Author: Yskander Arquimides Saucedo

The pessimism of Schopenhauer is profoundly metaphysical. The world itself is will and the will of the world or the nature thereof is principally wicked. Evil exists in the world because the world itself is a manifestation of will. All humans have a will but the will of man is identified with the will of the world; similar to Spinoza’s concept of all substance being of the same substance of God. The will of man its self is “a mindless, aimless, non-rational urge at the foundation of our instinctual drives, and at the foundational being of everything . . . devoid of rationality or intellect,” (Wicks). In other words, the will is not a thing in itself and is beyond space and time because the will itself has no point of origin. The body is a separate object from the will. To Schopenhauer, the body is a mere object like any other object of the world subject to natural and universal laws. The body may be perceived as a vessel by which the will uses to make itself evident.

Since the cosmos is altogether a wicked will, then it is the source of all suffering humans must endure since humans are all one vast will. If will had some form of end, there would be a sense of hope to an end of suffering and pain. But since there is no end in sight, then there can never be true happiness in life, and the more humans achieve true knowledge of the world, the more they increase in knowledge of evil. In relation, Bertrand Russell writes, “the cause of suffering is the intensity of will; the less we exercise will, the less we shall suffer,” (p. 756). In other words, one must try to escape the will without suicide, because suicide would raise the intensity of the will in relation to suffering.

What is striking about this philosophy is that it makes sense from one perspective. It gives an account of the existence of evil in the world, but it does not give an account for the existence of goodness in the world. Obviously, there cannot be one without the other to distinguish the good from evil volition. If wickedness is the fundamental will, then is the opposite representation from human activity sedition? Or could it be philosophically accepted if the concept is rephrased to suggest the cosmic will to be principally good? Furthermore, it does not make sense to suppress one’s will in order to deviate suffering. Since the cosmic will demands volition from humans; evidently because of good virtue on earth, evil volition is not the only manifestation. This means that whatever cosmic will is commanding volition from humans, it is not only evil but good as well. And if all were to suppress their wills, there would be none with the volition to combat the evil of the world or have the volition to become wealthy, or seek success, or just spread general goodness. To this Schopenhauer would respond that it would be futile to seek happiness, objectives, or goals because failure would just increase pain. Consequentially, to accept such a state of mind would make an attempt for an ethical lifestyle impractical. And if one looks at Schopenhauer’s lifestyle, not even he could make it ethically practical, instead one may argue that his life was inconsistent with his beliefs.

One of the characteristics that drew me to Schopenhauer is his pessimism; however, I am pessimistic in a far different sense for personal practical reasons, not pessimistic for morbid reasons, but simply because it may be better to view situations as they are in a realistic sense, as opposed to thinking optimistically about a situation that is most likely not going come to fruition as one may hope. Some say to hope for the best but prepare for the worst, but how can one effectively prepare for the worst if they hope or think the worst may not happen. Is it not better to accept the gravity of the situation that may occur so the subject can more effectively plan for the worst outcome? Instead of hope for the best but prepare for the worst; is it not better to think, “in any given situation the worst occurrence is always probable. If you can expect the worst to occur then plan for it. The end result is you gain from your preparation. If the worst does not occur then you have lost nothing.”

Works Cited

Wicks, Robert. Arthur Schopenhauer. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2009. https://edge.apus.edu/access/content/group/arts-and-humanities-common/Philosophy/PHIL415/Documents/schopenhauer.pdf.  Web. 19 Dec. 2018.

Russell, Bertrand. The History of Western Philosophy. New York. Simon & Schuster Inc. 1972. Print.

Social contract theory (SCT) is arguably the most influential theory for moral and political philosophy. Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau are perhaps the most dominant political philosophers responsible for shaping the modern political theory of Europe and North America; nevertheless, SCT is not a newly developed concept. Examples of SCT are found throughout history since the nature of man has commanded a political climate. Socrates surrendering to his death sentence instead of accepting an opportunity to escape is one historical example from the many.

