Introduction
Socrates is one of the greatest philosophers known in the modern history whose work impacted on various areas of knowledge, from metaphysics, to philosophy, and even religion. Scholars have considered him one of the founding fathers of the abstract reasoning in the modern world. The works of this great philosopher is well documented in the works of Plato, who was one of his best students.
Klein (1989) says, “Plato’s dialogues are among the most comprehensive accounts of Socrates to survive from antiquity.” Plato compiled this information in the form of dialogue to bring out the information in its most authentic form. Plato believed that presenting the teachings in the form of dialogues was the best way of documenting the teachings of Socrates for the benefit of the future generations.
The teachings of Socrates to Plato closely relates to the modern day classroom teaching and learning. An analysis of Socrates-Theaetetus dialogue and other dialogues with Meno, Lysis, and Phaedrus reveals that Socrates teachings were full of satire, dialogue, and rhetorical questions. These three factors formed the basis of his teachings as a way of evoking abstract reasoning from his students.
It also helped in developing a philosophical reasoning among the learners. Socrates had the capacity of making words that appear simple in meaning become ambiguous philosophically. This approach of teaching forms the basis of the modern day classroom teaching and learning. This research paper is a reflection on the Socrates-Theaetetus dialogue and hot it relates to the modern day classroom teaching and learning.
Discussion
Socrates great teachings and philosophies are presented in the works of Plato. Waterfield (2005) says, “Through his portrayal in Plato’s dialogues, Socrates has become renowned for his contribution to the field of ethics, and it is this Platonic Socrates who lends his name to the concepts of Socratic irony and the Socratic Method, or elenchus.”
The Platonic Socrates, as presented in the Socratic dialogues, clearly demonstrates that Plato had a massive impact on the modern day teaching environment. Plato authored thirty-six Socratic dialogues and about 13 letters to present the works of this great philosopher. In this research paper, a few of these dialogues will be analyzed in order to determine how they relate to the modern day classroom teaching and learning.
Theaetetus Dialogue and How it Relates to Modern Day Classroom Teaching and Learning
In Plato’s Socratic dialogues, Theaetetus was one of the best students of Socrates. In this dialogue, Socrates is discussing three main definitions of knowledge with Theaetetus. As Klein (1989) records, this dialogue defines knowledge as “Nothing but perception, knowledge as a true judgment, and, finally, knowledge as a true judgment with an account.”
This scholar observes that this dialogue occurred when Theaetetus was a young scholar who was interested in learning abstract reasoning. Socrates introduced the word ‘knowledge’ which Theaetetus thought was a simple word. He had used the word severally and he wondered why the Great Teacher introduced the word as a focal point of discussion.
His parents sent him to school in order to become knowledgeable. His teachers worked hard to impart knowledge in him. For this reason, the word ‘knowledge’ was a common term that formed the basis of learning.
However, when Socrates gave him an opportunity to define knowledge, he found it very challenging as he could not find the exact definition that befits this word from a philosophical point of view. It is at this stage that Socrates gave three perspectives through which, knowledge can be defined.
Knowledge as nothing but perception
Socrates’ dialogue with Theaetetus first focused on knowledge as a perception of an individual or a group of people towards what they view as knowledge. Using Heracliteanism, Socrates says that what an individual would describe as nothing would mean everything to another individual. For this reason, what one person or a group of people may classify as knowledge may be very different from what another group thinks.
For this reason, knowledge would basically be defined according to an individual’s perception. The way we perceive things in the society is very different based on the social background and other demographical factors. Socrates believed that it would be unfair for him to use a common bar to rigidly define knowledge because a section of the society may not agree with the definition.
This definition of knowledge given by Socrates closely relates to the modern day teaching and learning. According to Waterfield, (2005), knowledge in the modern learning environment entails sitting in a classroom setting, receiving the information that is given by the teacher, internalizing it in order to become knowledgeable.
However, this is what Socrates defined as a rigid definition of knowledge that may not be universally accepted. Sometimes knowledge may be gained out of experience, without having a teacher-learner setting.
Knowledge as true judgment
In this dialogue, Socrates and Theaetetus argue about true knowledge and true judgment. According to Theaetetus, true judgment is always based on true knowledge. However, Socrates disputes this idea. He explains that there are cases when the jury would be persuaded by the lawyer about a case using untrue lawyer.
However, the lawyer will present the false knowledge in a way that would convince the jury that it is the true knowledge. For this reason, the jury will make true judgment based on untrue knowledge.
This means that while the jury would be made to think that they are making a fair judgment based on the information presented, they will actually be sending an innocent person to jail, or freeing the guilty person unfairly. For this reason, Socrates insisted that true knowledge and true judgment are very different, and should be treated as such.
This philosophical reasoning is very common in the modern day classroom teaching and learning, especially in the field of law. According to Waterfield (2005), courts are considered institutions of justice. When resolving conflicts in court, it is always expected that the true judgment will be based on true knowledge. However, this is not always the case, and that is why people always look for good lawyers.
As a law student, this dialogue demonstrates that it is important to present information to the court in a manner that would convince everyone that it is the true knowledge. This way, the jury would make a favorable decision believing that it is the true judgment.
Knowledge as a true judgment with an account
Socrates finally settles on what he believes is the definition of a true knowledge in his dialogue with Theaetetus. According to Klein (1989), Socrates says, “Things without an account are unknowable, while things with an account are knowable.”
