sign in sign up
<<
Home , Apology (Plato), Commentaries on Plato, Socratic dialogue, Socratic method

Teaching to First-year Students in Iran, Based on ’s by Maryam Forghani and Sofia A Koutlaki

discussions, but they are generally keen Abstract Introduction to question received ideas. As regards the second question, we Is it possible to teach philosophy to first- In order to highlight the importance of chose a Socratic because of the year philosophy students in a way similar this project, we raise three questions: Why importance of Plato’s works as to the one Socrates used to teach his inter- was this new plan introduced for first-year foundations of the western philosophical locutors in the early ? Socrates students in philosophy? Why did we tradition which undoubtedly began with conducted challenging discussions in the choose ‘Socratic philosophy’ to introduce Socratic thought. Indeed, Socratic of ; he began with examin- philosophy to first-year students? And philosophy is the starting point of the ing everyday routine concepts, subjected why did we chose Plato’s Euthyphro in history of philosophy, so we reasoned his interlocutors to scrutiny—ἒλεγχος— order to do so? that students’ familiarity with it could help showed the contradictions in their think- In response to the first question, them develop an accurate understanding ing, and often finally arrived at both his first-year students were chosen for this of other western . and their ignorance. The starting point of project because according to the set Thirdly, we chose Euthyphro among this paper is whether is it possible to teach university curriculum, philosophy other Socratic dialogues because of its Socratic philosophy following the Socratic students in Iranian universities must pass subject-matter, namely piety. This has a Method. Here, we defend this possibility a compulsory course on special relevance in Iranian society, where based on our practical of teach- philosophy in the first two semesters. a religious atmosphere is dominant, while ing Plato’s Euthyphro to first-year stu- Therefore it was decided that the at the same time many Iranians grapple dents. In particular, the first author taught compulsory course would be with challenging questions on such as three groups of first-year philosophy stu- complemented well by the Euthyphro divine law, religious , the relation dents, for three semesters—Autumn 2016, course. This was the first time that between religious injunctions and reason Spring and Autumn 2017—in the Depart- Platonic philosophy was taught to and many others. Therefore, it was ment of Philosophy at ATU (Allameh first-year students through a Platonic anticipated that this dialogue would Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran). text. ensure students’ engagement with the The paper is organised in three parts. However, another, possibly more topic of piety and their active The first part looks at the importance of significant, reason was the similarity participation in discussions. this project for learning philosophy in between the characters in Plato’s general. The second part describes briefly Socratic dialogues and first-year the practical details of teaching and students. Socrates’ interlocutors are not management of this class teaching. Finally philosophical characters, but are rather The conduct of the project the last part analyses precisely the well-known in the social-political sphere outcomes of this project on the basis of and are generally keen on discussion. The first author, the MA student of our experience, both in regard to Euthyphro­ Although first-year students, unlike philosophy at ATU, proposed this teaching as a ‘Socratic’ dialogue on the one hand, Socrates’ interlocutors, are not plan to her supervisor, Dr. Ahmadali and also as a dialogue on the subject- specialists in any area, they similarly lack Heydari, Assistant Professor, Department matter of ‘piety’, on the other hand. familiarity with philosophical of Philosophy at ATU in Spring 2016. Her

The Journal of Classics Teaching 19 (38) p.36-41 © The Classical Association 2018. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of Downloaded36 from https://www.cambridge.org/corethe Creative Commons Attribution. IP address: licence 170.106.33.22 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/),, on 26 Sep 2021 at 03:48:59, subject to the Cambridge which permits Core termsunrestricted of use, available re-use, atdistribution, and https://www.cambridge.org/core/termsreproduction in .any https://doi.org/10.1017/S205863101800020X medium, provided the original work is properly cited. proposal was referred to the Department, We focus these points in more detail • Is it pious (or moral) for a son to which approved it for implementation in below. prosecute his father? What is the criterion the autumn term 2016. Because it was the for a pious (or moral) action? If a person first time that such a project was carried I. Is Euthyphro a philosophical study or an commits murder, should we take into out, the first author sought advice from the open-ended story? account who the murderer and the victim second author, who had previously taught are, and in which situation this murder Classical Greek to undergraduates at the As we anticipated, the first feedback was was committed, or should a murderer be University of Tehran and was also teaching rather negative. Plato’s way of beginning prosecuted in every situation irrespective Classical Greek to research fellows at the the dialogue in terms of the scene of the of circumstances? Encyclopaedia Islamica in Tehran. dialogue (agora), (Euthyphro, 2a), the Because of the importance of this description of ’ appearances (2b), • Is there agreement