Socrates and Plato - Session 03 (19 January 2001)

Last time we only read the story of the life of Socrates. Now we go into the teaching of Socrates. What did he teach, what was the main bearing of the discussions with the people in the marketplace with various sophists? Let me explain as an introduction two or three words which will be very important to understand Socrates. One is the word ‘sophist’. Let me write down the name of the word sophist. Sophists were a group of teachers, who used to teach young people the art of argument, how to argue in a debate. Now what was the importance of an argument in a debate? The importance was that Athens, one of the great city states of ancient Greece, was run by some kind of democracy.

Now what is democracy? Democracy has been defined as a rule of the people, for the people and by the people. In other words, when the governance, the government, the ruling of the whole society is done by the people themselves, not by a king, nor by a chief, nor by a few individuals then every important matter had to be decided by all the people. Now whenever the people are called then people make propositions, statements, they express their opinions. Now wherever there is a situation where the people argue, by presenting their opinions the normal tendency is that their argument should win. Whatever statement you make, you want the statement to be legitimate; to be declared to be legitimate, people should be convinced about your point of view. Whenever people of a city are gathered together in an assembly and where people are allowed to speak, people believe to concentrate upon the art of speaking, how to speak, what to speak, what form of speech? Just as if a war takes place then the concentration will be on the use of arms. If it is by archery then the archers become very powerful then archery will come into the picture and people will train in archery. But if an action depends upon winning a debate then young people will be taught how to argue in a debate. How will they put forward their arguments? That is why in the time of Socrates there arose a group of teachers who used to gather young people and teach them how to argue and how to win in a battle of arguments. Now in an argument there are a few elements which are very important. First is the language because all arguments are spoken in a language, therefore the importance of language is underlined.

Secondly, what is called the art of involved argument? What is the involved argument? It involves the process of ratiocination. I told you last time the word ratiocination, I should repeat it. I have given the example of it, 'a' is the cause of 'b', 'b' is the cause of 'c', 'c' is the cause of 'd', therefore 'a' is the cause of 'g'. This is the process of ratiocination; you connect one idea with the other, second to the third, third to the fourth, fourth with the fifth, fifth with the sixth, sixth with the seventh. Now 'a' is the cause of 'g', is an involved argument. So if you are taught how to make an involved argument the other party will be put to a great difficulty to understand the involved argument. Unless the whole chain is explained he will not understand 'a' causes 'g', unless you explain 'a' cause 'b', 'b', 'c', 'c', 'd', 'e' etc. If you simply say in an argument 'a' is the cause of 'g' the other party will find it very difficult to understand it. Therefore in the battle of arguments the other party is baffled. It takes time for the other party to understand the argument therefore you have the upper hand because you are making an involved argument. The other party takes time to understand you, perplexed, the other party becomes perplexed and is not able to even answer your question therefore you win the argument because the other party does not have the time to think out all the steps and meet the steps one by one. Now this is one of the ways by which you can win the argument, if you can tell the students that if you learn to win the argument then make an involved argument. Don’t argue in the way in which you teach in a school where you can explain step by step. You work as if you are the master of the argument and give a short statement in which you connect one cause with the effect which is very remote and close them together therefore the other party will not be able to argue easily against you, therefore you win the argument.

