Batolina, Jhon Mark R.

January 22, 2018

BSED III- Math

BIOGRAPHY OF SOCRATES
 Socrates was born circa 470 BC, in Athens, Greece. We know of his life through the
writings of his students, including Plato and Xenophon. His "Socratic method," laid the
groundwork for Western systems of logic and philosophy. When the political climate of
Greece turned, Socrates was sentenced to death by hemlock poisoning in 399 BC. He
accepted this judgment rather than fleeing into exile.Born circa 470 BC in Athens, Greece,
Socrates's life is chronicled through only a few sources the dialogues of Plato and
Xenophon and the plays of Aristophanes. Because these writings had other purposes than
reporting his life, it is likely none present a completely accurate picture. However,
collectively, they provide a unique and vivid portrayal of Socrates's philosophy and
personality. Socrates was the son of Sophroniscus, an Athenian stone mason and sculptor,
and Phaenarete, a midwife. Because he wasn't from a noble family, he probably received a
basic Greek education and learned his father's craft at a young age. It is believed Socrates
worked as mason for many years before he devoted his life to philosophy. Contemporaries
differ in their account of how Socrates supported himself as a philosopher. Both Xenophon
and Aristophanes state Socrates received payment for teaching, while Plato writes Socrates
explicitly denied accepting payment, citing his poverty as proof. Socrates married
Xanthippe, a younger woman, who bore him three sons Lamprocles, Sophroniscus and
Menexenus. There is little known about her except for Xenophon's characterization of
Xanthippe as "undesirable." He writes she was not happy with Socrates's second profession
and complained that he wasn’t supporting family as a philosopher. By his own words,
Socrates had little to do with his sons' upbringing and expressed far more interest in the
intellectual development of Athens' young boys. Athenian law required all able bodied
males serve as citizen soldiers, on call for duty from ages 18 until 60. According to Plato,
Socrates served in the armored infantry known as the hoplite with shield, long spear and
face mask. He participated in three military campaigns during the Peloponnesian War, at
Delium, Amphipolis, and Potidaea, where he saved the life of Alcibiades, a popular
Athenian general. Socrates was known for his courage in battle and fearlessness, a trait that
stayed with him throughout his life. After his trial, he compared his refusal to retreat from
his legal troubles to a soldier's refusal to retreat from battle when threatened with death.
Contribution of Socrates in Philosophy
Socrates' Logic of Language
Ever and anon we are landed in particulars, but this is not what I want. Tell me then, since you
call them by a common name and say that they are all [shapes] ... what is that common nature
which you designate as [shape]? What is the quality in which they do not differ, but are all alike?
In Plato's dialogs Socrates is not looking for the conventions for using a common name, e.g. the
common name 'shape'. He already knows how we use the word 'shape' -- because he can point to
examples of shapes. So that drawing Socrates' attention to what Wittgenstein called "family
resemblances" would not be useful to Socrates because they are not what he is looking for. What
Socrates does seek is the common nature that justifies our use of a common name. For example,
what is the common nature that justifies applying the word 'shape' to all the particular shapes,
because that nature is not evident. What do all shapes have in common? Wittgenstein answer is to
ask, what do all games have in common? and to show that there is no one thing.

It is a presumption, of course, that the meaning of a common name is the common nature it
names: it is not the result of investigation -- indeed, Plato's Socrates does not find them; it is
instead a requirement that Plato imposes on his investigations.
What would Socrates' logic of language be, then? According to Socrates the 'meaning' of a common
name is the unique quality (common nature) shared by all things called by that name, unique because it
distinguishes those things from all things called by other names.
And we can give a definition of 'meaningless' or 'nonsense' for Socrates, and, further, say that if we cannot
define a common-name, then we are not justified to use it Using that name would be an instance of
thinking we know what we don't know. "And that which we know, we must surely be able to tell?" When
we cannot "tell", then we don't know what we are talking about: our speech is nonsense meaningless
sound. That is Socrates' logic of language in ethics.
Euthyphro cannot define 'piety' (or 'holiness') when Socrates questions him; he does not know what he is
talking about but thinks himself wise when he is not; and therefore lives an unethical life.
Socrates and logic and ethics
Note that for the historical Socrates logic is only a tool for investigations in ethics, and so the question
to ask is: Why does Socrates want to know what the common nature is that a common name
presumably names? Because according to Plato's account, knowing that defining common nature
would serve as a standard in ethics, saying what the good is for man in any and every particular
circumstance. For example, if we know the common nature named by the common name 'piety' -- i.e.
if we know what all instances of piety have in common -- then we will always know what is required
of the good man.