among different project, it was decided that this project the narration of murder by Euthyphro’s religions on the criteria of piety and would form part of the compulsory father (4d), Euthyphro’s ability to foretell impiety? Could we identify any actions first-year course ‘Pre-Socratic the future (3c), and so on, made students that are considered impious in every philosophers and Plato’ (History of consider the beginning part of the religion? I), usually dialogue an unimportant fictional offered in the first semester, rather than introduction which they would rather • What is the relation between piety and offering it as an extra-curricular course. rush through in order to arrive at the morality? Is every pious action moral and The course ‘Pre-Socratic philosophers philosophical (according to them) parts. every impious action immoral? and Plato’ is a four-credit course, and the They understood the dialogue as an Euthyphro component was assigned 25% open-ended story. The Plato they • Why do we carry out religious of the final grade. encountered was completely different practices? Is it to please God? Is it from the concept of ‘philosopher’ that possible to please God? they had had in mind previously. However, as the reading progressed, In the discussion of these questions, The outcomes students came to understand that in students really tried to find a definitive Plato’s dialogues every detail is answer. They strove to arrive at the ‘one’, This teaching project had a variety of significant. After arriving at the ‘right’ and ‘true’ answer. As an instance, useful outcomes, which are presented philosophical (according to them) parts in when we posed the question ‘Is every here in the form of points classified the following pages, they observed the pious action moral?’ students expected to under two categories: A. the points under function of apparently superfluous arrive at the ‘one’ direct answer ‘Yes’ or the first category relate to central descriptions for the illumination of the ‘No’. They believed that ‘affirmation’ and problems of Euthyphro as a ‘Socratic characters. They figured out that ‘rejection’ are the only possible answers, dialogue’, like , question-worthiness, characters’ philosophical ideas are not a and they felt compelled to resolve this elenchus, ‘I know that I do not know’ and catalogue of an inferior mind against problem to one side or the other of the so on. B. the points under the second Socrates’ profound thought, but a series dilemma. Even when they mistakenly category relate to Euthyphro as a Socratic of philosophical problems in the believed to arrive at the definitive answer dialogue ‘on the subject matter of piety’. dialogue with Socrates’ thought. ‘Yes’ to the mentioned question, they Students declared that these attempted to continue the discussion in A. The outcomes of teaching Euthyphro as a apparently non-philosophical details such a way that every exemplar of the ‘’: render the understanding of Euthyphro pious actions is categorised under more difficult. When they became familiar morality. Sometimes they faced This part focuses on our in with the ’s counterexamples: they could not connection with six central problems of philosophy, they figured out that the convince themselves to consider some any Socratic dialogue: puzzle of the relationship between the pious actions, like ‘prosecuting father’ philosophical and non-philosophical parts (according to the Euthyphro), as a moral I. Is Euthyphro a philosophical study or in Plato still remains a real question for action. However, they still tried to an open-ended story? any reader. Indeed, the question of how provide persuasive evidence for the commentators should read Platonic rightness of their definitive answer ‘Yes’, II. The im/possibility of arriving at a dialogues if every incidental detail is showing that if a person commits certain answer to philosophical potentially significant has always remained murder, we should prosecute the murder, questions. a challenge. without taking into account who the murderer is. III. The difficulty of coming to terms II. The im/possibility of arriving at a certain This approach was augmented by with ‘All I know is that I know answer to philosophical questions some aspects of the Iranian educational nothing’. system: the most important measure of Before encountering the central question academic success is a final mark, and a IV. Aporia, logical impasse and frustration. of the dialogue—what is piety?—we numerical score reflecting the measure of posed some problematic questions for students’ achievement is obviously based V. Change of attitude. students: on the number of ‘right’ answers. Indeed,

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. TeachingIP address: Socrates 170.106.33.22 to First-year, on 26 PhilosophySep 2021 at Students03:48:59, subjectin Iran, toBased the Cambridge on Plato’s EuthyphroCore terms of use, available at 37 https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S205863101800020X students’ school experiences and the whereas he knew that he did not, which They were frustrated with assessment/marking system have made him wiser than the rest, and Socrates’s method for approaching established and consolidated in their therefore the oracle had told the truth. philosophical problems, according to minds the underlying assumption that Despite going over this story in which the solution of a philosophical every question has one and only one right detail, one of the difficulties we faced problem leads itself to a new problem. answer. Indeed, they believe that success during the semester was that students Faced with the Socrates’ question ‘Why is based on getting most answers right, thought that they had true knowledge of do we carry out religious practices?’ as whereas ‘wrong’ answers are penalised. piety. Even after their conflicting answers an example, when students considered On this basis, often after lengthy to the question ‘what is piety?’ they found it acceptable to answer ‘because discussions on different problems in it very difficult to accept their ignorance. carrying out religious practices pleases Euthyphro, they often asked: ‘So what is They could not accept that after 18 years God’, they were faced with the more the final, right conclusion?’ (the age of most first-year challenging question ‘Is it possible to Faced with Socratic questions and undergraduates) of living in a country please God?’. the answers he proposes, students came where religion is present almost Here, students experienced the to understand that we should not expect everywhere, they could not even define nature of philosophy as the art of to arrive at a certain answer, as we do in what piety is. questioning, where the authenticity lies in mathematics. The answer to the However, In the face of elenchus or its ‘journey’, not arriving at the ‘finish- question’what is the relation between refutation as Socrates’ mode of line’. Although sometimes they observed piety and morality?’, even if it has a philosophising, students gradually Socrates’ attempts to find a ‘euporia’ as a certain answer, does not carry the same developed the ability to detect the finish-line of a philosophical problem, certainty as 2 + 2 = 4. We attempted to of their answers, and then they experienced philosophising as demonstrate that questioning is valuable found themselves closer to the awareness progress and a fluctuation between both per se; what makes Socrates’ philosophy of ‘all I know is that I know nothing’. aporia and euporia. Students came to what it is is the power of the question, not They declared that this experience made understand that every philosopher’s the power of the proof. them both open-minded and frustrated at philosophising, even Plato’s himself, is Students suggested that their quests the same time. made by moving constantly between these for certainty are also due to the Socrates’ We highlighted this experience as a two points. questioning style: he asks questions as holy moment in getting to grips with though he himself knows the answer, and philosophy and as a first, necessary,step in V. Change of attitude then raises readers’ expectations for a entering the realm of philosophy: we only definitive answer. However, after reading have a ‘desire’ or a ‘liking’ (philia) to know, Gradually change took place. After going Euthyphro as their first philosophical but in fact, do not, nor can we ever know. through these stages with all their experience, they realised that the Socratic ‘All I know is that I know nothing’ is what difficulties and tensions, the students’ aim is nothing more than leading the makes Socrates who he is, while it was the attitude began to change. They interlocutor, and, by extension, his ’ ‘we know’ that got Socrates acknowledged the change of their readers through the millennia, to the killed. We suggested that students would perspectives not only towards the awareness of ‘all I know is that I know do well not to belittle this first step: it concept of ‘piety’ and their ‘religious’ nothing’. could shape all their future philosophical beliefs, but also towards many other thinking. concepts that they had used daily and III. The difficulty of coming to terms with ‘All I many beliefs that they had accepted know is that I know nothing’ IV. Aporia, logical impasse and frustration uncritically. They also mentioned a domain of ‘’ which, as they said, When we asked students about the oracle Approaching the dialogue’s final pages, expanded by the day. of Delphi, most students claimed that this students understood that even Socrates In this change of attitude, they was a boring, repetitive question and that himself was not able to put forward an figured out that ‘doubt’ is the prerequisite everyone, even with the least familiarity ‘inclusive/exclusive’ definition for piety, for clarity, and clarity is the prerequisite with philosophy, knows the answer. They and that this open-ended dialogue leaves for the improvement of understanding, knew that Socrates was the wisest man in readers with a number of puzzling which is nothing more than a restatement Athens. He had no to sell and no questions. At this moment, they of what they already believed to begin claim to teach. But because God does not experienced the aporia which they had with. They realised that philosophy’s lie, Socrates was keen to find out if heard of before. However, this starting point lies where ordinary issues anyone knew what made life worthwhile worthwhile experience frustrated them, are accepted unquestioningly by common because anyone who knew the answer to not only with the subject-matter of ‘piety’ people. A philosopher is not an this question would surely be considered and their religious beliefs, but also with extraordinary person removed from wiser than him. He reluctantly took up philosophy in general. They complained everyday human experiences; s/he is an some investigations and eventually he that philosophy would be suffering and ordinary person living an everyday life, concluded that neither he nor anyone else painful in this way, and wondered why but the difference between a philosopher was really wise and knew anything they chose to study philosophy if it leads and an ordinary person lies in the worthwhile, with the difference that to nowhere, except to more and more former’s transcending attitude towards others thought that they knew something, puzzling questions. the world.

