Ignorance, Ignorance, Cowardice, And Injustice In Socrates

The most shameful and worst thing that Socrates states is corruption of soul, including “ “ignorance, cowardice, and injustice (Plato 822),” Ignorance, cowardice and injustice are caused by the lack of knowledge, according to Socrates’ claim that the essence of each virtue (e.g., holiness, justice, courage, self-control) is the same as knowledge or wisdom (Plato 779). Therefore, based on his doctrine that no one knowingly and willingly behaves wrongly, Socrates could make comments on the given case by drawing on the dialogues (e.g., “Protagoras” and “Gorgias”), in which he also mentions about ignorance, cowardice, or injustice. Most importantly, Socrates would want to investigate the central concepts closely since he believes that one must know the truth about the subject s/he is going to discuss (Plato 547-548, 847-857). Therefore, this paper shall also discuss how and why Socrates prefers a philosophical discussion with his dialectic method to mere rhetoric persuasion.

1. Ignorance, Cowardice, and Injustice

To Socrates, some incidents mentioned in the case would seem to manifest the perpetrator’s lack of wisdom. Undoubtedly, plotting to rape is an immoral action, and according to Socrates, to commit an immoral action is to do something in the state of ignorance—the lack of knowledge of what is good (Plato 775-777); in other words, Socrates would think that if people fully understood the damage of evil deed then they would not have plotted to do it. Also, Socrates declares that courage is synonymous with knowledge and that the opposite of courage—cowardice—represents ignorance of what is and is not to be dreadful (Plato 789-790). Therefore, Socrates could raise a question whether the father, who fled when his son kept behind, ...

... middle of paper ...

...idences confirm the effectiveness of Socrates’s dialectic in disclosing unexamined premises and flawed arguments. Therefore, Socrates would maintain his view that the dialectic is the best way to truth and philosophy.

Conclusion

Instead of explicitly drawing conclusions, the discussion over the present case will remain to be continued with real presence of Socrates’ interlocutor so that they can present each other’s own opinions and to engage in the philosophical labor oneself (Plato 778-779). Also, in Socratic dialogues, each interpretation is often a beginning for another series of examination (e.g., Socrates states at the end of the “Protagoras” and “Euthyphro”, their discussion has to start once again from the very beginning); thus, many Socratic dialogues suggest that lessons may actually attained from the method, not the matter of the argument (Plato 546-554).