Week 1 · Chapter

Chapter 1 — What Philosophy Is: Socrates and the Examined Life

Introduction to Philosophy Free sample edition

The module's primary reading · ~25–35 minutes · Objective 1 (explain what philosophy is, name its main branches, and describe the Socratic practice of examining beliefs through questioning and argument) · Read it first this week; the lecture, the slides, the tutorial, the quiz, and the Philosophy Workshop all build on it.

In plain language

This week is about what philosophers do and why it is worth doing. Philosophy (thinking through the biggest questions with reasons instead of taking someone's word for it) is a skill you can learn, not a set of opinions to memorize. You will meet its six main branches, from questions about what is real to questions about what is beautiful. You will meet Socrates, who was put on trial in Athens in 399 BCE, through one line from Plato's Apology in Benjamin Jowett's English translation (a version of a text in another language, in the translator's words). And you will learn the Socratic method (asking what a word means and testing the answer with a case it gets wrong), the first tool every later week uses.

Why you already care about this

Three roommates share an apartment and one electric bill of 90 dollars a month. Two of them want to split it evenly, 30 dollars each. The third works night shifts, is rarely home, and says, "That isn't fair." Within a minute, all three are arguing, and each one is sure the word "fair" is on their side.

Notice what is really happening. Nobody disagrees about the bill. They disagree about what fair means. One roommate thinks fair means everyone pays the same. Another thinks fair means each person pays for what they use. Until they look at that question directly, they will keep talking past each other.

That move, stopping to ask what a word means and whether the answer holds up, is where philosophy begins. You already do it when a rule at work makes no sense, or when a friend's advice sounds good but feels wrong. This chapter gives that habit a name, a history, and a method.

By the end of this chapter you will be able to:

say what philosophy is in one sentence and explain why it is not a contest of opinions;
name the six main branches of philosophy and give one question each one asks;
state the facts of the trial of Socrates and explain why you know Socrates through Plato;
read Q1, a line from Plato's Apology, as its translator's English words;
run two rounds of the Socratic method on a definition, with a counterexample in each round;
read a short passage of a primary text in translation and sum it up in one plain sentence.

Carry this line with you: test the definition, not the person — one honest case at a time.

Where we are

This week: what philosophy is, its six branches, Socrates and his trial, the pinned line from Plato's Apology, the Socratic method, and how to read a primary text in translation.
How they connect: this chapter is the foundation, so there is no earlier week to lean on; every later week uses the method you learn here.
Where we're going next: Week 2, Arguments and Thought Experiments, takes the questioning you practice this week and gives it a fixed shape, so you can judge whether an argument works.

This is the first week of the course, so nothing earlier is assumed. You need no background in philosophy. What you do need is the willingness to slow down and ask, "What do we mean by that?" before you agree or disagree. That small pause is where the whole course lives.

1. Ask what philosophy is

Think back to the three roommates. They could settle the bill by asking the landlord, or by letting the oldest roommate decide. Both would end the argument. Neither would answer the question of what is fair. To answer that, someone has to give reasons and let the others test them.

That is the difference between deciding a question and examining it. Philosophy examines.

Philosophy is the examination of fundamental questions about reality, knowledge, mind, value, and reasoning by careful argument rather than by appeal to authority alone.

Each part of that sentence does work. Fundamental questions are the ones other questions rest on, such as what makes an act right, or what it means to know something. Careful argument means giving reasons that other people can check. Rather than by appeal to authority alone means that "because I said so" or "because an expert said so" is never the end of the conversation. An expert's view can be a good reason. In philosophy, though, you still ask why the expert holds it.

Worked example — two ways to settle the electric bill. The roommates have a 90-dollar bill and two proposals.

Settle by authority: the landlord says, "Split it evenly." The roommates pay 30 dollars each. The argument stops, but nobody has learned whether even splitting is fair.
Examine by argument: one roommate gives a reason ("we all chose to share the apartment, so we share its costs equally"). Another gives a reason against it ("the person who uses less power should not pay for the others' use"). Now each reason can be tested.

In words: the first approach ends the disagreement, and the second approach is philosophy, because it puts reasons on the table where anyone can check them.

Misconception check. Students often think philosophy is opinion, so every answer is as good as every other. That is tempting, because philosophers disagree, and many questions stay open for a long time. But disagreement does not make all answers equal. Some reasons rest on a mistake, and some definitions break the moment you test them. A view backed by reasons that survive testing is better supported than a view backed by none. Philosophy teaches you how to tell the difference.

An honesty note: the course will never tell you which answer to an open question is correct. It will show you the strongest reasons on each side and ask you to argue for a view of your own.

2. Map the six branches of philosophy

Picture a hospital break room at the end of a long shift. One nurse asks whether the person in bed 4 truly understood the consent form. Another wonders whether the hospital's new visiting rule treats families with justice. A third asks whether a painting in the lobby counts as art or decoration. Those are three different kinds of question, and philosophy sorts them into branches.

Here are the six main branches the course uses, each with one question it asks.

The six main branches of philosophy, each with one question it asks
Branch	One question it asks
Metaphysics	What exists, and what is it like?
Epistemology	What can we know, and when is a belief justified?
Ethics	How should we live, and what makes an act right?
Logic	What makes reasoning good?
Political philosophy	What is justice, and what makes a state legitimate?
Aesthetics	What is beauty, and what makes something art?

That is 6 branches. Metaphysics is the study of what exists and what it is like. Epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. Ethics asks how to live and what is right. Logic studies good reasoning. Political philosophy studies justice and the state. Aesthetics studies beauty and art.

Worked example — sort the break-room questions. Take each question to the table.

"Did the person in bed 4 truly understand the consent form?" This asks whether someone knows something, so it is mainly epistemology. It also has an ethics side, since consent matters morally.
"Does the new visiting rule treat families with justice?" This asks about justice in an institution's rules, so it is political philosophy, with an ethics side.
"Is the lobby painting art or decoration?" This asks what makes something art, so it is aesthetics.

In words: each question has a home branch, and two of them reach into a second branch as well.

Misconception check. Students often think every question belongs to exactly one branch, like a book on one library shelf. That is tempting, because the table lists the branches separately. But real questions cross lines all the time. The roommates' question about a fair bill is ethics, and it is also political philosophy when it turns on what rules a group may set. Name the home branch, and then say what other branch it touches.

3. Meet Socrates through his trial

Imagine a courtroom in Athens where a man is on trial for the way he questions people. That is the first case on this course's thought-experiment roster: the trial of Socrates. It is a historical case, not an invented one, and the course opens with it because it asks why anyone would spend a life asking questions.

Here are the facts the course relies on. Socrates was tried in Athens in 399 BCE, convicted of impiety and of corrupting the young, and put to death by drinking hemlock. BCE means before the Common Era, so years count backward toward year 1.

There is a twist that matters for everything you read about him. Socrates wrote nothing that survives. What we know of his views comes mainly from his students, above all Plato's dialogues. A dialogue here is a written conversation, and most of Plato's dialogues have Socrates as the main speaker. So when this course says "Socrates says," it means "Socrates, as Plato writes him."

Worked example — reading the trial as a philosopher reads a case. Walk the case in four steps.

The case: Socrates was tried in Athens in 399 BCE, convicted of impiety and of corrupting the young, and put to death by drinking hemlock.
The source: Socrates wrote nothing that survives; you read him through Plato's Apology, his defense speech at the trial. In this title, "apology" means a defense, not saying sorry.
The question it raises: is a life spent questioning worth the risk?
What it tests: why philosophy examines beliefs at all, even when examining them makes people angry.

In words: the trial of Socrates is a real event that the course reads through Plato, and it puts one question in front of you before any argument does.

Misconception check. Students often think Socrates wrote the dialogues, since his name is all over them. That is tempting, because he does most of the talking. But Socrates wrote nothing that survives. Plato wrote the dialogues, and Socrates is their main character. When you write about a dialogue, credit Plato as the author and Socrates as the speaker.

4. Read the pinned line and name its translator

In Plato's Apology, Socrates' defense speech at his trial, Socrates speaks to the jury about the life he has led. In Benjamin Jowett's translation, he says that "the unexamined life is not worth living" (Plato, Apology, trans. Benjamin Jowett). This course calls that line Q1, the first of its pinned quotations. It is the only line from the Apology the course quotes word for word.

Now look closely at who stands behind those words. Trans. is short for "translated by," and the name after it tells you whose English you are reading. A line in translation has more than one author in it.

Worked example — count the layers behind Q1. Ask who did what.

The speaker: Socrates, who spoke at his trial and wrote nothing down.
The author: Plato, who wrote the Apology.
The translator: Benjamin Jowett, who put Plato's text into English.
The tally: 1 speaker + 1 author + 1 translator = 3 people between the event and your English page.

In words: Q1 reports what Socrates said, as Plato wrote it, in Jowett's English, so the English words are Jowett's, not Socrates' own.

Misconception check. Students often think a famous line in English is the speaker's own words, so they write, "Socrates wrote, 'the unexamined life is not worth living.'" That is tempting, because the line is usually printed with his name alone. But Socrates wrote nothing, and he never spoke these English words. A careful citation names the speaker, the author, and the translator: Socrates says it in Plato's Apology, in Jowett's translation.

