Nashiha Alam Wednesday, February 27, 2013 Theory of Knowledge, Epistemology Andrew Cutrofello, Cameron Coates Essay 1

SOCRATES: THE MIDWIFE

Socrates makes a claim in Platos Theaetetus, asserting that his dialogues about knowledge may be comparable to the act of midwifery. As a midwife is able to deliver babies, Socrates says he is able to deliver ideas and interpretations. The only differences he finds in this analogy are that he treats men not women, and he does not treat the body, but the soul. Socrates claims that he has the power to falsify any offspring thought of a man, just as how a midwife can abort a child or examine its faults. Puzzling is that fact that Socrates claims he does not have knowledge, but somehow directs his companions towards knowledge. Similarly, Sophocles Oedipus the King, holds a few relationships that are comparable. The relationship between Oedipus and the Sphinx, and the relationship between Oedipus and Teiresias are both very similar situations, where the reader is faced with conflict of who is wise and who is unwise. In Platos Meno, Socrates begins a dialogue with a slave, interrogating him in order to prove his idea of inborn knowledge. Socrates establishes the fact that the slave is not aware of the answer to the question. Through extensive questioning, the boy finds himself aware of the answer to the question, and thus Socrates finds ease that this example somehow proved his claim that souls were immortal. In his later dialogue, or Platos Theaetetus, he boldly alleges that he can be compared to a midwife. This

comparison is made with the basis that Socrates truly does not hold any knowledge, however can only birth knowledge, like a midwife births a child. The midwife also has the authority and ability to abort a child, or examine the health of the child, and Socrates goes as far as comparing his ability to examine statements made by men in this aspect as well. We must question the basis on Socrates statements. If he truly is a man with no knowledge, and humbly denotes himself to a midwife, we can assume he is showing himself to be the ignorant one in the dialogue. It is peculiar, however, how Socrates can claim to not have wisdom, but in every dialogue, a wise definition, or a wise idea comes through. Socrates, though he professes is the midwife, contradicts his comparison in many ways. First, Socrates finds himself extracting many ideas from his friends, and therefore he claims he is not wise himself. If Socrates did really not have something to conjure these ideas, and that the soul is indeed immortal, we would see people conjuring up their own ideas, by themselves. Socrates, even in the example of the slaves dialogue, offered a part of his own intellectual thoughts, that may or may not count as wisdom, but will definitely not compare to a midwife. A midwife only has the physical capability to birth a child. Socrates has the physical capability to birth an idea. However, a midwife, cannot force the baby out, but can deliver it, when the time comes. Socrates on the other hand, can force ideas out of people. For example, through the dialogue with the slave, Socrates was asking questions that he knew to ask. Socrates: How many feet will that area be? Slave: Eight.

Socrates: Come now, try to tell me how long each side of figure will be. The side of this one is two feet. What about the side of the one that is double this one? Slave: Obviously, Socrates, it will be twice the length. Socrates: You see, Meno; I am not teaching the boy anything. All I do is question him. And now he thinks he knows the length of the line on which an eight square foot figure is based. Do you agree? (Meno) Socrates is clearly provided some wisdom to the dialogue. Though he can only bring ideas out of others, he is clearly leading the slave to the correct answer and to some wisdom. At one point, Socrates admits that he knows nothing. This perhaps justifies the theory of fallibilism. Fallibilism is the belief that theoretically nothing can be proved because of simple things like quantum mechanics, Schrodingers cat, and even religion. By Socrates saying that he is wise because he knows nothing means that he realizes that everything he knows could very well be a chain of lies and deceit, and thus he is wise enough to be wary of anything. If this is Socrates perspective, he is deceiving people into believing that he is implying, on the basis that knowledge is attainable and many obtain it, that he is not wise. Socrates must establish the fact that no knowledge is obtainable, and that knowledge cannot be proved. The truth is that we cannot confirm or deny whether or not Socrates has knowledge. If he claims he does not, we can only confirm so, that he claims he does not. There is no certainty in whether or not he does have knowledge, and we can only confirm what he claims.