Now usually arguments must be true. All arguments are ultimately meant for what? For finding out the truth, so if you are a servant of the truth then you don’t try to win over the other party simply by the power of the argument or by perplexing the opponent by putting him into disadvantage. You put your statements in such a pell–mell manner, in a complex manner the other party is not able to understand you fully and therefore cannot reply to you fully. So this method of arguing in which the aim is to win the argument and not necessarily to serve the truth is what is called sophistry. It is called sophistry because this was the argument, the form of argument which was levelled by sophists. The group of teachers they came to be called sophists because they taught sophistry. They taught the art of argument in such a manner, in such an involved manner,—one of the witty arguments which is often put as an example, when have you stopped beating your wife? He doesn’t ask whether you beat your wife at all first, when have you stopped beating your wife? It’s an involved argument, it assumes you were already beating your wife, it already assumes. It may not be true. It is assumed by the argumentator, he puts you at a disadvantage. If you say: “I have stopped” that means you were beating your wife earlier, if you say:”no” that means you are continuing to beat your wife yet. So both ways you are caught, the answer would be either ‘yes’ or ‘no’. It takes time for you to understand that you are already in the claws of your opponent. To say that I have never been doing this at all, it will take you some time to say this. Our first reaction to any question is ‘yes’ or ‘no’, ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. But before you can announce it, you are perplexed because here in both ways if you say ‘yes’, you are caught; if you say ‘no’ you are caught. This is called an involved argument. So if you are only trying to win and fake the argument, you can do it without recourse to truth. So you can in a debate teach your students how to win in an assembly. That is why you will see that in any democracy those who can shout loudly, those who can put down their opponents saying: ‘you don’t know anything’ these are the tricks. Shouting is one trick they know when you should start an argument in the beginning, in the middle or at the end. Let everybody first finish his arguments then you stand up, read certain points or right from the beginning you start shouting so an atmosphere is created of some great offence which has been committed somewhere or when the argument heats up, when the truth is going to be discovered, you begin to create a lot of storms. Three or four shouting people get together and create a lot of storms, the truth is covered. You can see how evil creeps into a very sacred thing called argument. Argument is actually a process by which truth is to be discovered very simply but you can misuse the form of argument, you can state the argument in such a way that instead of seeking the truth the opponent is simply baffled and he cannot answer. This is how a sophist, a group of teachers became very powerful because democracy was the method of deciding things in which people were asked to argue, therefore this evil arose in the time of Socrates. Young people who were politicians particularly or children of politicians who wanted a big career in politics were taught by these sophists the art of argument, art of argument in order to win the argument not necessarily to find out the truth and they used to charge huge fees for training young people. They did not care for the truth, they only cared for winning. Now Socrates was completely opposed to sophists. He wanted people to think of the truth, to discover the truth, to arrive at knowledge. That was his main concern, and he also was capable of collecting around him a good deal of young people and very bright young people like Plato himself. Plato was one of the very bright young men of his time and he used to love him very much. Socrates was all glory within that was his great tribute to his master Socrates was all glory within he was such a great seeker of truth such a great seeker of knowledge that he was extremely critical of sophists and he had made a rule that when he would teach anybody he would not take a single compensation for it he would not charge any fee at all his teaching was free as opposed to sophist. Sophist used to ask lot of money for teaching people as to how to argue there are many ways by which you argue and for the time being you seem to be quite convincing there will be fallacies there is what is called crooked thinking the thinking which is crooked I had once given you example all planets revolve around the sun.

The first statement all planets revolve around the sun therefore all that revolve around the sun are planets. If somebody argues like this the first impression would be it must be true all planets revolved around the sun therefore all that revolves around the sun are planets the argument is wrong actually because there are many things which revolve around the sun which are not planets like comets for example they revolve around the sun but they are not planets but at the first sight it seems to be quite correct at the first sight it's a fallacy but very often fallacies is not detected so sophists used to take advantage of this how to make finishes arguments where fallacies is not detected easily there are a number of examples of crooked thinking once I will take a course in fallacies in arguments once when you advance a little more

I’ll give you a number of examples where fallacies are committed but they’ll not be easily detected. So this is the one aspect which you have to understand while understanding Socrates. Because Socrates used to go to sophists and he used to point out to them their mistakes. Sophists were very angry with him. Take for example the following illustration.

Once Socrates went to a sophist and the argument turned on the subject of virtue, so Socrates said to the sophist: Look I am very ignorant, it’s a style of his argument. (Socrates always said that he was ignorant and he was seeking for knowledge) I am very ignorant, can you tell me: ‘what is virtue?’ So the sophist said: “Well, it’s a very simple question. What is the problem? Benevolence is a virtue, kindness is a virtue, generosity is a virtue, forgiveness is a virtue, and gentility is a virtue. So Socrates said: “my dear friend you are giving me only a list of virtues, my question is what is virtue, I am not asking the list of virtues, I am not asking what are virtues, my question is what is virtue, I am not asking what are virtues? So please make a distinction in your mind between my question which would be what are virtues to which your answer may be quite alright and the question that I am asking what is virtue? What is it by which all these virtues are really virtues, what is common between all of them by means of which all of them are called virtues? If you ask a question: tell me what is man? Then you give the examples Tobean is a man, so–and–so is a man and so–and–so is a man, it’s a list of men, it’s not an answer to the question what is man, what is manhood? What is it by virtue of which all men are called men? And this naturally angered sophists very much because they were cornered and they could not answer the question. It's easy to make a list of virtues but very difficult to say What is virtue? This was one of the reasons why sophists wanted Socrates to be silenced forever. Now this is one aspect which you have to understand with regard to Socrates. He was always in search of what is called definitions. He felt that you can define an object only when you know, it is knowledge, right knowledge which gives you the power to define. So in various discussions Socrates always used to bring up the question of the definition, how you define. Yesterday we saw that Plato wrote the whole book called the Republic only to define justice. It’s a huge book but the whole book is designed to define justice. You cannot define justice unless you know the whole world, totality of knowledge and that is what it shows that unless you know the totality, you cannot define justice. This is the second aspect of Socrates.

