Exploration Instructions: the Gadfly
For the ancient Greeks, philosophy was a way of life. There is a question about exactly what this means, but it means at least that philosophy was thought of as something that should influence how you live. It should motivate you to perform certain activities that you would not otherwise perform. It should change how you relate to your desires, beliefs, and emotions. The Explorations in this course prompt us to adopt philosophy as our own way of life, at least for a small period of time. It will be up to you to decide whether you want to continue living philosophically even after the Exploration assignments. Exploration #1 focuses on Socrates’ claim in the Apology that “it is the most blameworthy ignorance to believe that one knows what one does not know” (29a). You have two options. You can choose either to act as a Socratic gadfly by trying to show someone that they do not know what they believe that they know or you can invite someone to do this to you. In other words, you can choose either to provoke (prod, sting, jostle) someone out of their complacent and sluggish beliefs or you can invite someone to do that to you. In still other words, you can try to refute someone’s claim to know something, or you can invite someone to do that to you. Option 1: Gadfly. The task here is to become Socrates the gadfly—(i) to question someone in the Socratic manner; (ii) about something that they really should know, given their social role; (iii) until they realize that in fact they are ignorant about it or until the conversation stalls in some other way. As for (i), I leave it to you to determine what it means to question someone in the Socratic manner. You have observed Socrates’ behavior in Plato’s dialogues. Act like that (in a style that is suitable for you: you do not have to perfectly mimic Socrates’ behavior, but your own behavior should be similar to his). For example, you might start the conversation by somehow eliciting your interlocutor’s confirmation that they do have a particular social role and that they do know whatever it is that you are about to question them about (see below). Be sly! You don’t want your interlocutor to suspect that your main task here is to try to refute them. So, you might follow Socrates’ lead and say that you are confused about exactly what x is, that you think this person probably knows it (you might even remind them of how smart they are!), and that you would be grateful to be instructed by them. As for (ii), the conversation should focus on a question in the form of ‘What is x?’ where x is something that your interlocutor really should know, given their social role. They really should know it because knowing it is required to perform their social role well. So, for example, if you are examining a doctor, it would be appropriate to ask them ‘What is health?’, since a doctor really should know what health is (a doctor needs to know what health is to be able to perform the role of a doctor well, i.e., to heal people reliably). Ideally, it should also be something that your interlocutor does believe that they do know. As for (iii), the goal is to save your interlocutor from the most blameworthy ignorance of believing that they know what in fact they do not know. The goal is to refute them and to get them to acknowledge that they have been refuted, i.e., to get them to realize their own ignorance. It might help to trot out this principle: if you know x, then you can define or explain x (cf. Laches 190c). You could tell them that and see how they respond. Also, be judicious. Don’t get yourself into (too much) trouble. The best gadfly is the gadfly whom people will talk to again. What you should submit is a reflection on how this conversation went for you. Describe what happened in the conversation (in detail!), and reflect on whether this activity is as beneficial as Socrates seems to think it is (both for the questioner and the person being questioned). You might also reflect on whether our society would be benefitted by more people behaving as Socratic gadflies. Option 2: Be gadflied. In the Apology, Socrates claims that it is “the greatest good” to “discuss virtue [aretē] every day... for the unexamined life is not worth living.” Notice the link between an examined life and philosophical discussion. The thought seems to be that having philosophical dialogue with others is an effective way to examine your own life. Why would this be? One answer is that, in discussing things with others, you have the opportunity to be refuted, i.e., to be saved from the most blameworthy ignorance of believing that you know what in fact you do not know. Consider here Socrates’ words in the Gorgias: “And what kind of man am I? One of those who would be pleased to be refuted if I say anything untrue... For I count being refuted a greater good, insofar as it is a greater good for oneself to be delivered from the worst thing there is than to deliver someone else from it” (458a). If you choose to be gadflied by someone else, your task is to do the opposite of the gadfly task—it is (i) to be questioned by someone in the Socratic manner (ii) about something that you are likely to believe that you know (iii) until you realize that in fact you are ignorant about it or until the conversation stalls in some other way. Every clarification above applies here, too. The person should question you for as long as required and in whatever way is required for you really to become convinced that you are ignorant about something that you did take yourself to know, ideally something that you really should know, given one of your social roles, or something that is highly important to know. Of course, for this to go well requires you to have a competent and patient interlocutor, so choose wisely. As above, you should submit a reflection on how this went for you. Describe what happened in the conversation (in detail!),, and reflect on whether this activity is as beneficial as Socrates seems to think it is for the person who is refuted (i.e., in this case, you). You might also reflect on your emotions while undergoing this experience and how they interfered with or helped with achieving the goal of realizing your own ignorance.