Pause and think. Choose one of these two prompts and write two or three sentences.

(a) Think of a time you kept asking "why?" about a rule or a belief, even though it annoyed someone. Was the questioning worth it? Say why.
(b) Think of a belief you have never examined because it seemed beyond question. What would examining it involve?

Both prompts ask the same thing in different ways: what is it like to examine a belief rather than accept it?

5. Test a definition with a counterexample

Back to the roommates. Suppose one of them says, "Fairness means everyone pays the same." How would Socrates respond? He would not shout or vote. He would ask for a case. Is there a situation where everyone gets the same and it still seems unfair?

That is the Socratic method: ask for a definition, test it with a counterexample, revise, and test again. A definition is a statement of what a word means, meant to fit every case the word covers and no case it does not. A counterexample is a case the definition gets wrong. One clear counterexample is enough to show that a definition, as stated, needs revising.

Here is the method run on a fresh scenario. It is illustrative: it describes no real group.

Worked example — two rounds on a definition of fairness. A group project has 4 members.

Round 1, the definition D1: "fairness means everyone gets exactly the same."
Round 1, the counterexample: 1 member did none of the work, yet all 4 receive the same credit. Most people would call that unfair. D1 counts an unfair case as fair, so D1 fails as stated.
Round 2, the revised definition D2: "fairness means each person gets what they have earned."
Round 2, the counterexample: one teammate who is hard of hearing gets captions on the group's video calls, and the other 3 do not. Nobody earned the captions, yet most people would call providing them fair. D2 leaves out a fair case, so D2 fails as stated too.
The tally: 2 definitions tested and 2 counterexamples found, so 2 rounds of questioning.

In words: the examination ends with a sharper question, not a settled definition, and that is progress, because you now know two things fairness is not.

Notice that the two counterexamples fail in opposite ways. D1 is too broad: it lets in a case that is not fair. D2 is too narrow: it leaves out a case that is fair. Asking "too broad or too narrow?" is a quick way to see what a counterexample has shown.

Misconception check. Students often think a counterexample proves the opposite of the definition, so if "fairness means sameness" fails, then fairness must mean difference. That is tempting, because it feels like the argument has a winner. But a counterexample shows only that the definition, as stated, gets a case wrong. It does not hand you a new definition. The next step is to revise and test again, which is why the method has rounds.

A caveat: the Socratic method works on ideas, not on people. Its goal is a better definition that everyone can share, not a point scored against a friend.

6. Read a primary text in translation

A primary text is a work by the philosopher or source you are studying, such as Plato's Apology, rather than a later summary of it. Reading one is different from reading a news article. The text is old, it was not written in English, and the person speaking may not be the person who wrote it.

You already have the tools to handle that. Here are four steps for reading any short passage of a primary text in translation.

Find the claim. What is the speaker saying is true, or should be done?
Say who wrote the words on the page. Is the speaker also the author?
Name the translator. Whose English are you reading?
End in one plain sentence. Say the claim and its reason in your own words.

Worked example — the four steps on Q1. Apply them to the pinned line.

The claim: a life without examination is not worth living.
Who wrote it: Plato wrote the Apology; Socrates is the speaker.
The translator: Benjamin Jowett.
One plain sentence: in Plato's Apology, Socrates tells the jury that a life without examination is not worth living, and the words "the unexamined life is not worth living" are Jowett's English for that line.

The plain sentence in step 4 mixes a summary with a quotation, and it marks each one. The summary has no quotation marks. Only Jowett's exact words do.

Misconception check. Students often think a close summary can go inside quotation marks if it keeps the meaning. That is tempting, because the meaning is what matters most. But quotation marks promise the reader the exact words. In this course, only the pinned quotations appear in quotation marks, word for word, with the translator named. Everything else is a paraphrase, and you mark it as one ("Socrates argues that…").

A limitation worth saying out loud: one line is not a whole text. Q1 is a doorway into the Apology, and the Readings & Resources page links the full translation if you want to read more of Socrates' defense in Jowett's English.

The trial of Socrates also leaves you with the roster's question: is a life spent questioning worth the risk? The course takes no side on it. Your job this week is to state the case fairly and to ask the question well.