The third aspect of Socrates was that he wanted people of Athens to be virtuous, there was so much of corruption at that time, in the time of Socrates, there was so much of lying, falsehood and people were winning debates by telling lies that he had taken up as a task for himself to make young people virtues, all people virtuous. In fact the whole city wanted to be virtues and he felt that he had been given a mission by God himself to make young people particularly virtuous. So he used to roam about barefoot and stop anybody on the way and ask anybody the questions that define so and so. Now who would like to be asked a question suddenly in the marketplace, some deep questions of philosophy? So except young people, who had lot of time because at that time there were many people had lot of leisure because some people had become very rich, so their children particularly had nothing to do, so they also use to roam about in the marketplaces and they were stopped by Socrates and some of them were very much impressed by Socrates. So that is how a good deal of young people were around him but he would ask this question define so and so, define that thing. He will ask a question: if you want to make a shoe, to whom do you go? This was a very famous question he used to ask: if you want to make a shoe, to whom do you go? Obvious answer is to go to the shoe–maker. He would say: why? The answer will ultimately be that the shoe–maker knows how to make the shoes; he knows how to make shoes. And once you give this answer, his next question would be; if you want to govern the society to whom do you go? If you want to govern the society to whom do you go? If you want to make a shoe, to whom do you go to,—to the shoe–maker, why, because shoe–maker knows how to make shoes? Now in the same way, now you argue if you want to govern the society to whom do you go? Answer? To the governor and who is the governor? One who knows how to govern? In the same way as you go to a shoemaker. Why? Because shoemakers know how to make shoes. Similarly if you want to govern, to whom do you go? Through one who knows how to govern right? And then he would say, do you think these people know how to govern, all these people who are arguing, who are all sitting and making assembly, shouting this way, that way, sophistry of all kinds, do you think they know how to govern the society? So he pleaded for a new form of government in which the government is run by those who know how to govern. And do you think that people can know how to govern without a long education? No. therefore he said that you select the best people of the country, and give them a long period of education, teach them philosophy so that they can see the whole, totality and when they have been able to see the totality, the knowledge of the whole then they should know how to apply the knowledge, the mark of wisdom; vision of the truth and application of the truth. So that was his answer he said: do you think these people know how to govern the government, run the government? They don’t, that is why those who were governing were very opposed to Socrates because they felt that Socrates was undermining their authority all together. In fact the influence of Socrates on Plato was so great that Plato when he wrote his book, the great book The Republic, his conclusion was the following: unless the rulers become philosophers or philosophers become the rulers the glory will not come, if you want glory in the society either the rulers should become philosophers or philosophers should become the rulers that was his conclusion.

It reminds us of what Mother has said for Auroville, that people of intuitive intelligence should be there and it is their advice which should be followed. If you really want Auroville to be developed rightly, you need a few individuals who are endowed with intuitive intelligence. Intuitive intelligence is the intelligence which pursues wisdom, perceives the totality of truth from all sides and applies the truth,—this was the conclusion of Plato long ago. So now you come to the conclusion that Socrates was very much concerned with wisdom, with virtue and he wanted to teach everybody what virtue is. Now with this background I will read this.

“Among the many views of Socrates, his doctrine of ‘Virtue is Knowledge’ is perhaps the most important. This doctrine can be interpreted in two ways, according to different meanings we attach to the words ‘Virtue’ and ‘Knowledge’. We shall deal with them one after the other.

You can regard this particular paper as an introductory study of a philosophical doctrine. There are many doctrines in philosophy but this particular one is a simple exposition. It is simple because you are beginners, so what is written here is for a beginner but gives you a good experience of how to study philosophy, how to read philosophical works; so it is a kind of a good step for you all to enter into a philosophical domain. So in the very beginning you are told that there are two ways by which you can interpret the whole doctrine. What is the meaning of virtue and what is the meaning of knowledge? Depending upon different meanings that you can attach to these two words, you have two different interpretations of this doctrine. Now let us begin with the first.