In Oedipus the King, the Sphinx and Oedipus have an interesting relationship, that some may compare to Socrates relationship to Theaetetus. The Sphinx is very significant to Oedipus the King as the means by which subsequent Theban King Oedipus gets into Thebes. The Sphinx guards all entries to and exits from the city. No one goes anywhere without answering the Sphinx's riddle. Until Oedipus, no one has the answer. But Oedipus knows that man is the living being that walks on fours in the morning, on twos in the afternoon, and on threes in the evening of life. The Sphinx dies at the bottom of the nearby cliff. At the same time, the people of Thebes are delivered from fear and taxes. With entry into Thebes, Oedipus is a hero. He is offered the Theban throne and Thebes' widowed queen, Jocasta. These two consequences of Oedipus' entry into the city are necessary to the second fulfilling of his predicted fate. Specifically, it was predicted that he'd kill his own father and marry his own mother. He already killed an older man in a street brawl over a right-of-way. Unbeknownst to Oedipus, the stranger was his father, now deceased King Laius. To seal his fate, Oedipus has to marry his own mother, who is Laius' grieving widow, Jocasta. The Sphinx and Oedipus are similar to the analogy that Socrates makes with himself and a midwife. Socrates shows that he can only birth knowledge from Theaetetus, and if this is true, which we cannot definitely confirm, we can infer that Socrates is the Sphinx and Theaetetus is Oedipus, where the Sphinx can only deliver passage to the gateway for Oedipus, just as Socrates can only deliver thoughts from Theaetetus. A comparison that is definitely more justified can be made with Teiresias relationship with Oedipus to Socrates midwifery. Teiresias acts as a guide within the plot. He holds the key to advancement and seemingly controls the final outcome of many

lives. Teiresias serves the purpose of motivating and propelling the main character Oedipus through the story. Through values such as truth, knowledge and faith, Teiresias controls the fate of Oedipus the King. Teiresias is a blind soothsayer or rather, a prophet. As a prophet, Teiresias is ordained to tell the truth. Along with his prophetic insight, comes the responsibility and obligation to tell the truth in any circumstance. Teiresias uses the power of truth to control Oedipus' fate. He reveals a truth to Oedipus that will change his life forever. This truth is that Oedipus is the murderer of his father, a husband to his mother, and a brother to his children. Comparing this story to Socrates midwifery, we can see that Teiresias was a man who did not conjure truth, but brought it to light. Much like Socrates, Teiresias was only wise because he held the truth; he did not find the truth. Socrates can only bring light to knowledge, much like Teiresias can bring light to the truth, and thus their relationships relate. Teiresias says, Yea, I am free, strong in the strength of truth (Sophocles). Truth in Oedipus the King is a powerful force the strength of which may only be felt by knowing. To know one's self, to know one's truth, is the foundation of personal strength. Oedipus and Teiresias are enslaved men who are driven by their particular interpretations of the seemingly ambiguous truth. Similarly, Theaetetus and Socrates are driven by their interpretations and definitions of knowledge. Through Oedipus journey, he is betrayed by what he thought was his childhood, but became to be known as false. In Platos Theaetetus, we are posed with a comparable betrayal, although the circumstances are not so dramatic. The dialogue has Socrates and Theaetetus engaged in a philosophical discussion about knowledge. Over the course of the dialogue, Socrates makes Theaetetus realize that he does not know anything. Theaetetus argues to know what knowledge is,

and Oedipus begins with knowledge about his childhood. Both characters never think to question these things until challenged. Indeed the philosopher would not presuppose any such knowledge; philosophy is the pursuit of knowledge, not the possession of knowledge. Both characters had given up any such pursuit because they believed to know; Theaetetus believed to know certain fundamental facts about various subjects; Oedipus believed to know his father and mother, and so he thought he was able to avoid fulfilling the prophecy. The similarities between the wise and the unwise in these situations are very apparent. The unwise is indeed the one who believes they know, and the wise is in fact the one who knows they do not know. We can now know that Socrates and Teiresias were the wise, in that they know that they cannot know.