The first time I really learned about Socrates and the
Socratic Method was in my psychology lecture just a couple months ago. He was only very briefly mentioned, however,
to explain how psychoanalysts today still use the Socratic Method of continual
questioning to help their patients find a truth out on their own. This was the background knowledge I had going
into reading this. First off, Socrates
was not my favorite book. I found it a
little hard to read at times, especially in the beginning, in the first section
of Plato. I thought Socrates came off as
a little bit arrogant, although when we discussed this in class, Dr. Lowe pointed
out that Plato probably did not intend it to come off this way, since they were
friends. I can see the benefit in
reading this book though, and why Temple would choose for us to study it.
One reason why Temple probably picked this book is that the
Socratic Method is still used today, as previously mentioned. Socrates is pretty widely known, and is a
historical figure who is probably worth knowing at least a little bit about in
order to be a well-rounded, functioning member of society. It also raises an interesting controversy
about education: does knowledge corrupt, or is a life without knowledge not
worth living? Being college students,
this question is extremely relevant to us in particular.
The account given by Plato seems to suggest that education
and learning is totally worth it and important.
Being Socrates’ friend, Plato’s version of the story reflects Socrates’
view on the subject, which can be summed up by the well-known mantra, “the
unexamined life is not worth living”.
Socrates was a big supporter of learning and believed that knowledge
equals happiness. His whole method of
continuous questioning and entire work of teaching was based upon the principle
that we should never be satisfied with what we know and just go through our day
without examining our own thinking and decision making. He was greatly frustrated with the people who
were commonly thought of as geniuses, but who in fact (to his finding at least)
assumed that they had more knowledge than in actuality. This is the basis of his popular saying about
the unexamined life; his argument is that just because they were skilled at one
thing, doesn’t mean that they were wise in general. Basically, according to Socrates, and
therefore Plato, the continual pursuit of knowledge is what characterizes the
good life.
Aristophanes, on the other hand, was NOT friends with
Socrates and gives a completely different stand on the issue of the
benefits/problems with education and learning.
Aristophanes sort of attacks Socrates in his comic play Clouds,
which is basically a satire of commonly held beliefs about Socrates. The message about education here is that it
can corrupt! Strepsiades sends his son
to Socrates’ school to learn “the Inferior Argument” and save him from his endless
mounds of debts by arguing his way out of paying them back. This ultimately backfires, when, upon
returning from Socrates’ school, the son is no longer willing to listen to his
father and argues all sorts of atrocities, such as hitting his mother. This is in direct contrast with the first
account by Plato, in which Socrates was arguing that knowledge does not corrupt
and is instead the way to happiness.
These completely opposite viewpoints of the usefulness of
education bring the issue to the reader’s attention and beg to be further
considered. This, I think, is why Temple
wants us college students to read The Trial and Death of Socrates.
No comments:
Post a Comment