[MUSIC] Hegel discusses Socrates' method and then devise two important features. First, Socrates goes out among different kinds of people in the context of their daily lives. He then strikes up a conversation with them about their occupations or interests. In this way, he manages to draw them into a discussion, since it's natural that people like to talk about their own interests. And then tries to get them to move from their immediate experience with specific individual cases to a universal truth. It's this movement, from particular to universal, that, according to Hegel, constitutes the first element of the Socratic method. We can see this in the dialog The Euthyphro, where Euthyphro gives Socrates a number of examples of piety, that is particular cases, and then Socrates asks what all of the particular cases have in common. So, instead of hearing specific instances of piety, Socrates wants to find out what the essence or nature of piety is in itself. Likewise, in other dialogues, he's interested not in examples of beauty, but in beauty itself. Not in examples of justice, but in justice itself, and so forth. The second element of the Socratic method, is the causing of confusion between the idea or definition proposed and the actual experience of the individual. A conflict between the universal and the particular. Socrates' implicit goal is to show that his interlocutors have unreflectively accepted certain things to be true without examining them carefully. Thus by pointing out the contradictions in their views, Socrates in effect calls on the individual to go back and examine them critically. The key is that the individual, with his or her own reason, must test whatever's claimed to be true. Hegel also examines Socratic irony. What was so important for Kierkegaard? He explains that Socrates begins by getting his interlocutor to say something about the topic based on the generally accepted understanding of things. In order to get the other person to do this, Socrates pertains that he himself is ignorant of the matter in question and requires some instruction in it. Once the other person begins to set forth the accepted view, Socrates can go to work on it and demonstrate the contradictions involved in it. In this way, Socrates believed that he was helping the other person to come to the realization that he knew nothing. A key question about Socrates' use of irony is whether or not Socrates really means it when he says that he knows nothing and is thus, in need of instruction. In other words, is this ironic or does Socrates really mean this, since he's truly convinced that he knows nothing? One might be suspicious of his claim to know nothing, since after all, in the course of the ensuing discussion, he clearly shows much greater intellectual acumen than his interlocutor. He's constantly giving examples of what seem to betray knowledge of specific things or quoting texts, for example Homer, which shows great knowledge. Or at a minimum, he seems to have knowledge of forms of argumentation since he's so effective at pointing out flaws and reasoning. But Hegel says, and I quote, it may actually be said that Socrates knew nothing, for he did not reach the systematic construction of a philosophy. Here, Hegel refers to the idea of aporia, that is, the fact that the dialogues, like the Euthyphro, do not end up with any positive result. This would seem to prove the claim that Socrates really doesn't know anything. This would imply that the irony consists, not in this claim, which after all is true, but rather in the famed believe that his interlocutor knows the truth and can teach it to him. Hegel points out that when we use universal terms such as truth justice and beauty, we all have some vague sense of what these mean and because of this, we can communicate with each other by means of language which makes use of such terms. But each of us has different intuitions about what these terms mean and so in order to determine their meaning more exactly, we need to analyze them in more detail. This is what Socrates's method tries to do. By means of irony, Socrates attempts to get his interlocutor to make the given concept concrete. Or as Hegel says, to develop it. So that it ceases to be vague and abstract. Hegel also mentions maieutics, or the art of midwifery as an important element of Socrates's method. According to his interpretation, this amounts to the production of the universal from the particulars. The inexperienced or untrained mind lives in the world of immediate perception. The world of particular sense, perceptions, and impressions. But these particulars necessarily imply a universal, for otherwise, we wouldn't know what the particulars are. For example, one sees a number of particular dogs but one wouldn't be able to recognize them as dogs if one didn't have the universal idea of dog in one's mind. A category is necessary for us to put individual things into. So when Socrates is practicing his maieutics or art of midwifery, he's helping the individuals to reach or recover the universal which lies implicitly in their own minds. For Hegel, this is a kind of educational process that takes place in every person as they grow. We begin in the world of perceptions, in particular cases, examples and images, and only later can we learn to think abstractly and talk about abstract ideas and universals. The idea of Socratic maieutics was also of central importance to Kierkegaard, who regarded himself as practicing the maieutic art. He wanted to get his fellow Danes to reflect on their relationship with Christianity, but this wasn't something that he could preach to them or argue for in any objective or discursive manner. Rather, it was subjective truth that lay in the heart of each individual. His goal was simply to help individuals to bring this forth in their own inner truth or idea for themselves. Hegel also discusses the concept of aporia, or the negative ending in the dialogues. He points out that Socrates tries to lead his interlocutors into confusion by showing that there are contradictions in their views. Often, Socrates gets them to give a preliminary definition of something, and then he proceeds to show that the thing is just the opposite of what the proposed definition states. After this happens a few times, Socrates' dialogue partner often becomes frustrated and gives up, leaving the discussion with no positive result. Thus, we have an aporetic dialogue. Hegel notes that it lies in the nature of philosophy to begin with a puzzle to be solved, a conundrum. So in this way, Socrates has prepared the way for philosophy. But Hegel's implicit critical point is that Socrates has stopped short with the negative and has not realized