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.