Something very similar happens in the Charmides, where Socrates is introduced to a young man who is said to be an exceptional model of temperance. Socrates questions Charmides about the virtue he supposedly possesses, but discovers that Charmides is unable to explain exactly what temperance is. Beginning at 158e Socrates asserts to Charmides that if he were truly temperate then he should be able to tell others what temperance is. Charmides agrees and at 159b he actually gives a potential definition of temperance—which is doing things “orderly and quietly”; this is significant because it is so unlike the interlocutors in previous dialogues who always gave an example to start with and had to be prodded by Socrates to give a definition. Socrates
…show more content…
Socrates claims to have no knowledge of these types of things, and concedes that if he has any knowledge at all it is of worthless or trivial things. He claims that his purpose for initiating interactions with these reputedly knowledgeable people is first and foremost to prove the oracle wrong, because he believes he really knows nothing. If he can successfully prove the oracle wrong by finding someone who is indeed wiser or more knowledgeable than him, then he will be presented with the opportunity to learn something worthwhile from the person he is engaging, which is his second purpose for these interactions. Unfortunately, this proves to be an unsuccessful method of learning for Socrates because he does not actually learn the fine and good things he has sought to learn; instead he has learned that the reputedly knowledgeable people are merely ignorant of their own ignorance. He determines that they are only truly capable of giving him examples of specific instances where actions seem to showcase the thing that he is seeking knowledge of—such the examples of piety that Euthyphro describes; he also discerns that they are incapable of giving him a definitive definition that is not easily shown to be a contradiction or fallacious in some other way. The act of having a definition for Socrates is crucial because he asserts that it is
Socrates claims to have no knowledge of these types of things, and concedes that if he has any knowledge at all it is of worthless or trivial things. He claims that his purpose for initiating interactions with these reputedly knowledgeable people is first and foremost to prove the oracle wrong, because he believes he really knows nothing. If he can successfully prove the oracle wrong by finding someone who is indeed wiser or more knowledgeable than him, then he will be presented with the opportunity to learn something worthwhile from the person he is engaging, which is his second purpose for these interactions. Unfortunately, this proves to be an unsuccessful method of learning for Socrates because he does not actually learn the fine and good things he has sought to learn; instead he has learned that the reputedly knowledgeable people are merely ignorant of their own ignorance. He determines that they are only truly capable of giving him examples of specific instances where actions seem to showcase the thing that he is seeking knowledge of—such the examples of piety that Euthyphro describes; he also discerns that they are incapable of giving him a definitive definition that is not easily shown to be a contradiction or fallacious in some other way. The act of having a definition for Socrates is crucial because he asserts that it is