Key terms

philosophy — The examination of fundamental questions about reality, knowledge, mind, value, and reasoning by careful argument rather than by appeal to authority alone; some reasons in it are better than others. (first used: 1. Ask what philosophy is)
metaphysics — The branch of philosophy that asks what exists and what it is like. (first used: 2. Map the six branches of philosophy)
epistemology — The branch of philosophy that asks what we can know and when a belief is justified. (first used: 2. Map the six branches of philosophy)
ethics — The branch of philosophy that asks how we should live and what makes an act right or wrong. (first used: 2. Map the six branches of philosophy)
logic — The branch of philosophy that asks what makes reasoning good, and how to tell good reasoning from bad. (first used: 2. Map the six branches of philosophy)
political philosophy — The branch of philosophy that asks what justice is and what makes a state or government legitimate. (first used: 2. Map the six branches of philosophy)
aesthetics — The branch of philosophy that asks what beauty is and what makes something a work of art. (first used: 2. Map the six branches of philosophy)
the trial of Socrates — The historical case at the head of the course's thought-experiment roster: Socrates was tried in Athens in 399 BCE, convicted of impiety and of corrupting the young, and put to death by drinking hemlock. (first used: 3. Meet Socrates through his trial)
BCE — Before the Common Era: years counted backward from year 1, so 399 BCE comes before 398 BCE. (first used: 3. Meet Socrates through his trial)
translation — A version of a text in another language; in a translated quotation the words on the page belong to the translator, who is named, not to the original author. (first used: 4. Read the pinned line and name its translator)
Socratic method — A way of examining a belief by asking for a definition, testing it with a counterexample, revising it, and testing the revision again. (first used: 5. Test a definition with a counterexample)
definition — A statement of what a word or idea means that is meant to fit every case the word covers and no case it does not. (first used: 5. Test a definition with a counterexample)
counterexample — A case that a definition or general claim gets wrong, such as a case the definition counts as fair that most people would call unfair; one such case shows the claim, as stated, needs revising. (first used: 5. Test a definition with a counterexample)
primary text — A work by the philosopher or source being studied, such as Plato's Apology, rather than a later summary or explanation of it. (first used: 6. Read a primary text in translation)

Summary

Philosophy examines fundamental questions by argument, not by authority alone.
Disagreement does not make every answer equal; reasons can be tested.
The six branches are metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, logic, political philosophy, and aesthetics.
Socrates was tried in Athens in 399 BCE and put to death by drinking hemlock.
Socrates wrote nothing that survives; you read him through Plato.
Q1 is Jowett's English, in Plato's Apology, of what Socrates says.
The Socratic method asks for a definition and tests it with a counterexample.
A counterexample shows a definition needs revising; it does not supply a new one.
To read a translated text, find the claim, the author, and the translator, then sum it up plainly.

Check your understanding

Work these before looking at the answers — they are ungraded, and the answers (with reasoning) are at the bottom of the page.

Name the home branch of each of three questions. (a) "Does time really pass, or does it only seem to?" (b) "How do I know my memory of a childhood trip is accurate?" (c) "What gives a city council the right to make rules everyone must follow?"
At a weekly staff meeting at a bakery (illustrative), a manager says, "A good employee is someone who never questions a decision." Give one counterexample, and say whether it shows the definition is too broad or too narrow.
A travel blog prints a line from an ancient poem in English and adds, "The poet wrote these exact words." Explain what is wrong with that sentence and what information the blog should add.
A neighbor says, "A friend is someone who always agrees with you." Run one round of the Socratic method: give a counterexample, then propose a revised definition that avoids it.

Answers (worked reasoning — read after attempting)

(a) is metaphysics, because it asks what time is really like. (b) is epistemology, because it asks whether a belief counts as knowledge. (c) is political philosophy, because it asks what makes a government's authority legitimate. Each question could touch ethics too, but the home branch follows the main thing being asked.
One counterexample: an employee who notices that a new oven setting will burn every batch and says so. Most people would call that a good employee, yet they questioned a decision. The definition leaves out a good employee, so it is too narrow. It also lets in an employee who never questions anything but does careless work, which is a second counterexample showing it is too broad.
The poet did not write those English words; a translator did. The sentence presents a translation as the original author's own words. The blog should name the translator, so readers know whose English they are reading, and it should name the poem and the poet as the source of the original.
Counterexample: a friend who tells you that a plan is risky, because they care what happens to you. They disagree with you and are still a friend, so the definition fails as stated. One revised definition: "A friend is someone who cares about your good and treats you honestly." That revision should be tested in a second round too. For example, does it count a kind coworker you rarely see as a friend?

Next up in this module: the lecture, the slide deck, the Readings & Resources page, the lecture tutorial, the practice set, and the quiz. Next week the questioning you practiced gets a fixed shape: standard form, the method of writing each reason on its own numbered line above the conclusion.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com