In Book I of Plato’s Republic, Thrasymachus implies that Socrates is being lazy (or maybe just arrogant) by only asking questions and not giving answers himself. Socrates replies that he has no answers to give, no decisive definition to appease the conversation, but Thrasymachus doesn’t buy it: “…If someone questioned you, you’d be ironical and do anything but answer” (38).
This conversation, the entirety of Book I, is built on little more than questions. Some are larger and broader and need explaining, while others are a simple yes or no. Socrates claims that by giving the group a direct answer, Thrasymachus will be “teaching” them. Through Socrates’s interrogation, however, it seems that Thrsymachus is the one who needed teaching.
His argument is broken down entirely, each piece analyzed and given stipulations and qualifiers. While we discussed his argument further in class, it seems that the group in the book, like us, came to no real conclusions other than being just can be (but not always is) more profitable than being unjust. Socrates admits it himself, “Hence the result of the discussion, as far as I’m concerned, is that I know nothing…” (57). This, in a way, proves Thrasymachus correct in that Socrates never gives a direct answer.
Regardless, I feel the negative connotations Thrasymachus places on this characteristic are uncalled for. Both in the text and in class, it was agreed that some of the best leaders (and I consider teachers leaders) are those who do not want to lead. By not wanting to give the answers, Socrates encourages his students to find their own; therefore he leads them to the answers. This method makes him the greatest type of teacher: he teaches how to think, not what to think, which correlates very well with the Rhodes’s curriculum.
Playing with our larger theme, is Socrates’s questioning method just? Following Thrasymachus’s definition, justice is the advantage of the stronger (and it does seem that Socrates is the stronger participant in the discussion), it is undoubtedly just, even though it seems aggressive.
I wish someone would just ask me a series of questions, even aggressive questioning, then tell me what I believe. That would be so easy. For those who don’t know exactly what they believe, like me, Socrates’s methods are more than just; they’re beneficial, which completely nullifies the logic behind Thrasymachus’s negative judgment of Socrates.
And philosophy is nothing without logic.
You've hit on what I personally think is one of the most important reasons to read Plato and Socrates' work: The Socratic Dialogue and The Socratic Method of teaching. I'm not sure if your final comment, "I wish someone would just ask me a series of questions... then tell me what I believe." is the point of the Socratic method of teaching. Anything Socratic is 'of or relating to Socrates' philosophies' which we know are based in questioning others. Some believe this method is one of the only forms of just oratory (many philosophers hated Orators and/or demagogues). The beauty of the Socratic method is one gives the pupils a little information, then begins questioning them until they themselves come to the intended conclusion. While that sounds slightly manipulative, I think it achieves the best outcome because the person will have more stock in the answer as they did come up with it through their own thought process.
ReplyDelete