The objective of the social contract is to deviate the problems of society and the illegitimacy of established regimes. Curiously, it was the belief of Rousseau that a good political order could be defined on the basis of understanding the true nature of man, and the task for bringing clarity on the matter belonged to the philosopher, (p. 559). Rousseau’s state of nature differs from Hobbes in relation to violence and aggression at its origin. For Rousseau, the species of first humans are not naturally hostile toward his own kind and was only seeking the bare necessities. Personally, I would lean towards Hobbe’s beliefe, that the core of every man in the state of nature is war. Unfortunately, Rousseau’s utopian state of nature became corrupt as people multiplied and established private properties for themselves. This inclined people to compare themselves with each other raising people’s pride, envy, shame, and the desire to have what some did not have the means to acquire. The realization of security to protect property for those who had it from those who did not was established; eventually forming the origins of government with a false facade of protection for all, but covertly established for the rich majority. This was Rousseau’s concept of the illegitimate civilization.

For Rousseau, the freedom of man’s will is a principle. The philosopher must think of a way to institute a moral political order for all to submit to without seemingly surrendering the individual will. Consider this paradox. Man is naturally free, but man naturally seeks self-interest, man is not naturally moral, nature alone can never establish a moral order without the submission of the will to an extent; therefore, “since nature does not provide the basis for the agreement, it must be a convention,” (p.567). From this line of reasoning follows the SCT of Rousseau; a social contract where all surrender their will equally to form a general will (contract) known as the state. There is no conflict or compromise of man’s free will between individuals and state because all have agreed to establish an absolute law.

By way of reflection, it is interesting to notice that men cannot rule themselves apart from establishing a government, state, or some form of absolute law through some form of social contract. The reasons for this has been noted by the man’s state of nature. The fact that humans must surrender their will to something is ill-fated and unavoidable. For those that believe in God, they may argue it may be better to surrender the will to God or a theocracy; a rule under God. For those that do not believe in God, the only remedy is a social contract theory established by men. The irony is that either establishment; a nation under God or not, they are all established by man, and anything established by man eventually deteriorates as a sand castle washed away by the tide, only to establish another sand castle. Perhaps the only constant establishment we have built is an infinite regress of insubstantiality.

Work Cited:

Strauss, Leo., Cropsey, Joseph. History of Political Philosophy. Chicago. The University of

Chicago Press. 1987. Print.

Empiricism is a posteriori, any knowledge is dependent upon the senses, observation, and experience, and apart from reason, but not necessarily being certain or justified knowledge other than any knowledge gained from induction. If there is any certainty that may have been gained through the history of philosophy is that not everyone knows everything, some may know something, but not many know anything.

Understanding David Hume’s skepticism may be easier to grasp by understanding his intent. A misconception may be that Hume was attempting to deny any kind of certainty any previous philosopher may have developed. The intent behind Hume’s skeptical doubts was not to discourage but rather to stimulate himself and others to develop a more satisfying system of achieving certainty, (Morris, Brown). Although Hume was an empiricist, he did not deny that certainty could not be gained by reason. Bertrand Russell claims that Hume believed algebra and arithmetic are the only sciences which may infer certainty through reason, (663).

There are four important subjects to understand before arriving at Hume’s skepticism in relation to causality; perceptions, impressions, ideas, and his established maxim. There is nothing present in the mind of anyone other than their own perceptions. Perceptions are significant to everyone’s experiences of their everyday life. Perceptions are better understood in two ways, impressions, and ideas. The impressions in the mind are when one, “hears, or sees, or feels, or loves, or hates, or desires, or wills . . . ideas are what is in the mind when one reflects on a passion or an object which is not present,” (Strauss). Impressions and ideas are both in the mind; however, impressions are in the mind when one experiences a present object through their sensory perceptions. Ideas are also present in the mind but are direct reflections people have from an object which is not in front of them. Ideas can also be reflections one has from their impressions. For example, if someone picks up an object in front of them like a gun; they can see, feel, hear, or it may ignite a sense of passion in the individual perceiving it. Whatever the individual is thinking in the mind are impressions from the object in front of them. An example of an idea someone has is when someone for any reason thinks of an object, not in front of them; for example, the gun may cause the individual to reflect on a good or bad memory, it may motivate the individual to think of laws, safety, training, hunting, etc. What ideas and impressions have in common is that they are both perceptions in the mind and based on experience alone, not reason or rationality. Having understood perceptions, impressions, and ideas; it may be inferred that nothing can be conceived in the mind that has not been experienced.

