[MUSIC] The central focus of attention in most of The Concept of Irony is without a doubt Socrates. But it was not just in The Concept of Irony that Kierkegaard examined the teachings of this philosopher. Rather, he was fascinated with the figure of Socrates, whom he returned to throughout his life. What was it about the ancient Greek philosopher that interested Kierkegaard and what's meant by Socratic irony? Socrates lived in ancient Athens in the fifth century BC and his work has been recorded in the form of dialogues by his student Plato. In 399 BC Socrates was brought up on charges by his fellow Athenians and sentenced to death. The dialogue, the Apology, is an account of his trial, and the dialogue the Phaedo, is an account of his final hours in his execution by drinking hemlock. Socrates spent much of his time walking around the city and talking with people. He went to people who claimed to know something about some specific area and asked them about it. Claiming to be ignorant, he begged his discussion partners to enlighten him on whatever topic they claimed to know something about. Thus, he would begin a dialogue with them. What's known as Socratic irony usually appears at the beginning of these exchanges when Socrates gets his interlocutor to explain something to him, or to give a definition of something. One can see this illustrated in the dialogue, the Euthyphro. In this work, Socrates goes to the courthouse at Athens to stand trial for the charges raised against him. There, he meets an acquaintance, Euthyphro. The two greet and ask each other what business they have at court. To Socrates' astonishment, Euthyphro explains that he is bringing charges against his own father. Needless to say this is something very unusual, especially in ancient Greece where respect for one's father was a highly cherished and time honoured value. Socrates can immediately see the obvious contradiction between the love and respect that one owes one's father and Euthyphro's action. But instead of pointing out this contradiction, he pretends to assume that there must be something that he has not understood and that Euthyphro must have some special knowledge into this matter. Socrates explains, quote, "Good heavens! Of course, most people have no idea, Euthyphro, what the rights of such a case are. I imagine that it isn't everyone who may take such a course of action, but only one who is far advanced in wisdom." This sounds like a compliment in the ears of Euthyphro who fails to see the irony in it. And so he responds self-confidently, "far indeed," Socrates. Euthyphro goes on to assure Socrates that he is in fact an expert in such things and Socrates seems to assent to this. One can also see Socrates' irony at the end of the dialogue when Euthyphro grows tired of Socrates' refuting every answer that he gives, and suddenly runs off pretending to have an urgent appointment. As Euthyphro hastens away, Socrates feigns a great disappointment, since he thought that he was going to learn something about piety from Euthyphro. Socrates seemed almost to heckle Euthyphro, saying that without his instruction he's condemned to live in the ignorance of his own views for the rest of his life. By claiming not to know anything himself and by getting Euthyphro to boast about having expert knowledge, Socrates is free to ask Euthyphro questions pretending to want to learn from him. Euthyphro would look silly if, after having claimed to be an expert, he refused to answer him. Maybe you happen to know someone like Euthyphro, someone who claims to be a big expert about something but really who doesn't know very much, although they're very proud of their knowledge. What Socrates realized was that it was easy to get people like this talking when one flattered them for their expertise. So in this way the Socratic dialogue is initiated. Socrates' irony is a key factor in this process. At first glance, he seems to be ironic first about not knowing anything, since clearly, the ensuing discussion demonstrates that he, in fact, knows something about the topic. And second, about granting that Euthyphro does know something or is an expert. Kierkegaard was fascinated by this since he saw in his own Danish society of 19th century, people like Euthyphro who claimed to have knowledge about things about which they were in fact ignorant. He was intrigued by Socrates' use of irony to bait these people so that they would fail once they began to explain what they thought that they had understood. In addition to irony, another important element of the Socratic dialogue for Kierkegaard is what is known as aporia. This is a Greek word, which means simply, being at a loss, or, being unable to answer. Socrates brings Euthyphro and his other interlocutors to a state of aporia in the course of the dialogue. Socrates asks Euthyphro for a definition of piety, which Euthyphro gives. But then, upon Socrates' cross-examination they both agree that this is not satisfactory. And so Socrates asks for a better definition. The same thing happens with the second definition, the third, and so on, so that in the end no real definition or result is achieved. Losing patience with Socrates and seeing that he's beginning to look more and more foolish, Euthyphro suddenly claims that he has an urgent appointment and he runs off. Thus, the dialogue itself ends in aporia, since no definition of piety is ever agreed to. For this reason, it is said that this is one of Plato's aporetic dialogues. That is one of the dialogues that ends with no definitive conclusion to the question under examination. Now usually, when one writes a philosophical treatise or tract, the goal is to demonstrate a specific thesis, to establish a specific point. The procedure of Socrates is, in this regard, very unusual since it doesn't establish anything at all. Rather, the result is purely negative. All that the reader has learned is that a handful of definitions of piety that've been proposed are incorrect. But the reader still doesn't know what piety is. No positive definition has survived the process of critical examination. This procedure appealed to Kierkegaard very much. And he enjoyed seeing in Socrates a thinker of negativity in