The goal of a definition, for Socrates, is to understand a concept in a way it cannot be refuted. This means the answer must be clear in what the concept is and what it is not. Many times a concept goes undefined in Plato’s Socratic works due to the particularity of Socrates’ method. What a concept truly is is never accurately defined to Socrates’ liking, but what it is not is very clear. Therefore it can be argued that goal of a true Socratic definition is not finding out what a concept is, but what it is not. Whether or not there ends up being an acceptable definition by the end of one of Plato’s texts, there is always a set criteria for defining one. To begin, a proper definition has a baseline; meaning it can go no further than what has
…show more content…
Defining piety as something just does not work because piety exists within justice so something cannot be pious just because it is just else it does not stand on its own, it is once again dependent on something else. A chair cannot be defined as a piece of furniture alone because chairs are a subset of furniture. Something larger and more encompassing cannot be used to define a smaller concept. Instead you need to “find out what part of the [larger concept] it is.” Meaning that even if the concept itself exists within something else, its definition cannot be dependent upon that something else. The concept’s personal use must be …show more content…
To reiterate, a proper definition tells you what something does, is not contradictory, and is not dependent on something else. In the case of a chair, it is any piece of furniture that consists of a raised surface on any number of balanceable legs intended to be used for sitting. It’s accidental properties include the color, number of legs and even the possibility of balancing things on top of it. Note that these secondary properties do not tell you its function. Balancing items can be mistaken as a property but is it similar to the idea that piety is loved by the gods, it is potentially contradictory as not all chairs have a shape that is conducive to balancing items on
Defining piety as something just does not work because piety exists within justice so something cannot be pious just because it is just else it does not stand on its own, it is once again dependent on something else. A chair cannot be defined as a piece of furniture alone because chairs are a subset of furniture. Something larger and more encompassing cannot be used to define a smaller concept. Instead you need to “find out what part of the [larger concept] it is.” Meaning that even if the concept itself exists within something else, its definition cannot be dependent upon that something else. The concept’s personal use must be …show more content…
To reiterate, a proper definition tells you what something does, is not contradictory, and is not dependent on something else. In the case of a chair, it is any piece of furniture that consists of a raised surface on any number of balanceable legs intended to be used for sitting. It’s accidental properties include the color, number of legs and even the possibility of balancing things on top of it. Note that these secondary properties do not tell you its function. Balancing items can be mistaken as a property but is it similar to the idea that piety is loved by the gods, it is potentially contradictory as not all chairs have a shape that is conducive to balancing items on