The final subject one should understand is the “established maxim” which may be thought of as an imperative. The “established maxim” is anything that is conceivable is possible. Any assertion which cannot be imagined as contrary to a fact in the mind is knowledge, and any assertion which can be imagined as contrary to a fact in the mind is not knowledge, (Strauss). For example, that a square has four corners is a logical fact. To attempt to conceive in the mind the contrary of a square with four corners; for example, a square circle is logically impossible and therefore not knowledge. If one can conceive in the mind something other than the logically impossible such as; gravity is an active function at any given moment is a fact, but it is possible to imagine the contrary to the fact, that the function of gravity tomorrow morning may cease as a function, and since it is conceivable in the mind it is a possible fact that it may occur.

These I believe are the keys to understanding Hume’s skepticism. Perceptions, impressions, ideas, are all based on empiricism to Hume, and anything empirical or anything based on sensory perception or experience may be doubted. All perceived knowledge may be justifiably doubted because even any reason and rationality considered as knowledge, yet may be conceived or imagined as contrary to the supposed fact, is now a probable error. Apply these principles to all-cause and effect situations and you have justifiable skepticism.

Works Cited:

Morris E.William., Brown R. Charlotte. David Hume. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 21, May 2014. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/#Cau. Web. 06, Dec. 2018.

Russell, Bertrand. The History of Western Philosophy. New York. Simon & Schuster Inc. 1972. Print.

Strauss, Leo., Cropsey, Joseph. History of Political Philosophy. Chicago. The University of Chicago Press. 1987. Print.

There are some who ask if there is any value in philosophy and if there is what may be a relevant example. Philosophy may be considered the cornerstone of the sciences. Before astronomy became a science; Thales of Miletus predicted an eclipse. When a philosophy gathers enough facts to become dogmatic, it becomes a science that contributes to the progression of humanity. St. Augustine was a theologian and philosopher whose thinking and writing was relevant in his day and continues to be relevant today. As long as war has occurred, people have been asking how can it be just or immoral. St. Augustine confronted the topic during the fall of Rome and developed the just war theory. A theory that is driven by the precept of making war as moral as possible, which may not be a science in our day; nevertheless, the significance of his philosophy is highly relevant and applicable in modern day warfare.

St. Augustine of Hippo is Aurelius Augustinus, (354–430 A.D.) who was: “ a Christian Neoplatonist, North African Bishop, (and) Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church” (Mendelson). He was raised by a Christian mother and a Pagan father who near the end of his life converted to Christianity. Augustine in his teenage years did not remain a Christian but instead became a follower of the Manichean religion. The Manichean belief seems to be more theoretical than actually having a factual basis. Manicheanism offered salvation through knowledge. They considered themselves a religion of pure reason as opposed to their adversaries the Christians, who they viewed as naïve and willing to believe anything. The doctrine offered its followers an answer to many of their questions, which was a benefit over Christianity because they perceived the Christian religion as mysterious (Arendzen).

It was prior to his teenage years when Augustine began to sway from Christian doctrine. At a school in Thagaste, he learned to read and write “from teachers who followed the old traditional pagan methods;” (IEP) this became an irony for his mother who unfortunately would be concerned for the souls of both her husband and son, who eventually converted to the Christian faith; nevertheless, in his youth Augustine enjoyed a hedonistic lifestyle. He lived in an atmosphere where it was habitual for young men to fornicate and boast about their sexual relations with multiple woman, and Augustine appreciated every advantage of it. Reflecting on his past prior to his Christian conversion, Augustine writes:

“but I wretched, most wretched, in the early commencement of my early youth, had begged chastity of Thee, and said, give me chastity and continency, only not yet. For I feared lest though should hear me soon, and cure me of the disease of concupiscence, which I wish to have satisfied, rather than extinguished” (Augustine p. 206).

Augustine never mastered the Greek language; nevertheless, he was a bright student and eventually became a teacher of grammar and rhetoric. He opened a school in Rome which resulted in disappointment because students would not pay their dues. Augustine credits the writing of Cicero’s dialogue Hortensius as his motivation and ambition to study philosophy; Augustine wrote: “for many years (some twelve) had now run out with me since my nineteenth, where upon reading Cicero’s Hortensius, I was stirred to an earnest love of wisdom” (Augustine p. 205-206). Augustine’s mastery of rhetoric, knowledge of paganism, and religion was recognized by his Manichean friends and was offered the highest academic position professor of rhetoric in Milan.

