Chapter 37 Volume Four, Chapter Six

The value of proficient arguments and definitions, Section 1.Definition of piety, verses 2-4.Definition of Justice, Sections 5,6.Definition of Wisdom, Section 7.Definition of Good and Beautiful, Sections 8, 9.Definition of Bravery, §10, 11.Several other definitions, Section 12.A Review of Socrates' Method of Argumentation, Sections 13-15. How Socrates made his disciples better at reasoning I will try to show.Socrates believed that anyone who understands the different properties of various things must also be able to explain them to others.As for those who do not understand the different nature of things, he thinks it is not surprising that they fail themselves and make others fail.Therefore, he never ceases to investigate with his disciples the different properties of things.

It would be too much work to go into detail about all the definitions he gave, and I will give as many examples as I think I can of his way of thinking about things.First, regarding piety (HI'σHβHι'α), his views are roughly as follows: "Eusudemus," he said, "tell me, what do you think piety is?" "Of course the most beautiful thing," Usudemus replied. "Can you tell what kind of man is a godly man?" "I thought," replied Eusudemus, "that it was the man who worshiped God." "Can a person worship God as he pleases?"

"No, you must worship God according to certain laws." "Then those who know these laws know how to worship God?" "I think so," Usudemus replied. "Then, does not he who knows how to worship God also know that he should not worship God differently than he knows?" "Of course he knew it shouldn't be," Eusudemus replied. "But is there someone who worships God differently than he knows he should?" "I don't think so," Usudemus replied. "Then, does he who knows what is lawful to God worship God in a lawful way?"

"certainly." "Then, whoever worships God in a lawful way worships God in a proper way?" "How could it be otherwise?" "A man who worships God the way he should be is a godly man?" "certainly." "Then we may rightly define the pious man as he who knows what is lawful to God?" "I think so," Usudemus replied. "In terms of treating people, can you do what you want?" "No, because there are legal (or not) issues here too." "Then those who deal with each other according to the law, are they not doing what they are supposed to do?"

"How could it not be?" "Isn't he who does what is supposed to be done well?" "Of course it's a good job," Usudaimos replied. "Do not those who do well in dealing with others also do well in human affairs?" "Probably so," Usudaimos replied. "Is not the doing of those who keep the law just?" "Of course," Usudaimos replied. "Do you know what kind of thing is called justice?" asked Socrates. "What the law commanded," Eusudemus replied. "Then those who obey the commandments of the law do what is just and right?"

"How could it be otherwise?" "Aren't those who do just things just people?" "I think so," Usudemus replied. "Do you think there is any law-keeper who doesn't know what the law says?" "I don't think so," Usudemus replied. "Do you think people who know what to do think they shouldn't do it?" "I don't think so," Usudemus replied. "Do you know anyone who doesn't do what they know they should do, and instead does something else?" "I don't know," Usudemus replied.

"Then those who know what is lawful to man must do what is just?" "Of course," Usudaimos replied. "Then, isn't the person who does what is just a just person?" "Who else could be just?" Eusudemus asked rhetorically. "Isn't it then a correct definition for us to define as just those who know what is lawful for men?" "I think so," Usudemus replied. "Let's think about it, what is wisdom? Tell me, do you think people are wise because they know things, or because they don't know?" "Obviously because they know things," replied Eusudemus, "for how can one be wise who does not know things?"

"Then men are wise because they have knowledge?" "If man is wise not because of knowledge, what else is it?" Eusudemus replied. "Do you think wisdom is anything but that which makes a man wise?" "I thought it was nothing else." "Knowledge, then, is wisdom?" "I think so." "But do you think a man can know everything?" "Of course not, not even a tiny part." "In this way, there are no people who are wise about everything?" "Of course not," Usudemus replied. "So that everyone is wise only in what he knows?"

"I think so." "Eusudemus, is it okay to use this method to study goodness?" "How do you study?" Usudaimos asked. "Do you think the same thing is useful to all?" "I don't think so." "Do you think that what is good for some is sometimes bad for others?" "Indeed," Usudemus replied. "Do you not call something good, besides that which is good?" "No", Usudaimos replied. "In this way, what is good for anyone is good for him?" "I think so," Usudaimos replied. "Take beauty again, how else can we define it? Can we call a body, tool, or anything else you know, beautiful because it is good for everything ?"

"Of course not," Usudemus replied. "Then, whatever it is useful for, and what it is used for, is it beautiful?" "Indeed it is," replied Usudemus. "Can anything be beautiful if it is used for something other than that for which it is useful?" "It cannot be beautiful about anything else," replied Eusudemus. "What is useful, then, is beautiful for everything it is useful for?" "I thought so," Usudemus replied. "Besides, bravery, Eusudaimus, do you think it's one of the beautiful things?" "I thought it was one of the most beautiful things," Usudemus replied.

"Then do you think bravery is useful for the smallest things?" "Of course not, but it is useful for important things," Usudemus replied. "Then you think it is useful to be insensible before something terrible and dangerous?" "Absolutely not," Usudaimos replied. "So those who are not afraid from ignorance of the nature of such things are not brave?" "Of course not, because if they were, many madmen and cowards would be brave men." "What about people who are afraid of things that aren't scary?" "Then it's not a brave man," replied Eusudemus. "You think, then, that those who face fearful and dangerous things are brave, and those who panic are cowards?" "Indeed it is," replied Usudemus. "Do you think that in the face of adversity, there are no one but those who are able to cope with it?" "No one but these people," replied Eusudemus. "Who else panics but those who are not good at coping?" "Who else is there?" Eusudemus replied. "Then, don't both sides deal with it as they think they should?" "How could it be different?" Usudemus replied. "Then, do those who are not good at coping know what they are supposed to do?" "Undoubtedly not," Usudemus replied. "Then those who know what to do are only those who can?" "Just them," Usudemus replied. "What about people who aren't entirely wrong, and don't they panic in this situation too?" "I don't think so," Usudemus replied. "So the people who panicked were all the wrong people?" "That's probably the case," Usudemus said. "So those who know how to deal with dire and dangerous situations are brave, and those who are completely wrong are cowards?" "I think so," replied Usudemus.For Socrates, monarchy and tyranny are two types of government, but they are very different from each other.He believes that governing the city-state with the consent of the people and according to the laws of the city-state is a monarchy; it is tyranny to govern the city-state against the will of the people and not according to the law, but only according to the wishes of the ruler.Wherever the magistrates are chosen from among the lawful, he considers aristocracy; where they are appointed according to the value of their property, plutocracy; democracy.When someone argues with Socrates on a certain point, but cannot say what he means, but asserts that the person he says is wiser, more political, and braver (than Socrates said) , etc., but no proof can be produced, Socrates will lead the whole discussion back to the question of principle in the following way: "Do you mean that the man you admire is a better citizen than I admire?" "That's what I said." "Then why don't we consider first what is the duty of a good citizen?" "We'll do that." "Is not the man who makes the city richer financially the better citizen?" "certainly." "Is not he who makes the city stronger than its enemies the better citizen in terms of war?" "How could it not be?" "As an envoy, isn't he a better citizen who can turn an enemy into a friend?" "Probably." "In speaking in Parliament, isn't he the better citizen who puts an end to strife and creates harmony?" "I think so." By this way of bringing the discussion back to questions of principle, he made the truth clear to those with whom he argued. When he had made progress in discussing a subject, he always proceeded step by step from the agreed points, which he considered to be a sure way of discussing the matter; He's the easiest person I know to get the audience's approval.He said that Homer called Odysseus a "sound orator" because he was able to carry arguments forward from accepted points of view.