the positive or constructive element that lies in negation. Hegel gives the example of the contradiction of being and nothing. We are accustomed to think of these two ideas as absolutely independent of one another. Being exists independently on its own and has nothing to do with nothingness and vice versa. When we think of nothingness, this is a concept that exists on its own independent of the concept of being. Thus, both terms, being and nothing, are thought to be isolated, independent, and irreducible. Indeed, being contradicts nothing and vice versa. Where the one exists, the other does not. But, Hegel argues, when we examine these concepts more closely, we realize we can't think of the concept of being without the concept of nothing and vice versa. The one necessarily implies the other. Thus, instead of being two isolated atomic concepts, these in fact constitute a single higher complex concept becoming. Becoming contains both being and nothing. Something becomes when it comes into being, and it equally becomes when it perishes and ceases to be. In this way, from what initially appeared to be an irresolvable contradiction, there emerges a new positive concept. The movement looked initially as if it were stuck in contradiction and negation, as if it were aporetic. The contradiction of being a nothing. But ultimately, this proved to be only a passing stage, and in the end, something positive and constructive resulted. This is a fundamental idea in Hegel's metaphysics. The concept of negation is not simply a nonstarter, but rather, forms the foundation for a positive development. So Hegel's critical of Socrates for not going further in developing this, his method, to include this positive development. Instead, the Socratic method stops with negation. But this is precisely what attracted Kierkegaard to Socrates. The Greek philosopher didn't try to go on, in develop something positive but intentionally remained in the negative in the contradictory. Kierkegaard constantly criticizes among others Martensen's zealous students for their desire to go further, or specifically to go further than Socrates. This criticism has its origin in this point in Hegel. For Hegel, Socrates prepared the ground for philosophy by means of negation. He cleared away the mistaken belief so that philosophy could go to work from the ground up. But Socrates himself never got past the negation. He failed to recognize the positive dimension of the dialectic, thus what was needed was to go beyond Socrates and supply the positive element and thus begin to construct a philosophical position or theory. But for Kierkegaard, the whole point was Socrates, was negation, and all talk of going beyond was an absurdity. Socrates tries to define the good, that is, the abstract concept of the good. According to Hegel, his great contribution in the development of human thought is the realization that the good must be developed by the individual and can't simply be blindly accepted as given by one's culture, established tradition, family, etc. But this doesn't mean that Socrates is a relativist like the Sophist. Hegel cites the famous saying from The Sophist, Protagoras, man is the measure of all things. For Hegel, this means that each individual has his or her own truth. This is a statement of relativism. By contrast, for Socrates, the good is something absolute and universal even though there's a subjective element involved in it. So again, Socrates must be disassociated from this Sophist and from simple relativism. The revolutionary dimension of Socrates' thought is that he introduced reflective morality in contrast to the established morality or ethics. Reflective morality involved the individuals consciously considering for themselves what was good instead of merely accepting it uncritically from their parents, ancestors or society. For Hegel, this marked a major historical shift that set off an entirely new movement of thought that continues to this very day. He writes in a quote, in the universal consciousness, in the spirit of the people to which Socrates belongs, we see the natural turn to reflective morality. The spirit of the world here begins to change, a change which was later on carried to its completion. But, like most revolutionary movements, this one was frightening to the people at the time. For the Greeks, prior to Socrates, ethics was always an established manner in traditions, customs, and the state. The individual's reflection on this or ascent to this played no role. But then came Socrates who began to ask critical questions about these kinds of things and to assert the importance of the individual. For the Greeks, this was a terrifying thing since it threatened to undermine all the traditions, customs and truths that they had always held most dear. Thus, Socrates was regarded not just as something of a nuisance but rather as a really serious threat to Greek life. Now, for Socrates, morality is not about some pre-established fixed outward fact. For example, the state duties, moral laws, etc. But rather, the inwardness of each individual. What was universal, the truth of ethics was formally thought to be visible in the outward sphere of the state and society. Now, however, Socrates claims that it's to be sought inwardly in the individual. This is a radical new thought. One can no longer be complacent about morality and simply adopt what custom and tradition dictated. Now, each individual must be critical, reflective, and enter upon his or her own journey in order to reach the truth of ethics. Well the Socratic revolution is destructive since it spells the demise of public morality, it's also a liberation since it frees people from the tyranny of custom. One no longer needs to go along with customs simply because it is custom. Now, one can call a custom and tradition into question and reject aspects of them that one can't assent to. This is the modern principle that Socrates initiated in antiquity. The criticism of public morality can be seen as consistent with Socrates' claim that he doesn't teach anything. With regard to ethics and morals, nothing can be learned that comes from the outside. This is the entire sphere of public morality which, so to speak, imposes itself from without. Hegel uses the example of impressing a stamp of wax to illustrate the way in which we learn public morality when we were young. But this is not what's essential about ethics. On the contrary, what's essential is the inward dimension. Here individuals must do the work for themselves. They must find the truth of ethics inwardly. This is what Socrates helps them define, so to speak, as a midwife, but he doesn't teach anything or provide anything positive himself. [MUSIC]