In Milan Augustine’s worldview dramatically changed. He learned more in-depth Manichean theology, which led to many doubts regarding Manichean doctrine. This along with his studies of religion and influences from his Christian mother and friends allowed him to become more open minded towards the Christian faith; furthermore, It was Bishop Ambrose of Milan, who he recognized as a more experienced man with superior oratory skills; that inclined him towards the Christian faith: Augustine recalled,

“I made application (through those very persons intoxicated with Manichean vanities, to be free from where I was to go, neither of us, however, knowing it) that Symmachus, then prefect of the city, would try me by setting me some subject, and so send me. To Milan, I came to, Ambrose the Bishop, known to the whole world as among the best of men, Thy devout servant . . . To him, I was unknowingly led by Thee, that by him, I might knowingly be led to Thee. That man of God received me as a father . . . I began to love him (Augustine Book 5 p. 120).

Eventually what ultimately converted Augustine to Christianity was the reading of Romans chapter 13 verses 13-14; a fitting verse which perhaps applied to the type of lifestyle he was called to repent from.

St. Augustine was primarily a Christian theologian and Christian philosopher, but his thoughts and writings may peak the interest of any who may have an interest in general philosophy as well. Augustine explicated on topics such as; epistemology, just war theory, morality, ethics, and the doctrine of free will to name a few. Perhaps one of the most applicable theories posed by St. Augustine is Just War Theory. The concept of the theory may not have originated with Augustine, but his cognitive contribution has been applicable from history to modern day.

In war, there is a saying that anything goes, but to follow that line of reasoning to its end requires an absolute absence of ethical rules. Rules that if considered carefully may reduce the amount of death, destruction, and pain in war. Besides, with that type of logic applied to actions in war, there could be an endless cycle of vengeance between the nations involved. Justified war theory helps to increase ethics and morality in an ironic event where a mission may be to destroy; nevertheless, it contributes to raising awareness that initiating war must have a justifiable reason, furthermore, that to end a war; the means to an end do not necessarily justify the means.

Many philosophers such as; Plato, Socrates, Xenophon, and Euripides have written on the issues on what may justify a war; however, in the West, it is St. Augustine who “is regarded the father of what has developed as the Western theory of just war” (Mattox p.1). In addition, Author Louis J. Swift writes “no writer of the early church has contributed more to the development of Christian attitudes regarding war, violence, and military service than St. Augustine” (Swift p. 369-383).

Augustine lived in a time when Rome was losing its power and falling to surrounding powers. Such an extreme scenario may have inclined him to consider morality highly relevant. Although, Augustine may rather Christians remain pacifists; it may be considered sin to not defend one’s self in the face of imminent danger to one’s personal life; therefore, there may be a  justifiable reason to act with violence to overcome unjustifiable violence. Augustine developed a couple of guidelines regarding war with the preconception of being as just and moral as possible. The two guidelines are; Jus Ad Bellum, the right to go to war, and Jus In Bello, the right sorts of conduct in war (Great Philosophers).

Examples of Jus ad Bellum; a just reason for going to war may be defending the innocent from attacks, the punishment of a perceived evil, and the recovery of kidnapped persons or stolen property. Part of Jus ad Bellum is the intention to avoid war through peaceful negotiations. Examples of unjust reasons for going to war may be the intent for territorial development, vengeance, intimidation, domination, or coercion. In a just war, the amount of moral utility must outweigh the amount of evil that may result from the outcome of the war. A just cause must have the intent of an end with a lasting peace between the warring nations with industrial restorations and human success.

Jus ad Bello is the second phase of war. It is the state of war or the actions involved during the war. Jus ad Bello may be translated into justice in war, or the laws of war. Jus ad Bello or the laws of war are applied to circumstances during a war such as rules of engagement, the surrendering of prisoners, treatment of prisoners, and regulation of what weapons may be used to prevent unnecessary harm and aggression, inhumane crimes, etc. A critical fundamental principle to remember for those involved in war is that though a war may have been declared justly, it may become an unjust war if the war is fought with unjust means. To keep battles as just as possible a few principles are necessitated. A battle must have the intention of being terminated as quickly as possible with minimal destructive means consistent with military necessity, (Mattox p.10). Any action with the intent of attributing more suffering than necessary to human life becomes immoral and making matters unjust; for example, torture or using weapons that exceed the amount of military force necessitated. Actions resulting from discrimination of non-combatants such as woman, children, clergymen, and even prisoners of war can turn a just war unjust.