Downloaded38 from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP Teachingaddress: 170.106.33.22 Socrates to First-year, on 26 Sep Philosophy 2021 at 03:48:59 Students, subject in Iran, to the Based Cambridge on Plato’s Core Euthyphro terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S205863101800020X B: The outcomes of teaching Euthyphro as a sentenced to death was that he had no Even if this omnipotent God is Socratic dialogue ‘on the subject-matter of piety’: truck with the authority of the traditional, omniscient, as students believed, and His mythological Greek gods and divination. commands are perfect, we would not be Although Socrates’ philosophy in itself However, in order to delve deeper questioning them. This syllogism then could be an educational goal of a into the problem, we asked them to depicts a tyrannical picture of God and curriculum, we decided to present substitute the name of the God they consequently leads to the negation of free Socratic philosophy through Euthyphro believe in, Allah, as He is known in Islam will which itself leads to the inconsistency which discusses the concept of ‘piety’. and then again contemplate the question. with students’ religious beliefs. Moreover, The reason has already been explained: At this point, it would be helpful to it leads to the negation of ‘question- we chose it among other Socratic describe the students’ notion of God and worthiness’ as a Socrates’ philosophical dialogues because of the religious then look at the formulation of the study, without which the experience of atmosphere in Iran. In fact, we decided to problem which yielded the following ‘change of attitude’ would prove create, for students, the experience of results. First, we present a brief summary impossible too. aporia through the examination of a of this notion and four of the attributes On the basis of these explanations challenging subject-matter which they of Allah relating to this discussion. and formulation, here we classify our think that they know, but they do not. The first two are common in the experiences, and in particular the Indeed, if we had chosen notion of God in other religions: God is outcomes of teaching Euthyphro as a ‘courageousness’ (as the subject-matter of omniscient and omnipotent. However, Socratic dialogue ‘on the subject-matter ), ‘’ (as the subject- He is not a despotic ruler, nor a tyrant in of piety’ into three classes according to matter of ) and so on, they the Greek sense: He has allowed humans students’ answers: might have admitted their ignorance more ‘’. This third attribute, relating to I. One of the most interesting readily. However, when faced with the free will, is specific to the Shia’s answers was an attempt to maintain both subject-matter of ‘piety’, we anticipated denomination, one of the two major human free will and God’s omnipotence. that they would not admit their ignorance denominations in Islam, and is also Some students declared that because of easily. represented in Mu’tazila, a well-known God’s omnipotence, God has determined Our discussions focused on various movement in Islamic theology. Putting the criteria of goodness and badness. parts of the dialogue, although the aside challenges between ‘’ Indeed, telling lies is bad only because God number 10 (a-e), the well-known Socratic and ‘free will’, witnesses for determinism, has forbidden it, and telling the truth is question in the dialogue, was the most and to what extent this will is free, free good only because God has commanded challenging part: Is a pious act pious will played an important role in students’ it. God has formulated His divine because the gods love it, or do the gods comments since most Iranians are Shi’a. commands based on the criteria of love it because it is pious? Indeed, in this Finally, this God is the same God of goodness and badness which He has part, they tried very hard to provide an both Judaism and , with the determined Himself, and then He has answer for this Socratic question, and it difference that in Islam, He speaks expressed the best commands (the case B). was exactly this problematic part that directly to His creatures, and explains His But the point is that according to helped them experience a ‘change of principles and Himself completely, and so human free will, students declared, it is our attitude’. Muslims consider Islam as the last choice whether we conform to these In order to make this question more revealed religion. Because of this, commands or not. Even though we will concrete, we asked them to change it to Muslims consider God’s divine receive divine retribution if we do not the form ‘Is telling lies bad (or impious) commands perfect and infallible, even if follow divine commands, we still have the because it is goes against the gods’ divine we do not intellectually understand them right and the ability not to conform to command and the gods hate it, or do the as perfect. them. Students tried to explain what they gods hate it and forbid it because it is On the basis on the above, we had had in mind since they developed bad?’, or ‘Is telling the truth good (or formulated the problem in this way: awareness of the concept of God: pious) because the gods love it or do the A: If God forbids telling lies because although God has determined the gods love it because it is good?’