Socratic Irony

The topic of my paper is the philosophy of Socrates. Specifically I will discuss Socratic irony and the Socratic method of inquiry. The main points I will cover are; what was Socratic irony, and why did he use the method he did to seek the truth? My paper consists of three main parts. First a description of the more important books by Plato, about Socrates; sines Plato is the main source for information about Socrates. The second part is an analysis of the texts, focusing on the above stated topics. The last part is a conclusion and further questions brought up by my research. So what is Socrates philosophy? The Euthyphro is an early and to some, a controversial dialogue recounted by Plato. It swiftly discusses a question in ethics, consisting
The conference ends abruptly, and inconclusively but is riddled with Socratic irony. Socrates assumes the role of a curious student hoping to learn from a pious expert, when in fact he shows Euthyphro to be crass, knowing nothing about holiness. Perhaps the most intriguing attitude of the dialogue is that it ends in an unresolved manner. Such inconclusiveness is not unique to the Euthyphro, but it is worth inspecting nonetheless. With such a hasty end to a burgeoning conversation, Plato may be suggesting that no definition of holiness can be found, that piety may be a point of view, so to speak. Of course, it must be said that Socrates would vigorously oppose such an idea. We as readers, may associate the incomplete dialogue to the dialogue form itself and the irony that Socrates uses. Teaching is not a basic interrogation, nor is learning as simple as giving a correct answer. Yet, rather the teacher-student exchange depends on leading the student to the right answers, while confirming that the student can interpret and explain those ideas, instead of just memorize them. The form of dialogue in the Euthyphro is ideal for this kind exchange as it shows Socrates leading Euthyphro through his own reasoning, and thereby letting Euthyphro
To persuade his friend, Crito argues that facing execution would destroy the social fabric of Socrates' friends; would be in ignorance of a peaceful life in exile; and would aid his enemies in his demise, leaving his sons fatherless. Socrates addresses the reputation argument first, stating that one should not concern himself with public opinion, but bother only with behaving well. Socrates argues that the only real question at hand is whether or not it is just for him to escape. Socrates says that an argument that shows just cause would spur him to flee, but otherwise, he must stay and face execution. Including the laws of Athens in his argument, Socrates believed that laws exist as a sole entity, and to break one is to break them all. He points out that the laws are a social contract that he has adhered to all his life, and as opposed to fleeing, he should stay within the law and try to persuade those powers to release him instead. In this way, Socrates decides it better to stay and accept his