After analyzing the two definitions, their dialogue finally settles on the definition that emphasizes on accounts to back up the knowledge. He insists that the difference between knowable and unknowable is defined by the account. It helps substantiate the knowledge in a manner that is convincing to the audience.
In the modern day learning environment, a learner must understand that the society needs an account to support a claim or a definition of something, especially in a court of law.
Waterfield, (2005) says, “The principles of definition, the law of contradiction, the fallacy of arguing in a circle, the distinction between the essence and accidents of a thing or notion, between means and ends, between causes and conditions depends on the account.” For this reason, any piece of knowledge must be backed up by some strong foundations of the account in order for it to be valid.
Dialogues with Meno
The dialogue between Socrates and Meno focuses on the meaning of virtue. According to Meno, virtue would be defined differently based on the individual on focus. According to Waterfield (2005), Meno says, “Every age, every condition of life, young or old, male or female, bond or free, has a different virtue.” According to Meno, the virtues of a woman would be different from that of a man.
Similarly, the virtues of a slave would be different from that of a master. However, Socrates disagrees with this reasoning. He argues that a virtue should mean the same thing when talking about a human being irrespective of any demographical classification.
As Waterfield (2005) notes, he asks Meno, “And will not virtue, as virtue, be the same, whether in a child or in a grown-up person, in a woman or in a man?” Socrates disputes the attempt by Meno to define a virtue differently based on different personalities. Doing what is good is a universal practice that cannot be defined by age, sex, race, or any other demographical factors.
Socrates uses satire and rhetorical questions to drive his point. He says that a crime committed by a person would remain a crime before a court of law irrespective of all these demographical factors, and the judgment may likely be the same, only that a child would be sent to a juvenile court. The dialogue with Meno compares closely with the dialogue with Theaetetus in the figurative of the speech and the use of rhetoric.
Another common factor is that the dialogues seeks to emphasize on need to develop an analytical reasoning when defining some of the terms considered common in the society.
The two dialogues also focus on the perception, and it is clear that Socrates feel that the perception of people towards different things in the society will always differ, and this is always the genesis of conflicts. Unless people accept to base their perceptions on a factual account, the conflicts in the society may not be easily resolved.
Dialogues with Lysis
The dialogue with Lysis focused on friendship, a common term that is often used to define the relationship between people close to one another. This dialogue involves Socrates and two young boys named Lysis and Menexenus. The two boys wanted Socrates to tell them what the true meaning of friendship is, and how they can detect a true friend from opportunistic individuals who would easily disappear when one is in trouble.
Socrates challenges the two boys to explain what they feel friendship is because they already had friends (Waterfield, 2005). Given the ambiguity of the definition of friendship given by the two boys, Socrates proposes four notions of true friendship, each with specific principles that makes it necessary to be defined as such.
He then emphasizes on the need to understand the drive that brings two or more individuals into a relationship that can be defined as friendship. According to Socrates, when the friendship is motivated by the pure personal desires by either or all of the parties, then it may not be classified as a true friendship.
This dialogue, just as that with Theaetetus, reveals that before making a judgment, it is important to determine the motive that drives someone to act. Sometimes people fail to understand the motives that make others behave in a particular manner, and this makes it difficult to unearth the truth.
Dialogues with Phaedrus
The dialogue between Socrates and Phaedrus focuses on love, the art of rhetoric, and the figurative speech. In this speech, Socrates and Phaedrus try to discuss issues about emotion and the divine world. Their discussion focuses on divine inspiration, soul, madness, and mastery of art. This dialogue uses rhetoric to define issues related to feelings.
Socrates asks Phaedrus to define madness. Phaedrus says that one would be considered mad if he or she does something that is abnormal. Socrates then asks him to define what he means by abnormal. The definition of abnormality given by Phaedrus is unsatisfactory to Socrates. He says that what one may describe as abnormal in one context may be very normal in another context.
It means that madness as a definition of a person’s character may fit in different contexts. Similarly, the word love may not be easy to define in clear terms because what one may consider love may be defined by factors such as desire.
Werner (2012) says, “Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments, love is not love which alters when it alteration finds.” This seeks to affirm that love is firm enough to withstand various forces that may act against it. This dialogue shares philosophical reasoning with that between Socrates and Theaetetus. The use of rhetoric is common in both cases.
Dialogues with Protagoras
The dialogue between Socrates and Protagoras is one of the popular Platonic dialogues that talks about virtue. Protagoras argues that virtue is a series of personal attributes which define the character of a person. With his rhetoric skills and his old age, Protagoras seem to be able to convince the audience that a virtue involves a number of attributes that act in different ways to define the character of a person (Zilioli, 2007).
However, Socrates believes that virtue is knowledge, and for this reason, cannot be defined as a series of attributes. It is knowledge to do what is right, and to avoid actions that may be harmful to others. It is a knowledge that helps one to know how to act in the best interest of everyone. Just like the dialogue with Theaetetus, this dialogue emphasizes on knowing what is right and doing it for the benefit of everyone.
References
Klein, J. (1989). A commentary on Plato’s Meno. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Waterfield, R. (2005). Meno and other dialogues. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Werner, D. S. (2012). Myth and philosophy in Plato’s Phaedrus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zilioli, U. (2007). Protagoras and the challenge of relativism: Plato’s subtlest enemy. Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishers.