Compare Socrates (meaning, primarily: Socrates as presented by Plato,
although you might find Aristophanes’ portrayal relevant for some purposes)
with one of the following: Thales, Anaxagoras, Aristophanes, Euthyphro,
Gorgias (as teacher of Meno), Euthydemus/Dionysodorus. Specifically, you
might want to look at a question like this: if philosophy is defined by the type
of wisdom that Socrates has, or by the method (of teaching, and/or of seeking
knowledge, and/or of self-examination) that Socrates follows, as opposed to
the wisdom or method of the other figure, then: what is philosophy (and/or:
how can it be taught and learned)?
Consider Aristotle’s definition of moral virtue at Nicomachean Ethics 2.6,
1107a–b, which I would translate as follows: “a state having to do with
choice: [a state which consists in] being in the mean [relative] to us which
is defined by a reason/account/ratio [logos], and [in particular] by that
reason/account/ratio by which the prudent person would define it.” (In the
assigned Bartlett and Collins translation, which among other things is based
on a slightly different version of the original text, reads “a characteristic
marked by choice, residing in the mean relative to us, a characteristic defined
by reason and as the prudent person would define it” [p. 35].) Explain why
Aristotle thinks that this definition, unlike, for example, those offered by
Meno, would hold up to Socrates’ arguments. (In a short dialogue or paper
you should probably not aim to do this completely, but rather should pick a
particular feature of Aristotle’s definition and explain what Socratic strategy
it’s designed to head off.)
As a variant of this you could try doing the same thing with Aristotle’s
description of the ruling art or science as “the political art” in NicomacheanEthics 1.1–4, or with his discussions of wisdom in Nicomachean Ethics 6.7
and Metaphysics 1.1–2.
