who blindly follow and support it.
• • To Kill a Mockingbird, Harper Lee. Atticus Finch, a prominent lawyer in a racist southern town, refuses to bow under the weight of societal pressure when he defends a black man accused of raping a white woman, in spite of the risk this poses to his own life and livelihood. Atticus’s adamant sense of justice has a profound effect on his young daughter, Scout, and inspires her to reach out to and eventually empathize with a man who has been ostracized the community.
• • The Trial, Franz Kafka. An ordinary man, Josef K., is arrested and tried for a crime he did not commit, the nature of which is never explained to him. He finds himself at the mercy of an irrational and arbitrary court system, and his attempts to obtain information about both the crime and his fate lead nowhere. The protagonist’s maddening journey undermines his sense of life’s order and predictability, and raises existential questions about justice, alienation, and the possibility of meaning in the modern world.
• • The Trial of Socrates, I. F. Stone. Stone provides a social and political portrait of Athens during the time of Socrates’ trial, and offers an alternative perspective on the philosopher and the reasons for his being tried.
Socrates’ Central Concern: The Soul
Fundamental to Socrates’ philosophy is the conviction that every human being has a soul, and that soul is in search of happiness(eudaemonia), which is achieved through a life of enlightened thinking and virtuous actions. His core teachings, which speak to this conviction, are
• • “The unexamined life is not worth living.”
• • The truth lies within each of us.
• • We should strive for excellence in all areas of life.
• • No one knowingly does evil.
• • “It is better to suffer wickedness than to commit it.”
KEY TERMS
psyche
arete
epistêmê
sophia

[pp. 55–59] The Trial and Death of Socrates
• • Socrates died willingly for the moral principles and values on which his life was constructed. Socrates’ trial epitomizes the eternal struggle between reason and chaos, enlightenment and ignorance, integrity and corruption.