Kelly Clink Introduction to Philosophy Paper #1 Rough Draft Topic 1 Use of the Socratic Method in Berkley’s 3 Dialogues Socrates is one of philosophy’s most critical thinkers. His way of living through the Socratic Method proves this. Although he never actually wrote anything, many of his dialogues were turned into literary pieces and this how we have come to understand his methodologies. In the literary work Euthyphro, Socrates is having a conversation with Euthyphro and through this we learn of his Socratic Method. This literary work is then used to compare how other philosophers use and live the Socratic Method. In order to understand Socrates’ method we must first analyze and look at how he lives it through his conversation with Euthyphro, once the method has been analyzed we can then look and see how Berkley portrays it in his novel 3 Dialogues, lastly we can finally draw the conclusion whether or not Berkley’s novel is a good example of the Socratic Method. Socrates’ dialogue with Euthyphro occurs as he is on his way into court for a charge of impiety and Euthyphro is on his way into the Athens court for charging his father with the murder of a murderer. Socrates says that because Euthyphro is charging his own father, he must know the definition of piety and therefore may be able to help him with his own trial. Once Euthyphro agrees that he does in fact know what piety is, the process of the Socratic Method begins. Socrates then starts to question Euthyphro of his claimed knowledge. Socrates asks Euthyphro to give him a definition of piety. Each time Euthyphro gives Socrates a definition Socrates in turn finds an error with the definition leaving Euthyphro to find a new definition. This cycle of Euthyphro giving different definitions of the word piety and Socrates continuously finding errors continues until Euthyphro gets fed up and finally walks away realizing that he will never actually find a definition of piety that Socrates will agree with. This basic example of the Socratic Method can be now be broken down into three easy to understand steps or processes. The first step is when Euthyphro initially said that he knew the definition of piety. Socrates and the reader know that Euthyphro will not be able to actually come up with a real definition to piety, therefore making the first process of the Socratic Method making someone admit to knowing something that they in fact do not and cannot know. The second part of the Socratic Method is when Socrates asks Euthyphro to come up with definitions and then finds fault with each answer. This means that the second part of the Socratic Method is to ask questions and thinking critically explain why these answers cannot be correct by giving specific examples. Euthyphro shows the final step of the Socratic Method when he walks away. Therefore, the final step of the argument is that one person must be able to “win” the argument. Now that we have a basic understanding of the Socratic Method we can now look at how Berkley interprets it in his Three Dialogues. In order to compare how he uses the methodology a fundamental understanding of the piece is required. The piece is a conversation between Hylas and Philonous. The actual names of the characters are how they are seen in the literature. Hylas literally translates into meaning wood and represents physical substance and the Philosopher Descartes point of view. Philonous means lover of mind and actually represents Berkley. Therefore the conversation in the book is actually an argument between the idea of mental and physical substance. The idea of physical substance can be thought of as everything is derived from being physical you see an object as being there, therefore it is there. Mental substance on the other hand says that an object is an idea therefore it is in the mind and not physical at all because all ideas happen within the mind. In the first conversation of Three Dialogues Hylas asks Philonous “You were represented in last night’s conversation, as one who maintained the most extravagant opinion that ever entered into the mind of man, to wit, that there is no such thing as material substance in the world” (p218). Philonous answers with “that there is no such thing as what philosophers call material substance, I am seriously persuaded: but if I were made to see any ting absurd or skeptical in this, I should then have the same reason to renounce this, that I imagine I have now to reject the contrary opinion” (218). This is the beginning and basic principle of which the whole piece is derived and also seems to go along with the beginning of the Socratic Method. Throughout the whole first dialogue between Philonous and Hylas, Hylas will bring up a point and Philonous will find fault with it. For instance the topic of the senses comes up and Hylas agrees with Philonous that “sensible things are those only which are immediately perceived by sense” (p221). Philonous then points out that you must perceive these things and perception is an idea, and all ideas must be in your mind, by Philonous saying this he has in turn won his argument. Another example of the Socratic Method can be found in the Second Dialogue when the idea of God first arises. Philonous states that everything that is real is perceived and that because things exist without us being there then someone must perceive these things at all times, thus the image of God is created, with God being the one who perceives everything at all times and even perceives our existence. Hylas in turn agrees with Philonous after strongly arguing this point and in turn ends the conversation saying that he gives up. The third conversation between Hylas and Philonous also contains more of the same sorts of conversation where each person tries to convey an idea to the other one. Philonous always however, winds up winning the conversation because he does indeed represent the ideas of Berkley, with Hylas representing the ideas of Descartes. Within the text of the Three Dialogues it is definitely apparent that Berkley does indeed attempt to conquer the Socratic Method. He uses different sorts of questions to analyze what Philonous is saying even though it is indeed how he feels. Hylas always winds up asking Philonous questions and Philonous in turn turns another question on to Hylas. Both of these characters must indeed think critically and attempt to answer the other persons questions. Berkley does a very good job trying to use the Socratic Method in order to get his beliefs across to people, until it comes to the idea of God. Philonous answers each question Hylas asks about God, but by doing so does in fact contradict himself and therefore he is not quite following the Socratic Method. Socrates always knew what he was thinking and made it go back to the original idea of how he believed. However, when arguing this subject matter Philonous’ use of contradiction does not follow the Socratic Method even though he is trying extremely hard. The Socratic Method uses critical thinking skills and questions to explore a wide variety of topics and is used throughout philosophy, including in the Three Dialogues. Although Berkley may not do a perfect job arguing through the use of the Socratic Method, he definitely tries through his use of arguing from two different stand points and also through his use of coming to a final decision. Although his ideas may not be liked by everyone he definitely makes a good attempt at Socrates’ Methodology.