“Traditionally, it is held that the ethical problem is a double one first, (now why am I speaking here of ethical problem? It is because we are dealing with the problem of virtue, virtue is an ethical problem. So before I go farther let me explain to you what is ethical. What is ethical is discussed in a subject called Ethics. There is a whole big subject called Ethics. It is also called ‘Moral philosophy’—’philosophy of morals. Ethics is a study of the standards of conduct, standards of action. Now the word ‘standard’ also requires to be understood. This is how you study philosophy, every word you measure and you ask the question: what is standard, what is action, what is conduct? Standard is a 'norm', it’s another word. What is a norm? Norm is a standard. Very often definitions are synonyms, now what is a standard is a norm, norm is a standard. So we need another word to explain to ourselves. There is a difference between positive and normative. A child is chewing chocolate, so you describe, 'child is chewing chocolate’ this is what is called a positive statement. A positive statement is a statement of what has happened. That's called a positive statement. You see it is raining, it’s a positive statement or there is sunshine—is a positive statement. I like this very much, it is a positive statement. The child ought not to be chewing chocolate because it will affect its teeth. The child ought not to be chewing chocolate, you tell the child: ‘Don’t do it’, this is a normative statement. Any statement in which you find the statement ought, should, must, these statements are called normative statements. I must be regular in the class, it’s a normative statement. If you now come regularly to the class you can say: I am following what I should be doing. If you now come to the class and say ‘I am doing what I ought to be doing. What I ought to be doing is called a norm, is a standard. And I am now following the standard and when you follow a standard then your action is called ethical. Whenever there is a standard for a conduct, for any kind of action then when that standard is followed that action is called ethical. When you don’t follow the standards is called unethical. To follow an action as you ought to be called moral action or ethical action, when you don’t follow it is called immoral or unethical action.