. lying is bad in itself, it means that there is unchangeable criteria of goodness and Students opposed not only this new a criterion beyond God, based on which badness, He has not determined what we structure, but also Socrates’ own question He has determined his divine commands, do in our lives. They also went further and and declared that as and and consequently even if He is ‘aware’ of claimed that we ‘cannot’ choose not to show, the Greek gods commit sins this criterion and then remains have free will and the power of choice, themselves; therefore, how can they omniscient, He could not be considered although it is our choice to do this or that. determine the criteria for goodness and omnipotent because He Himself has not As a result, they concluded that telling lies badness? In addition, as Socrates constituted this criterion. As a result, it is bad because God has forbidden it (God’s mentions, the Greek gods are at odds with leads to inconsistency with students’ omnipotence), but it is our choice whether each other on the matters of piety/ religious beliefs. to tell lies or not (humans’ free will). impiety, goodness/badness, / B: On the other hand, if telling lies is We found this answer interesting and injustice. We explained that the gods (or bad because it is a God’s divine command, creative; if Euthyphro had provided this God) that Socrates had in mind are not there is no answer to the question ‘Why answer, perhaps Socrates would have led the Greek mythological gods: after all, has He forbidden it?’, except that the discussion in a different way. But as it one of the reasons for which Socrates was ‘Because He is the omnipotent God’. was, it focused on free will and then

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. TeachingIP address: Socrates 170.106.33.22 to First-year, on 26 PhilosophySep 2021 at Students03:48:59, subjectin Iran, toBased the Cambridge on Plato’s EuthyphroCore terms of use, available at 39 https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S205863101800020X transcended the two poles of the Socratic challengeable commands which we could goodness are in conformity with each question—God or an independent discuss. In the case of lying, for example, other. criterion as the determiner of goodness we do not challenge why lying in general They continued that if we are and badness. Interestingly, Euthyphro is bad because it is an axiom. But we could religious and act in the way that God has never mentioned free will, which could ask around why it might be considered commanded us, then we would also act in have been in the dialogue with ‘freedom’ not-bad ‘in a certain situation’, ‘to a certain accordance with that independent in other Plato’s dialogues such as The person’, ‘at a certain time’, or ‘about this criterion for badness and goodness , or even with Socrates’ image of subject’ and so on. Indeed, around an because they conform to each other. the gods in . axiom, there are some secondary However, in the case of non-religious However, in the same way that questions which we could consider. The people, the outcome is also the same; Socrates always asked his interlocutors, students claimed that we could, and even God creates all humans in such a way that we asked students to reflect on their should discuss these commands, in the if they think rationally, they will act in declarations and discuss whether and how same way that, we could not, and also should accordance with that independent they related to the main subject matter of not, challenge principles. The domain of criterion which conforms to God’s the dialogue: what is piety, and who is principles is not the domain of reason, commands. pious? Indeed, by concentrating on free rather of the trust which could be gained Students attempted to make their will, they merely attempted to do away only by a leap of faith. However, claim more precise, and well-organised. with the tyrannical image of God, while question-worthiness would not be lost Here, we tried to help them recognise the they diverted the discussion from the here; it could be maintained, but only in vagueness of their formulation: If a main topic. Whether a person could choose the domain of secondary questions. criterion for badness and goodness to tell lies or not does not explain who a We explained that every question is a existed, and this criterion was pious person is. The question is not question of something, and what makes a independent of God, but in conformity whether a pious person has free will or question worthy, is the subject of a with His commands, how did this not, but rather what is it that characterises question, i.e. what a question is about. conformity come about? Is there a a person as pious. Philosophical questions are nothing purpose behind it, or did it happen by Here, students themselves recognised except the questions of principles and accident? If the former, whose purpose is such an unconscious diversion from the basic axioms. If philosophy, according to it? And if the latter, this would be a main topic and even they themselves , is the most perfect knowledge, bizarre accident indeed. In addition, we called it a sophistic technique. In addition, it is only because philosophy is the helped them to clarify what they mean by they came to understand that the final knowledge of the first principles ‘thinking rationally’. In response to their result they arrived at, whether we have (, 982b). reply—acting according to morality—we free will or not, is that telling lies is bad Students themselves declared that if raised a Socratic question: ‘What is because God commands it, not because it philosophy were limited to the secondary morality?’ is bad in itself. They realised that even questions, there would be no difference Moreover, we stressed that every though they were able to minimise the between philosophy and other , philosophical discussion involves some emphasis on a tyrannical image of God, and then they would not prefer indisputable , which every they did not succeed in eliminating it philosophy. As students of philosophy, claim must be consistent with. Here, completely. they knew that ‘What is piety?’ is among students acknowledged that they had II. Another impressive answer could the primary philosophical questions and considered their religious beliefs as the be explained in this following way: as Socrates’ attempt in Euthyphro to provide presuppositions of the discussion, but students believed, God explains His the ‘definition’ of piety is among Platonic their declaration was not consistent with principles in the most complete way in (or Socratic) euporia(s), and thus it is not them: the existence of an independent Islam, and then His commands are more fair to divert this crucial attempt to define criterion for badness and goodness, complete compared to those in other the essence of piety to some secondary consistent with divine , would religions. Regarding this , students questions around piety. inevitably negate God’s omnipotence, declared that it would be reasonable to III. Despite the two previous even if it is assumed that God is aware of trust and not question these commands. answers leading to the side B, this time this criterion, so He is still omniscient. Indeed, telling lies is bad and telling the students attempted to approximate, but Indeed, the existence of this independent truth is good only because God has not completely defend, another side, A: criterion points to the existence of commanded as such. These are axioms, so God has forbidden lying because it is bad something beyond God’s domain even if we do not ask ‘why’ this axiom is bad or in itself, and has commanded telling the His commands are in conformity with it. what that one is good (the case B). But truth because it is good in itself. They Moreover, the existence of this when we put forward the idea that this declared that there is an independent independent criterion could deny God’s belief contradicts with question- criterion of God for badness and unity, and this would then imply that this worthiness as a Socratic study, they goodness. But God’s commands are in independent criterion would perhaps also proposed the following reconciliation of conformity with this criterion, which be worthy of worship. the two contradictory positions. should not be taken to mean that He has After all these discussions and The students suggested that determined His commands in accordance challenges, we raised the final fundamental alongside this kind of clear commands as with this criterion. Indeed, the two question for students: What does Socrates principles or axioms, there would also be independent criteria for badness and mean by the concept of ‘gods’? In

Downloaded40 from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP Teachingaddress: 170.106.33.22 Socrates to First-year, on 26 Sep Philosophy 2021 at 03:48:59 Students, subject in Iran, to the Based Cambridge on Plato’s Core Euthyphro terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S205863101800020X Euthyphro, although Socrates keeps open his interlocutors in the early dialogues? the functionality of learning Socrates and the question of the existence of an The outcomes of the three courses run Plato through the Euthyphro, most of independent criterion of gods for point towards a positive answer. Indeed, them reacted positively to this experience goodness and badness, he asks the the is so strong that it at the end of the semester and expressed audience to think about at least its possibility. can still work even after 2500 years, after a interest in reading Plato’s other dialogues. Here, students related this possibility to the multitude of historical, social and cultural When we reported the course accusation against Socrates in the Apology: changes. outcomes to the Department of ‘there is a man called Socrates, a wise man, As we mentioned, because of the Philosophy, we were asked to repeat this a student of all things in the sky and below importance of this project, it was decided project for the following semesters, the earth, who makes the worse argument that this project would form part of the Spring and Autumn 2017. We reported the stronger… those who study these compulsory first-year course ‘Pre-Socratic that as students’ interests, talents and things do not even believe in the gods’ philosophers and Plato’ which is a efforts differed, the outcomes varied (Apology, 18c). They were curious to know four-credit course. The Euthyphro somewhat, even though most outcomes whether or not both gods and the component was assigned 25% of the final were the same in all three cases. independent criterion of goodness and grade. In addition, we set weekly badness refer to the same thing, namely homework to help students engage closer Forms in the context of Platonic thought. with the philosophical problems and Mariam Forghani is an MA student consolidate what they were learning. At of Philosophy at Allameh times we held class quizzes to measure Tabataba’i University, Iran. student learning; these class quizzes not [email protected] Conclusion only helped us identify interested and Sofia Koutlaki is Postdoctoral talented students, but also helped students Research Associate at Texas A&M To return to the main question of this reform their expectations of assessment University at Qatar. paper: is it possible to teach philosophy to and getting to the ‘right’ (according to [email protected], first-year philosophy students in a way them) answer. Although they had [email protected] similar to the one Socrates used to teach expressed , in the beginning, about

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. TeachingIP address: Socrates 170.106.33.22 to First-year, on 26 PhilosophySep 2021 at Students03:48:59, subjectin Iran, toBased the Cambridge on Plato’s EuthyphroCore terms of use, available at 41 https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S205863101800020X