St. Augustine is perhaps one the greatest philosophers to bless the minds of men. His preserved writings reveal the continual importance and value of philosophy. Since Augustine’s formulation of just war theory, it is evident to see how it has been applied in modern day politics. Concepts from Augustine’s just war theory may be seen in regulations within NATO, the United Nations, and the U.S. code of conduct. Augustines just war theory continues to be relevant as when it was written, and especially in this modern day with the increase of military technology. Augustine’s just war theory may not be a science, but it is valuable philosophy which contributes to the moral progression of man in turmoil conflict, and may lessen the sufferings of all those involved wars.

 

Work Cited

Mendelson, Michael. Saint Augustine. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 24 Mar. 2010.

Web. 27 May. 2017. [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/augustine/].

Arendzen, John. “Cosmogony.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. New York: Robert Appleton

Company, 1908. Web. 27 May. 2017 [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04405c.htm].

Augustine. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web. 27 May. 2017.

[http://www.iep.utm.edu/augustin/].

Saint, Augustine, and Edward Bouverie Pusey. Confessions of St. Augustine, Edited by

Augustine Saint, and Edward Bouverie Pusey, The Floating Press, 1921. ProQuest Ebook Central. Book 8 P. 206. [http://ebookcentral.proquest.com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/lib/apus/reader.action?

docID=349865&ppg=6#].

Mattox, John Mark. St. Augustine and the Theory of Just War. London: Bloomsbury Publishing,

2006. Ebook Library. (p.1). Web. 28 May. 2017.

Swift, Louis J. “Augustine on War and Killing: Another View.” The Harvard Theological

            Review, vol. 66, no. 3, 1973, pp. 369–383. [www.jstor.org/stable/1509007].

Great Philosophers. Augustine: Just War. 2002. Web. 28 May. 2017.

[http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Augustine/augustine_justwar.html].

Marcus Aurelius was a Stoic philosopher, and anyone who reads his book titled: Meditations, may agree he was a Stoic who lived trying to make Stoicism applicable in his life. He was born 121 A.D. and became a Roman Emperor in 161 A.D. until he died in 180 A.D. (Kamtekar). Understanding Marcus Aurelius’s philosophy and struggles with the application of Stoicism may help the philosopher understand Stoicism, which may result in assisting to make Stoic philosophy applicable to the reader’s life.

The Meditations is comprised of 12 books consisting of Marcus’s private notes and reflections on Stoic philosophy. Most of his rule as emperor was spent on military deployments; therefore, it is highly probable his books were written during his campaigns. This book is relevant toward understanding Aurelius’s thoughts of philosophy because there are not many sources outside the Meditation which clearly articulates his thought.

The following quotes from Marcus Aurelius correspond with the teachings of Stoic philosophy. Marcus wrote:

“If thou art pained by any external thing, it is not this that disturbs thee, but thy own judgment about it. And it is in thy power to wipe out this judgment now” (book 8).

“Put an end once for all to this discussion of what a good man should be, and be one” (book 10).

“Soon you’ll be ashes or bones. A mere name at most—and even that is just a sound, an echo. The things we want in life are empty, stale, trivial” (book 5).

“Whatever happens to you has been waiting to happen since the beginning of time. The twining strands of fate wove both of them together: your own existence and the things that happen to you” (book 5).

We see in these quotes, the Stoic phycological/philosophical applications of attempting to ignore or remove negative emotions such as; anger, grief, and anxiety, and instead focusing on positive emotions such as joy and tranquility. For the Stoics, it is not so much the outside events of life that bring joy or suffering, but instead; suffering can be manipulated and happiness attained by the power of the mind or merely changing one’s perspective. The third quote reflects on the Stoic concentration of death, and that it could happen at any moment, so one ought to take advantage of each day as if knowing it were their last. The last quote is interesting because it clearly demonstrates the Stoic concept of fatalism.

There is so much more to write regarding Stoic philosophy; and since my introduction to it, I will personally take the time to study it for my own edification; furthermore, the writings of Marcus Aurelius in the Meditations, in my opinion,  may be considered the bible of the Stoics, and critical to understanding the application of Stoicism.

Works Cited

Kamtekar, Rachana. Marcus Aurelius. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 29 Nov. 2010.

Web. 11 May. 2017. [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marcus-aurelius/].