Now Socrates was in search of standards. What is a norm, what should be the norm of your action, we should always be doing the right action, and we should be doing good actions. And how do you decide what is good, what is right? Now there are many answers to this question. One simple answer is you ought to be doing what you like. You ought to be doing what you like, this also is an answer. This argument is rebutted, rebutted is another word in philosophy, refutation of an argument, rebuttal of an argument. When you can prove that the argument is not correct, it is called rebuttal or a refutation of the argument. So if you argue: I ought to be doing what I like and the rebuttal of the argument is at different times, you like different things, at different times, you like different things therefore you ought to be doing different things at different times. A time will come when you will contradict yourself. You will say at once I ought to be doing this; I ought to be doing that, exactly the opposite. At different times you like different things even contrary things therefore your answer is not valid because you contradict yourself. I ought to be in good company all the time, I like to be in the good company all the time therefore I ought to be in the good company all the time. But at times you will say: I don’t like to be in the company, I want to be alone therefore I have to be alone. Then is it right for anybody to be alone or is it right to be in good company? Which is more correct, both are correct. Sometimes I like this and sometimes I like that but then you contradict yourself. It doesn’t tell you what you should be doing. If you say sometimes what is that sometimes? It does not guide you properly. A standard must be such that you can apply universally. A standard is called a standard when it can be applied universally. Take a simple example of a good standard. All the cars must drive on the left hand side that is true in India and in all the British colonies, all the cars should be driven on the left hand side. Now if somebody says: sometimes I like to drive on the right hand side, sometimes I like to drive on the left hand side, and can you make a standard? And if you make a standard what will happen to traffic and what will happen to yourself, if people drive left or right according to their liking; what will happen to yourself? You yourself will come into trouble, it is only if all agree to drive on the left hand side then your traffic will be safe or you should decide that all should drive on the right hand side as in France and in continental countries,—all cars should be driven on the right hand side. But take a decision which is universally applicable, if you don’t there will be trouble. So there are many answers to this question. I am not going into the details of this question, I am only concentrating upon the Socratic answer to the question. What is right, what is correct, what is good? Even the words good and right are to be examined so let us deal with that question. Usually we use these two words interchangeably, good is right, and right is good. But if you are a good student of ethics, of moral philosophy you will make a distinction between the two. Right is a word used when you act according to rules, good is that which satisfies you in your highest state of consciousness. The word good refers to satisfaction, when you are satisfied you say it is good, you don’t say it is right. But when you act according to a rule, it is called right. When you drive on the left hand side in India, it is correct because it is the rule that you should drive. If you drive in France on the left, it’s not right because the rule is that you should drive on the right hand side. You don’t say that I am driving because it is good, it is right on the right hand side or the left hand side according to the rule. You don’t say I drive on the left hand side because it gives me greater satisfaction. It does not depend on your satisfaction, whether you drive on the left or right, it’s not that I am very much satisfied when I drive on the left hand side and less satisfied when I drive on the right hand side, doesn’t refer to satisfaction. So you use the word good when there is a question of satisfaction and since satisfaction is of different levels, at different times you are satisfied according to your different states of consciousness. The same thing does not satisfy you all the time. The kind of lecture that I am giving you today will not satisfy you after five years because you will make a lot of advances in your own studies and you will say this is a very, very elementary lecture, it doesn’t satisfy me. You will require a very, very sophisticated lecture after five years. The present kind of lecture satisfies you, after five years it will not satisfy you, so you will say: it is a good lecture now but if I give the same lecture to you after five years it will be no more good lecture, you’ll say it is all children’s play, it is childish, you’ll say; all this talk is childish. You would have become much, much more sophisticated, much more advanced. So at different levels of your consciousness, different things satisfy you therefore there is a hierarchy of goods. For example you say pleasure is good at a given stage all that is pleasant you find it to be good. I like my uncle very much, why? Because he is a good man because he gives me good smiles, he always protects me, always defends me therefore my uncle is good. So anybody who gives you pleasure is good. Then afterwards you say: Oh! He is a good man, why? Because he knows so much, knowledge satisfies you therefore knowledge is good. Sometimes you will say he is a good man because he is fearless, courageous, he is heroic, not that he has got a lot of knowledge, he is courageous, he is heroic, he stands by justice therefore he is good. So now you see three levels I told you—pleasure is good, knowledge is good, character is good so you have three things now which are good depending upon the level of your consciousness. In our childhood anything that pleases us is good. When you grow up a little, anybody who knows better, who gives you knowledge is good. When you go still farther you find that anybody who has a real character is good. In the case of the right, right is that which follows a rule. There you don’t have so many levels; right is right because it follows a rule. Whatever it’s not that it’s less right, it’s more right, anything that is according to the rule is right, fully right. If I drive on the right hand side it is wrong because it is not according to the rules, you can’t say it is slightly right or slightly wrong. Driving on the right hand side in India is wrong and fully wrong.

Now first of all you have to ask the question: what is virtue? And this is the question of Socrates and that depends upon the question of ethics. Ethics is the study of right and good, where right is defined as that which is according to rule and good is defined as that which is good, satisfying at your highest level of your consciousness. Now these are two very good definitions to start with. Now Socrates said: 'virtue is knowledge',—that is his answer to this question and this is his whole doctrine, his whole philosophy is ‘virtue is knowledge.’ Now why does Socrates bring in the question of knowledge at all while discussing virtue? He doesn’t say virtue is right or wrong, virtue is good or bad, he brings in another concept altogether ‘knowledge’, ‘virtue is knowledge’ . Now here the statement is “it is held that the ethical problem is a double one” what is that double one? First the problem of knowing what is right and second the problem of doing what is known to be right. We shall read again.

Traditionally it is held that the ethical problem is a double one. First the problem of knowing what is right and second the problem of doing what is known to be right. But according to the first interpretation Socrates identifies knowledge, the first problem with virtue, the second problem. According to Socrates it is maintained that ‘knowing and doing cannot be separated.’ If a person knows a thing to be right he cannot but do it or in other words a person cannot voluntarily do wrong. These three sentences I am going like a ratiocination, you will see it is a more complicated statement, I shall repeat. According to Socrates it is maintained that ‘knowing and doing cannot be separated.’ If a person knows a thing to be right he cannot but do it or in other words a person cannot voluntarily do wrong. Voluntarily means freely. If you know what is right, you will not voluntarily, willingly do a wrong thing. His argument was that once you know what is right and therefore what is beneficial, that which prevents misery, once you know this you can willingly, freely choose what is wrong, which will bring misery. Socrates said: ‘no’. If you really know what is right, you cannot but do the right thing if you are free, unless it is a compulsion then of course it is a different matter. But if you are free then knowing what is right, you cannot but do the right thing, this is his doctrine. He said virtue is knowledge because if you know the virtue then you cannot but practise virtue. So the virtuous action depends upon knowing what is virtue? If you know what virtue is, you will always perform virtue.

