As I read through Plato's Dialogues, I find myself singing the lyrics to Operation Ivy's song "Knowledge." "All I know is that I don't know; all I know is that I don't know nothing!" When I first began reading these dialogues, I was familiar with Socrates, though my understanding was relatively shallow. Perhaps this is more a result of my own ignorance, but I had always felt that he was portrayed as a disruptive skeptic who sought to thumb his nose at the "wise" men of Athens. Much to my surprise, as I delved deeper into Plato's texts, a vastly different Socrates emerged — a Socrates who values order, truth, and piety. So much so that he would rather the laws remain intact than break them, even when they are applied to him unjustly.

Euthyphro

Socrates encounters Euthyphro outside the Athens courts; he is indicting his father for murder while Socrates is being brought to trial for impiety. Since Euthyphro is a priest, Socrates begins to question him about virtue, hoping to gain a deeper understanding of what virtue is so that he can defend himself correctly during his trial. As we work through the text, it becomes clear that although Euthyphro fancies himself an expert on piety, he cannot pin down an actual definition of what makes something pious.

Euthyphro offers five different attempts at a definition. However, Socrates points out flaws in each before Euthyphro conveniently exits the conversation, leaving a very disappointed Socrates, who is doomed to lose his trial. These definitions tend to focus on some association with the gods. However, Socrates points out that the Greek gods themselves disagree and hold views that are in opposition to each other, meaning what is pleasing to one god may not necessarily be to another. As they work through the problem at hand, it begs the question: would things be as complicated if they had an understanding of the Christian God? There is nothing inconsistent or contradictory within God. He is also all-loving and deserving of all our love and praise. These facts help clarify what piety is.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church reads:

"The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life" (CCC 843).

This dialogue is a perfect example of the "search among shadows" to find the proper definition of virtue. Socrates and Euthyphro make considerable progress, circling the idea, but are unable to grasp it without an appropriate understanding of God.

Meno

In Meno, Socrates employs his classic dialogue technique to question Meno and gain a deeper understanding of virtue and whether it could be taught. Similarly to Euthyphro, Socrates aims to establish the definition of virtue first, to which Meno responds: "to find joy in beautiful things and have the power to get them." Socrates points out that the latter part seems incomplete. Is some amount of Justice required in the attainment of the beautiful things? It seems so, and Meno agrees, meaning that the definition is not complete.

Socrates rephrases the first part of the definition, "to find joy in beautiful things," as "a desire for what is good," which he then proceeds to argue is common to all men, as no one desires to be miserable. This statement seems troublesome to me. Is it true that no one desires to be miserable? I would concede that it is pretty uncommon. Still, coming from the punk rock or counter-culture scene, I've witnessed people firsthand who choose to forgo the good as a way to eschew tradition and order. This may be a modern ailment that is utterly foreign to the Greeks, or I may be misunderstanding the reasons modern people choose unhappiness. I suppose, to some extent, these modern people may be choosing personal unhappiness in the hope of destroying a system they perceive as flawed to bring about a better one; in this case, they are pursuing a good. It seems that these same people are fueled by nihilism and hedonism and want to prove that they don't adhere to the good (think of the modern "Satanists" or pagans). I believe that deep down, they know what is good and still choose the other. But this could be seen as wholly irrational and, consequently, not worthy of consideration. Any readers that have thoughts on this, please reach out!

They continue their dialogue by questioning if anyone can learn anything new because "a man cannot search for what he knows or for what he does not know; he cannot search for what he knows since he knows it, there is no need to search, nor for what he does not know, for he does not know what to look for." To this, Socrates responds that he has heard priests talk of the immortal human soul, and since it has always existed, it possesses knowledge of all things; we must only work to recollect this knowledge to gain access to it again.

The dialogue then continues with Socrates drawing a distinction between knowledge and true opinion. These are similar concepts, with knowledge having a basis in evidence and logic. In contrast, true opinion could be a lucky guess. Knowledge is a true opinion "tied down." Socrates argues that since there are no teachers of virtue, and anything dealing with knowledge must be capable of being taught, virtue must instead be a true opinion. He points out that some people may be virtuous in certain situations but not in others due to this fleeting true opinion. This happens because they lack a concrete understanding of virtue, yet they still act in this way. He further points out that virtue appears to be bestowed upon people by the gods as a gift.

We can compare this with the Catechism of the Catholic Church,

"A virtue is an habitual and firm disposition to do the good. It allows the person not only to perform good acts, but to give the best of himself. The virtuous person tends toward the good with all his sensory and spiritual powers; he pursues the good and chooses it in concrete actions" (CCC 1803).

The Catechism continues by categorizing virtues into two types: human virtues and theological virtues. Human virtues are those which require the formation of habit to govern our actions, passions, and conduct. Theological virtues are those infused into us by God and direct us towards Him. This goes to show, again, that Socrates was probing about an answer that is much easier to grasp with the help of Catholic doctrine.

Apology

In this dialogue, we see the trial mentioned in the previous two dialogues, with Socrates defending himself against charges of corrupting the youth and impiety. Socrates shares that he only began pursuing wisdom because, although a Greek god had told him he was wise, he did not feel that was the case. Instead, he sought people who claimed to have wisdom about various things and were able to point out things they did not know. His true gift was to get people to examine their own understanding at a deeper level.

"He thinks he knows something when he does not, whereas when I do not know, neither do I think I know; so I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know what I do not know" (Apology 21d).

Socrates refuses to use anything other than logic to make his defense and also states that he would never stop questioning people, even if it meant he could be acquitted. His firm conviction to seek the good and push society in what he views as the right direction far outweighs any regard he has for his own life. He even hints at something happening to his soul even after his death. This is hinted at in Meno, where he describes the soul as immortal.

"You are wrong, sir, if you think that a man who is any good at all should take into account the risk of his life or death; he should look to this only in his actions, whether what he does right or wrong, whether he is acting like a good man or a bad man" (Apology 28b).

Crito

A friend of Socrates named Crito visits him while he is awaiting execution to try to persuade Socrates to flee his execution. He tries various tactics, such as the fact that most people would not care if he were to escape; he also mentions that Socrates must raise his children and not abandon them. All of these attempts fall flat because of Socrates' devotion to truth and Justice. He argues that refusing to accept the court's decision would undermine the legal system and, in a way, make him a hypocrite, prove his detractors right, and set a poor example for his children. He explains that it is much better to submit to the poor ruling and force all those who made the decision to live with what they've done and that deep down, they know it was erroneous.

Conclusion

In texts such as Euthyphro, Meno, Apology, and Crito, it becomes clear that Socrates was a devout individual. He understood that his actions stemmed from a love for his city and his gods. His refusal to flee execution wasn't simply an act of stubbornness; instead, it was a final demonstration of his loyalty to the laws and to his word. All of his actions are motivated by ideals greater than himself, as he continuously strives to comprehend virtue and to put that understanding into action. By reading through these dialogues, we also can capture a glimpse of pagans who have no idea of the Christian God circling around truth but are hampered by their ignorance. In our modern times, with a proper grasp of the Gospel, we can appreciate the knowledge they were able to obtain through natural reason alone and also understand its shortcomings.

TL;DR

• Having a proper definition of terms is essential in properly grasping a topic.
• There is value in understanding the limits of your current understanding, allowing you to target those areas and grow intellectually.
• Socrates was a devout individual who sought to understand virtue and truth, even at the cost of his own life.
• The Greeks are a good example of pagans seeking God through natural reasoning and were able to capture glimpses of the full truth to be revealed through Christ.