Aurelius, Marcus., Long, George. The Meditations. The Internet Classics Archive. 1994 – 2009.

Web. 11 May. 2017. [http://classics.mit.edu/Antoninus/meditations.html].

Someone recently asked me a great philosophical question. Here is my response:

Since a substance is something that is in and of itself; instead of the example being a human, shouldn’t the example be a little bit more specific like the human soul?

Hello Frexxxxxx,

Great question regarding the substance and the soul. I would say, not necessarily; because Aristotle is more of an empiricist, so he would probably apply any substance relation to something within the material realm. Plato, on the other hand, refers to a true substance in the immaterial realm; where the physical realm is a shadow of the immaterial Forms also known as substances. I think your question is presupposing another question in your mind; whether which takes precedence, the body or the soul? If it is the soul which takes precedence then maybe the soul is the substance and the body the accident. Now, generally in philosophy, a substance deals with something physical like a person, thing, or material object; accidents would be the properties or attributes of the substances. This is not to say that a substance necessitates an accident because it does not, but an accident does necessitate a substance to exist in; for example, imagine concrete as a substance. Concrete can be used to make a foundation. The form of a foundation would be the accident of the concrete substance. The concrete can exist of itself without forming a foundation, but the foundation cannot exist of itself without the substance of concrete. To answer your question fully, I do not believe Aristotle would consider the soul a substance, but I could be wrong; furthermore, I personally would consider the soul or spirit the substance, and the body the accident. Reason being is because it seems to reason with Christian theology. When the body dies the soul lives on for eternity somewhere; therefore somehow the soul takes precedence, and though the soul may live for eternity as a substance, the body as an accident cannot live without the soul as the substance. I hope this helped. Thanks for the question.

During Socrates’s life, the city of Athens was enamored with beauty, especially in relation toward men. Manifestations of their infatuations were reflected in stone statues of gods and male humans. Often the statues were chiseled to represent a well-formed muscular image, which portrayed the standard for male development. Unfortunately for Socrates, he fell far from the glory of the Athenian standard of physique. Socrates was considered an exophthalmic, meaning that he his eyeballs bulged past the orbit and often appeared to look to the sides. To enhance the lack of beauty, he was gifted with a pot belly and snub nose that curved up, which unpleasantly depicted the image of a pig.

Regardless of looks, fortunately for him according to Plato, Socrates was married and had three children (Phaedo). Other sources give additional information such as, assistant professor at Kings College James Amburry, who adds that Socrates had two wives; Xanthippe and Myrto. Some claim that Socrates may have had the two wives simultaneously to balance the ratio between men and woman in Athens since there was more woman than men at the time. It is believed that Xanthippe gave Socrates his first son, Lamprocles; followed by Myrto who bore the second and third, Sophroniscus and Menexenus (IEP).

In the time of Socrates, it was the required for all males at the age of 18 to contribute to military service. Socrates was no exception, he fought in three battles of the Peloponnesian War (431 to 404 B.C.); Amphipolis, Delium, and Potidaea as a Hoplite (Monoson). Hoplites were mostly citizen soldiers who fought with a spear and shield and often lacked specialized equipment and training. There were a few specialized Hoplite units in Athens, but it is uncertain which unit Socrates may have been a member of. Socrates contributed to the win of the Athenian victorious battle of Amphipolis, where he also saved the life an Athenian General, Alcibiades. On account of General Alcibiades, Plato writes;

I will also tell if you please, and indeed I am bound to tell of his (Socrates) courage in battle; for who but he saved my life? Now this was the engagement in which I received the prize of valour: for I was wounded and he would not leave me, but he rescued me and my arms, and he ought to have received the prize of valour which the Generals wanted to confer to be partly on account of my rank, and I told them so, (this again Socrates will impeach or deny), but he was more eager than the generals that I and not he should have the prize.

Plato continues to write on account of General Alcibiades of other heroic virtues he noticed from Socrates. Evidently, Socrates was a courageous warrior with virtue and integrity in his time in the Peloponnesian War.