Now this is what is challenged by many people. Why? Because many people say; there was a statement of Duryodhana, you know the story of Duryodhana, Duryodhana who was in Mahabharata the opponent of Bhima and Pandavas. There is a famous sentence where he says: “I know what is right but I have no inclination towards it; I know what is wrong but I am inclined towards it, I cannot remove myself from what is wrong." “Dharmam janami na cha me pravritti, adharmam janami na cha me nivritti, I know what is right but I have no inclination—na cha me pravritti, I have no inclination towards it. I know what is wrong but I cannot extricate myself from it, I am inclined towards it.

Now this example will show that Socrates was wrong. This is the simple refutation of Socrates and you can multiply so many examples. Whereas Socrates said: If you know what is right, you cannot but do the right thing voluntarily. But since examples like which I gave you just now are plenty, Socrates is very much attacked and they say Socrates is wrong. Even if you know what is right, there is no guarantee that you know right. So knowing right and will for right are not the same thing. Ethical problems are double, first to know what is right and second is the problem of will to be right. Mere knowledge of right does not guarantee that you will also have the will for the right that is the argument against Socrates. So they say Socrates is wrong, an ethical problem is a double problem is not a problem of knowing what is right. If Socrates is right then it will mean that the moment you know what is right you will do the right, no question of will afterwards. Will will follow automatically to the right. So according to Socrates knowing and willing are both identical. To know is to will. Now let us see. Knowledge in this view means—the knowledge of what is good and the knowledge is the intellectual apprehension and by virtue is meant any good deed of an agent who has apprehended it to be good.

The word plausible is very often used in philosophy, so you should try to understand the word plausible. Any argument which seems at the first sight to be true is called plausible. Any argument which seems at least in the beginning to be worth considering because it seems to be right, it seems that there may be some truth in it then it is worth considering therefore it is called plausible. A plausible argument is an argument worth considering, why? Because it seems that it may be right, if the argument is right you don’t say it is plausible. You simply say it is a correct argument. But when the argument is not yet proved to be correct but seems at the first sight to be correct then you call that argument to be plausible. Now this statement says that the Socratic view can be interpreted in such a way that it can be proved to be wrong. This is the argument which is put in section number 1. Socratic view that virtue is knowledge, this argument is wrong, this statement is wrong. Socrates' is not right in saying that virtue is knowledge. What is the proof? It depends upon what Socrates has said in two of his dialogues,—’Charmides’ and ’Laches’.

The plausibility of this interpretation depends upon the two dialogues ’Charmides’ and ’Laches’. These are the two titles of his dialogues, one dialogue is called ’Charmides’**, and other dialogue is called *’Laches’ in which the Socratic doctrine is expounded to a certain extent. In ’Laches’*, Socrates says in effect that it is not the case that the brave man is never afraid, but in spite of fear he advances, rushes the slopes and captures enemy's weapons. Why does he? Because he is afraid of certain things even more than of the weapons—such things as the doing of what is disgraceful, of feeling shame, of the reputation for cowardice, of betraying one's comrades; what then is the difference between a coward and a brave man? The difference is that while the brave man knows what is really to be afraid of, the coward does not. Hence the knowledge of the right makes the former courageous. (That is the argument. I think I will stop here today but think about this argument, I’ll repeat the argument for your brevity. On what grounds does Socrates say that a brave man is different from a coward; his answer is, it is not that a brave man has no fear and that a coward has fear. This is not the difference between coward and the brave, both have fear, both are afraid but whereas the coward is afraid of what you ought not to be afraid and the brave is one who knows what he should be afraid of that is different. The coward is afraid of being killed, whereas the brave man is afraid of being called a coward. He is afraid of doing something disgraceful, therefore he has the courage to go into the enemy’s camp and capture the weapons of the enemy. Now think about it and argue for or against as you like, next time but this is his argument. What is the difference between the brave man and the coward? Not that the brave man is not afraid and the coward is afraid but according to him the coward does not know of what he should be afraid, whereas the brave man knows of what he should be afraid. So this knowledge of what he should be afraid makes the brave men.