In his work, The Concept of Irony, S?ren Kierkegaard discusses Socratic irony. This irony, which sees its beginning in Socrates' claim to complete ignorance, is present throughout Plato's dialogues. Socrates then uses this irony to bring his interlocutors to a state in which all content has been emptied from their minds "a state that is altogether negative. This negative aspect, in turn, can be seen as an expression of Socrates' vanity. However, this vanity was commonly misjudged as greatness and even piety, at times. It will be discussed here how Socrates' reputation of greatness was earned strictly through this vanity.
Through his dialectic, it appeared as if Socrates was always in search for an eternal and objective truth. He always began by claiming ignorance, while his interlocutor claimed to possess knowledge. Socrates would proceed by questioning the other, in a rational manner, in order to try to come to some sort of final truth. However, the truth arrived at was always the same one "that the other was wrong "and the other would wind up in a state in which he realised he knew nothing; this state is also known as aporia. Kierkegaard describes this process of emptying one of all one's purported knowledge as "negating."" This negation is achieved through irony, which is actually seen by Kierkegaard as the whole essence of Socrates' character. Socrates is an ironic and negative character because, in his search for knowledge and truth, he is actually seeking to negate everything, or empty it of its positive content. Thus, it becomes possible for one to equate Socrates with irony and with the "negative."" This negative sees, as its goal, the pursuit to empty all things positive of their content and make them negative as well.
The reasons attempting to explain this idiosyncrasy of Socrates are numerous, though his ultimate, ceaseless quest for truth is most popular. In this essay, however, vanity will be cited as the root of Socrates' negative aspect.