A focal moment in Socrates’s philosophical life is written in Plato’s Apology; where an associate of Socrates named Chaerephon, enquired if there was anyone wiser than Socrates. Chaerephon reported to Socrates that the Oracle of the god of Delphi decreed there was no one wiser than Socrates. Socrates was skeptical of the oracle’s judgment and thought of it as a riddle worth searching out. Socrates, of course, recognized he was not an idiot; nevertheless, he certainly did not consider himself the wisest of any group. Reflecting on the situation, Socrates thought of a method to test the prophecy of the god. His method was to walk around the city and question people on relevant fundamental topics of life, which eventually lead to a method of discourse known as the Socratic Method.

The Socratic Method can also be known as a Socratic debate between persons. It is Socratic in its title because it is named after Socrates. Socrates would daily question and challenge the beliefs of the alleged wisest men of Athens. The method involves a dialogue between persons by asking questions intended to stimulate critical thinking about the topic being discussed. The advantage of using the Socratic Method in argument or debate is that,

1. The one asking the questions may quickly take the lead in the dialogue.
2. By analyzing the opponents’ responses, the analyzer can recognize particular false presumptions, presuppositions, inconsistencies, and contradictions.
3. The one leading by way of questioning, if astute enough can lead or manipulate his opponent into contradicting himself and accepting a concept he under normal discourse may not have accepted.
4. The Socratic Method can serve to draw out what someone believes and why they believe it, and ultimately test their beliefs according to logic.

In this method, Socrates realized that those who many believed to be wise were actually not wise but foolish; Plato writes, “the result of my mission was just this: I found that the men most in repute were all but the most foolish; and that others less esteemed were really wiser and better” (Apology). Socrates’s answer to the riddle was that he was wisest than the rest because unlike them, he was able to acknowledge how little he actually knew.

This customary practice by Socrates was not favored by those he argued with. His opponents often left angry and they viewed Socrates as an antagonizer, which contributed to the nickname Plato gave to Socrates as the gadfly because of the irritations he would cause the men of Athens; a name according to Plato even Socrates used as reference to himself being a gift from god to the state of Athens not easily replaced, (p30).

Socrates inspired many followers, but he also made enemies with several important people. Many of Socrates’ followers were known to have betrayed the city of Athens when the city fell to Sparta. This perhaps left a negative perception of Socrates at his trial. Several of Socrates’s companions were prosecuted for sacrilegious crimes against the gods of the state to include General Alcibiades whose life was saved by Socrates in battle.  Five years before the trial of Socrates, 30 Athenian men loyal to Sparta were chosen to rule the city of Athens after it fell to Sparta. The 30 Athenians were led by Critias who was an associate of Socrates. General Alcibiades became a supporter of Sparta and allied himself with Persia; the two worst enemies of Athens. Socrates still remained a close friend of the General which reflected poorly on himself at his trial (IEP). At the trial of Socrates, he was already a political target under grave preconceptions; but the condemnation of death was a consequence of a religious reason.

Many great thinkers have come and gone. Some influence people to think negatively, and some influence people in positive ways. As a result of the major philosophical influence attributed to Socrates, he will remain one of the most studied philosophers throughout the existence of thinking beings. As long as people remain unbiased and open to examining the worldviews and concepts of others; applying the techniques of Socrates, and examine their own lives as Socrates examined his all the way to his death; one may find not only a reason worth living for but also find a reason worth dying for.

 

Work Cited

Ambury, M. James. Socrates (469 – 399 B.C.E). Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web. 23 Apr. 2017. [http://www.iep.utm.edu/socrates/#H1].

Plato. Phaedo. 116b. Persues Digital Library. Tufts University. [ http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0170%3A ext%3DPhaedo%3Asection%3D116b].

Ambury, M. James. Socrates (469 – 399 B.C.E). Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web. 23 Apr. 2017. [http://www.iep.utm.edu/socrates/#H1].

Monoson, S.S. Meineck, P., Konstan, D. Combat Trauma and the Ancient Greeks. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. Print.

Plato. Symposium. ProQuest Ebook Central. Informations, inc. 2000, Web. 23 Apr. 2017. [http://ebookcentral.proquest.com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/lib/apus/reader.action?docID=3314 729&ppg=31]

Plato and Benjamin Jowett. Apology. Project Gutenberg. EBSCOhost. (p13). Web. 23 Apr. 2017

Plato and Benjamin Jowett. Apology. Project Gutenberg. EBSCOhost. (p30). Web. 23 Apr. 2017

Ambury, M. James. Socrates (469 – 399 B.C.E). Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web. 23 Apr. 2017. [http://www.iep.utm.edu/socrates/#H1].