full conversation
ben — Today at 6:21 AM how can u be a good husband or partner gopherlaunch — Today at 6:21 AM love and support them ben — Today at 6:22 AM what if ur supporting them in a bad way like enabling them or doing joint terrorism or some shit gopherlaunch — Today at 6:23 AM blink twice if u need help bro what ben — Today at 6:22 AM gopherlaunch — Today at 6:23 AM unconditional love is hard and i think that's necessary but love and support are not the same thing you shouldnt be their parent and they have the right to do whatever they want but like some guidance and advice is necessary, you have to support them in a way that helps them ben — Today at 6:25 AM what if the love and support you give is harmful to you what if it drains you or costs too much money or just isnt sustainable otherwise if the best love and support you know how to give isn't sustainable should you settle for giving less or are you not fit to be their partner gopherlaunch — Today at 6:26 AM i mean it has to be sustainable u cant really call yourself a good husband if you end up being an ex husband right do you think it's somewhat ur responsibility as the receiving person to balance being lovable and supportable like u cant just be shut off either ben — Today at 6:28 AM I WILL ASK THE QUESTIONS do you think it's somewhat ur responsibility as the receiving person to balance being lovable and supportable gopherlaunch — Today at 6:28 AM yeah u have to be receptive to love and support as well big part of feeling loved is feeling like the other person is loved by you as wlel mutual reciprocity is so important ben — Today at 6:30 AM so if part of being a good partner is being responsible for being lovable, and if you need to be able to love and support someone to be a good husband, is being a good/the best husband ever totally in your control because it's also on the other person to be loved like I think love and support is too much of a two way street to be a quality that having it just makes you a better husband period what can u have that's totally agnostic of the other person that just makes you better as a husband gopherlaunch — Today at 6:31 AM maybe patience but that has holes in it too lemme think probably forgiveness gopherlaunch — Today at 6:38 AM I think they're both pretty selfless like almost altruistic things you can do in a relationship that make you a better person ben — Today at 6:39 AM how are they selfless truly don't they also benefit you by providing a good relationship can anything you do in a relationship really be selfless like i feel. like you always get something out of it on some level does true selflessness exist when you're tied to the person maybe i should jump topics here a little can you be selfless when it comes to doing things for your child aren't they your primary interest anyway gopherlaunch — Today at 6:42 AM I dont know i feel like i dont really have a strong grip on what selfless means anymore like i do but with this it's kinda blurry where the line is for self interestThis conversation was pretty useful for me, but I think I messed it up a bit by asking a question that was too broad. In socrates case, he asks more of like “you are a X so you should know Y”, but my question started off as “You should know X so how can you be a good X”, which led to the answer of Y that I wanted to push on. Also, I tried to steer away from asking about love itself, as that’s too broad of a question and I don’t think anyone really understands. Asking what it means to be genuinely supportive/selfless was useful, I think that it raises some interesting thoughts about self interest in the context of relationships.
I think this was a useful exercise, I asked my older married friend for advice (as I have about many things before) and we had a very genuine and meaningful conversation. I think he had pretty good answers to my questions and I failed a bit in being sufficiently annoying and nitpicky. Asking extremely deep and pressing questions about something is hard without really really solid understanding of the topic itself.
back
