The Suppressed Correlative

In one of the first Ethics classes I took, taught by Dr. Gates at BYU, we had a day where we discussed a fallacy called the fallacy of the suppressed correlative. This fallacy is a fallacy of relativistic ethics, where those who claim that what is ethical is based upon every culture's own ethical theory. Basically, the idea of relativism is that each culture defines right or wrong according to its own set of standards. The fallacy of the suppressed correlative comes into play because once you make right and wrong subjective, or only objective according to a community, you deny the very nature of right and wrong. You can have no comprehension of what is right unless you understand what is wrong. This is what Lehi was pointing out to Jacob in 2 Nephi 2, there are some concepts that have no meaning unless the opposite exists. Without evil, good would not make sense. Without sorry, happiness could not exist. The contrast gives life to the good and the bad.
Well, that's the introduction to what I want to say here. I've been thinking about this a lot. In Law School teachers like to say that they use the "Socratic Method" of teaching, a system of dialectic where the teacher asks a series of questions to the students in an attempt to draw out the correct answer. This means that the student must explore each question and discover the answer on his own, and it is an effective teaching method.
However, I take umbrage at calling this the Socratic Method, not because it doesn't closely approximate the style Socrates used in his famed dialogs, but because the intent is wholly different. Now, take this with a grain of salt, as I only have a BA in Philosophy and may be largely erroneous in my understanding, but I believe that Socrates' intense with those he taught was not to teach any knowledge, but to teach ignorance. Socrates recognized the nature of true wisdom, you cannot be truly wise unless you recognize your own ignorance. Socrates primarily taught those who were high of mind, who thought they were experts in a given area, and demonstrated the flaws in their beliefs. He showed that even those with the most knowledge are largely ignorant. To be aware of that ignorance is the first step to becoming truly wise, no matter how much knowledge we obtain we will always have more to learn.
This is what I think about sometimes, the nature of virtue. Wisdom is a virtue that cannot be obtained until we are aware of its inverse, ignorance. Likewise with courage, the only truly courageous man is the man who acts despite his fears - it is only in recognizing the inverse that the man can be come truly courageous. You'll notice that I don't say the opposite, but the inverse. I think this is right, courage and fear are not opposed, but rather just on different ends of a spectrum, inverted, if you will. The Christian virtue of humility is impossible to obtain without a recognition of our own pride. If we would be virtuous we must recognize vice.