The method of Socrates was the dialectic, a question and answer.
His interlocutors were those men, whether willing or not, who had scholia, or the leisure time to engage in philosophical discourse with Socrates.
There were several ways to go about such discourse, and amongst them, what was considered by many was to be a fee-demanding Sophist, whose art was to teach how to argue any point, both pro and con, to "make the weaker argument the stronger" and thus use speech to outwit your opponent. This is the origin of public prosecutors and defenders in western culture.
Was this a search for the "truth," or mere trickery of rhetoric and sleight of hand?
Socrates was accused then of all of the above trickery of rhetoric in the formal accusation, including make the weaker argument stronger, or in other words, being a Sophist who asked for money for his services on how to "win any argument."
Socrates, in his defense, appeals to the jury of peers to bear with him and not make a fuss. When reading the Apology of Plato, Socrates makes this appeal several times in the course of his defense, indicating that he was causing a major uproar in the courtroom. If you have ever been to Greece, it is not really in their nature to talk one at a time, quietly and politely waiting their turn. It is pandemonium and rather animated and passionate. I remember once being in Greece and thought two people were literally about to kill each other with gesticulations, supplications, appeals to the gods, promises of sacrificing first-born children, oaths of allegiance, etc. and pretty sure it was more like, "did you see the game on t.v. last night?"
One of Socrates' many appeals then is that he go about his defense by talking in the manner that is accustomed to him. Which means?
He starts talking about cobblers and horses. I am guessing that there was a collective groan in the courtroom when he brought this up again, thinking in unison, "If he goes off on those goddamn horses again, I'm going to kill him..." (which they did), but he goes off on those horses.
Cobblers were a popular source of inspiration for Socrates and often used to make a point about episteme. Episteme is, loosely translated, "knowledge." For Socrates, the cobblers were genius in their trade because they used an episteme, a form of knowledge, to make something, to have an end product. But, that is were it ends. Once a cobbler starts talking about horses, for example, he is out of his league of episteme and into the realm of doxia, or opinion.
That is what got to Socrates, opinions, or "it seems to me that ..." meaning, you don't know, so don't say that you do. For him, that was the true meaning of ignorance, to assert that you know something that you do not.
I was at the cobblers yesterday here in Amarillo to get my walking boots fixed because I walk a lot, and I will be walking a great deal in India. We chatted up for a bit, then it came to what I do and why I am in Amarillo. So, I explained, "I live in Belgium and am a translator and educator..." and so on.
Soon, we talked politics. I told him about the situation in Belgium without a formal government for over a year and how the country still runs, the ineffective king, the language battle, and so on. He expressed his malcontent of the state of a affairs in America, and so we had a conversation.
However, did it ever go out of the realm of doxia, or opinion? For my part, no. I began to think about the blogs I have posted on politics and they are merely opinions. I don't know. It is not my realm of "episteme" to talk about it, so I usually use satire or irony.
In the end, I don't really care if my cobbler is right or wrong about the Congress and President of America, but I do care quite a bit if my boots fall apart when walking through the caves of Ajanta, which I plan to be doing in a couple of months.
No comments:
Post a Comment