this sense. Socrates' goal was not to establish a positive doctrine but merely to call into question what he saw before himself. He wanted to get others to reconsider their long held views by pointing out that they rested on uncertain foundations. Five years after The Concept of Irony, Kierkegaard returns to this feature of Socrates' philosophizing in his journal JJ. Quote, "The fact that several of Plato's dialogues end without result has a far deeper reason than I had earlier thought. It makes the reader or listener self-active." Kierkegaard was fascinated by the fact that although Socrates was only doing something negative, he nonetheless made other people reflective and reconsider certain aspects of their beliefs and lives. In the fifth century BC, there were in Athens at the time a number of travelling scholars of rhetoric who'd give lessons to the sons of rich families for a fee. These figures were known as the Sophists. They claimed to be able to teach useful skills, such as public speaking, logical reasoning and argumentation, along with providing general knowledge of the different fields. Like some lawyers today, these figures had a somewhat shady reputation at the time for being able to twist words and to win cases for implausible, or even wrongful positions. They were eloquent speakers who could seduce people with language. They were interested not so much in the truth as in winning the argument. Since Socrates was often seen in the streets apparently giving instruction to young men he was associated with the Sophists by many of the people of Athens and, thus, one of the charges levelled against him is that he makes the weaker argument the stronger, since this is what the Sophists were known to do. But Socrates vehemently rejects this association. He points out that, unlike the Sophists, he doesn't claim to know anything and thus doesn't teach anything. The young men come to listen to his discussions simply because they find it amusing to see him interrogate people in his own special way. Since Socrates doesn't teach anything, he never demands any kind of fee, in contrast to the Sophists who live from the fees that they receive for their instruction. Kierkegaard was attentive to Socrates' polemic with the Sophists, which is portrayed in many of the dialogues of Plato. He saw many people in the Copenhagen of his own day, whom he regarded as modern versions of the Sophists. They claimed to know something about Christianity, and to teach this, while benefiting materially from their positions in the church. While they enjoyed a comfortable life with financial security they taught a version of Christianity that Kierkegaard found to be deeply problematic. Kierkegaard was thus inspired by Socrates' method to try to undermine these self-satisfied and overly confident people. Socrates' procedure of questioning people irritated a number of his fellow citizens, who felt publically humiliated, especially when Socrates would refute them in front of a crowd of bemused young men. So some of his enemies raised charges against him and he was forced to defend himself in a trial. When asked to explain why he goes around Athens and harasses his fellow citizens in this way, Socrates tells the story of a friend of his who went to the Oracle at Delphi. In ancient Greek society the Oracle was a revered religious institution. It was believed that the God Apollo spoke through the priestesses there. Whenever some important decision needed to be made either about some private matter or about some larger matter of state, it would be typical that one would go to the Oracle in order to ask the god if the proposed plan would prosper. Socrates' friend asked the god if there was anyone who was wiser than Socrates? And the god replied that there was no one. When his friend reported this, Socrates was perplexed by the answer since he couldn't think of anything that he had any special knowledge about. Indeed, he saw many people around him whom he considered to be much wiser than he about a number of different things. And so he set out to ask these different people about what they knew. As it turned out, as he went around from one person to the next, each of them pretended like Euthyphro to be a great expert at something, but in the end after Socrates' questioning, they proved to know nothing at all. Socrates was then led to the conclusion that he was wiser, in the sense that he at least knew that he didn't know, in contrast to the others who claimed to know things that they didn't know. Socrates' knowledge was not some positive knowledge about some concrete sphere of thought or activity, but rather a negative knowledge. Paradoxically, Socrates' knowledge is that he doesn't know anything at all. So Socrates came to believe that he'd been given a divine mission and that it was his religious duty to go around Athens and to test people's claims to knowledge. This was his explanation to the jurors for why he acted the way he did. Socrates uses the image of a gadfly as an analogy to his action. A gadfly goes around and irritates a horse by constantly buzzing around and landing on it here and there. Socrates sees himself as doing the same thing with his fellow Athenians. He explains, quote, "I think, the god attached me to the city, the sort of person who never ceases provoking you and persuading you and reproaching each and everyone of you the whole day long everywhere I settle." Socrates thus portrays himself as the gadfly of Athens who performs a beneficial, although irritating, function of keeping people from falling into complacency, and constantly keeping them on their guard with respect to their claims to knowledge. Socrates thus regards his work as a religious calling. He's not interrogating people in the streets because he likes to do so, or because he personally might think it's a good idea. But, rather, he sees himself as following a command of the god. It's his religious duty to do so. This was an image that Kierkegaard relished, and he came to conceive of his own task as like that of Socrates. He believed that through his writings, he could in effect become the gadfly of Copenhagen, keeping his fellow countrymen from falling into complacency. [MUSIC]