For Socrates the questions "How is a word used?" and "What justifies the use of the word?" are
different questions. For Wittgenstein they are the same question. For Wittgenstein our language
is just there like our life is there fact, a way of life for logic to describe not to justify or explain ,
not a riddle to solve. But for Socrates how we apply our language does stand in need of
justification, and that justification must be given in the form of a Socratic definition: our
justification for applying a common name is our being able to "define" the name -- not by
describing a word's use in our language (or "grammar" in Wittgenstein's jargon) but by giving an
account of the common nature that the common-name names.

Socrates' Method in Philosophy (according to Guthrie)

The Socratic or dialectical method of inquiry consists of two stages. The first is to collect
instances to which both parties to a discussion agree that the name under consideration may be
applied, e.g., if it is piety, to collect instances of agreed pious acts. Secondly, the collected
instances are examined in order to discover some common quality in them by virtue of which
they bear that name. This common quality considered as pious will provide the definition of
piety.

Socrates' definition is not a theory of meaning

 Has Socrates a logic of language, a way for distinguishing sense from nonsense language? His
thought can be given that form, and we can call it 'Socrates' logic of language'. The reason we can
do this is that Socrates' method puts forth not a theory about meaning (as is Plato's "Theory of
Ideas") but a definition of the word 'meaning'.

Socrates took no interest in metaphysics, but in logic and ethics only

"Socrates interested himself in ethical matters in Plato's "no small matter, but how to live",
neglecting the world of Nature, seeking the Universal in the ethical sphere and fixing thought for
the first time on ethical definitions" Socrates gave "no study to the nature of the universe as a
whole" or, in a word, Socrates created no cosmology; his interest lay in logic and ethics, not in
metaphysics. On the other hand, Socrates "discoursed about providence" , in Xenophon about
the providentially designed nature of things. If the precept "know thyself" commands seeking to
identify the specific excellent that is proper to man, isn't that an inquiry about "the world of
Nature"? The question is where do we want to set of limits of the concept 'metaphysics'. Aristotle
says quite clearly that Socrates "was busying himself about ethical matters". And again, "Socrates
occupied himself with the excellences of character, and in connection with them became the first
to raise the problem of universal definitions"

Socrates' Logic (his contribution according to Aristotle)

What was this "elementary logic" of Socrates'? It was a method, or, "right way to the goal"
Socrates did not claim to have knowledge "but only a certain insight into the right way to look
for it" what mattered was that "a method had been found". What was this insight?

"There are two things which may justly be credited to Socrates, inductive argument and general
definition." Aristotle declares that there are two improvements in science which we might justly
ascribe to Socrates his employment of "inductive arguments and universal definitions" Induction,
Aristotle tells us, is being led from the observation of particular instances to grasp a general
characteristic shared by all the members of a class.

The theory of forms (SOCRATES) epistemology

The Eidos - Translated as "Forms" - they are the absolutely real, immaterial blueprints of objects
in the physical world They constitute those essential features of all individual objects belonging to
the same class - e.g. what all horses have in common that makes them horses or what all acts of
justice have in common that makes them just. ° Also translated as Ideals - Hence Plato 's theory of
reality is called Idealism-These are the perfect, unchanging exemplars of all natural kind terms
(objects naturally occurring) and all good things -e.g. -The perfect horse tree, dog, or perfect
justice, love, beauty- they the perfect circle or triangle or straight line, etc. The ultimate Eidos -
that which all other Eidos have in common is the Form "Good" also include