One of our topics for Philosophy Senior Seminar is the life & death (mostly death) of Socrates. Now, I've never particularly liked ancient philosophy, but when I took the course on it, I thought Socrates was an okay dude, except for his habit of lusting after young men.
Now he's really starting to piss me off. Maybe it's his famous "big talk" in the Apology (claiming to be, according to various sources, either the wisest or most just, temperate, and fair man in the world). Maybe it's the fact that in all the Dialogues and the Apology he seems to simply dance around his opponent until the guy falls into one of his traps or misspeaks once. Maybe it's because he seems to use bad philosophy - for instance, he's almost always guilty of excluding the middle in the questions he gives to the hapless fools who discourse with him.
Maybe I just hate him because he refused to speak out during the period of the Tyranny of the Thirty in Athens - a time when over 1500 citizens were killed. He did refuse to unjustly arrest and execute a man, but that was about it. Some of his former pupils were among the 30 - surely he had some sway with them? Often it seems that he's more interested in finding the perfect definition to some virtue than in actually understanding the right way to act in a virtuous manner. I'm thinking particularly of the Euthyphro, where he cares more about figuring out what piety is than finding justice for a man unrightly slain - after all, the man is just "a mere servent."
I'm feeling very disillusioned right now. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Err...you do realize that nearly all of the "Socrates" stuff is really written by Plato, right?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
A large portion of what we know about Socrates does come from Plato. Obviously, some of the stuff is just Plato using Socrates as a mouth-piece. The earlier dialogues, however, are considered to be fairly accurate. But there are a number of other sources about Socrates, both contemporary (written by those who had known him and both loved or hated him) and within a generation or two of his death. From these you can sketch together an idea of the historical Socrates. Also, by examining the historical period in which he is set, as well as the writings of those he meets in the market, you can get a picture of the situation in Athens at the time. It's a pretty big literature in ancient philosophy.
However, even if you think the Socrates in Plato's work is a completely fictionalized person, you can still judge the character's virtue and philosophical qualities. Socrates, as depicted by Plato, is almost the patron saint of Western Civilization. If you examine the Dialogues closely though, Socrates comes off looking like an jerk for the reasons I stated above, and others.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I know nothing about philosophy, but from our discussions in my political science class, I pretty much agree with you.
It seems like he was more interested in catching other people in traps and making them look dumb; than he was in actually accomplishing anything
But granted, I know absolutely nothing about philosophy.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Jhai, I really should have put more of a disclaimer on there. I was pretty sure you'd know that, but there was a suggestion that you might not.
As to your question, I find it really difficult to say. The Socratic dialogues have some foundational ideas about the nature of knowledge and of the world that are almost completely foreign to me. This makes it hard to judge. One particular idea is that of people knowing everything there is to know from the moment they are born. If this is actually something that Socrates honestly believed, then a lot of what would seem like cheap tricks to many who don't share this premise might have really been expressions of his sincere belief that dialetic arguments were reliable sources of truth.
One of my main problems is that, while I'm not big fan of Socrates or Aristotle, I really, really dislike Plato. Many of the things I dislike about his writings suggest to me that he's the sort who would use Socrates as a mouthpiece and have him vanquish dumb opponents. So the Socratic dialogues are effective mainly only because the author manipulated them so that no one offers up any argument that he isn't prepared to shoot down. Most of the fundamental arguments from my reading can be demolished or at least seriously muddied by arguments that are not presented, but are, to me, clearly suggested by the dialogue. But who the heck really knows? That may be a fairly accurate record of what actually happened.
So it's difficult for me to say much of anything about the character of Socrates. I don't find the philosophy he is presented as having to be all that compelling, but then considering that the two main traditions that I do really like are the Age of Reason/Enlightenment and Daoism, both of which are highly opposed to Socratic thought in different ways, you'd expect that.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Oh, and this reminded me. I've got an Irami and Greek influences on democracy thread to respond to.
Posted by Eduardo St. Elmo (Member # 9566) on :
IMO Socrates was definitely a great man. I don't know that much about his alledged predisposition for young men, but then again you have to figure that such behaviour was fairly normal in the Greek world. About his habit of 'leading others into traps'; He was just fond of discussions and he liked to show the other party where their logic went wrong. But he never bragged about his own skills and indeed was one of the first to say he didn't know all that much. And I really like his basic viewpoint: Never set out to hurt another person. It's not as if you can completely avoid doing so (unless you don't interact with other people), but that way you can keep it to the absolute minimum.
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
Does it have to be one or the other?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Agreed, Lissande. I don't think morality and sophistry are mutually exclusive.
Posted by Mintieman (Member # 4620) on :
Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800-1859) "Socrates...the more I read about him, the less I wonder that they poisoned him"
I'm not a huge hater of him, but i do find him hugely annoying. Doing him as part of my first year philosophy course.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
MS - I'm not a fan of Plato's philosophy at all. I'm not a fan of Aristotle's writing style either, although I think his ideas have merit. I used to be a fan of Socrates - at least until I looked closer at the Dialogues, the Apology, & historical documents. What happened in the Apology is documented by people other than Plato, and since the versions fit fairly closely, I think it's acceptable to claim that we're getting a hazy look at the "true" Socrates. It's not flattering.
quote:Originally posted by Eduardo St. Elmo: IMO Socrates was definitely a great man. I don't know that much about his alledged predisposition for young men, but then again you have to figure that such behaviour was fairly normal in the Greek world. About his habit of 'leading others into traps'; He was just fond of discussions and he liked to show the other party where their logic went wrong. But he never bragged about his own skills and indeed was one of the first to say he didn't know all that much. And I really like his basic viewpoint: Never set out to hurt another person. It's not as if you can completely avoid doing so (unless you don't interact with other people), but that way you can keep it to the absolute minimum.
He actually brags an enormous in the Apology - both Plato's version & Xenophon's. Like I said above, he claims to be the most wise (Plato) and most just, temperate, and fair (Xenophon) man in the world. Then he goes on to list all his moral accomplishments - basically, he tries to convince the other Athenians that his claim is true.
Furthermore, when you consider his claim to "not know much at all" in light of his philosophy, it's clearly false modesty. For Socrates, virtue IS knowledge - if you truly have some aspect of virtue, then you must have knowledege which allows you to understand this virtue. By claiming to be the most just person, Socrates is basically claiming to have an excellent understanding (and knowledge of) justice.
Socrates may never hurt another person (physically - he sure bangs up their pride), but he's not without blame. He refused to arrest and murder an innocent man during the Tyranny of the Thirty, but he also refused to speak out against them, or use any of his influence with former pupils to stop the slaughter. Inaction in the face of evil can be as morally reprehensible as wrong action.
Morality and sophistry aren't mutually exclusive, but calling Socrates a Sophist would really get his goat, given the enmity betwen them. And I do think if someone is an "immoral Sophist" it's is not possible for him to also be a "great man." Sophistry isn't a bad thing in and of itself, but an immoral person who is able to put it to use can achieve more (bad things) than he would otherwise.
Mintieman - I like that quote.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Does it have to be one or the other?
Aww, that's what I was coming to say.
*sulks*
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Jhai, If you consider the circumstances, i.e. Socrates was pretty much assured of being given the choice of exile or death, I find it difficult to begrudge him some arrogance. He had been a highly respected member of the city who had a large group of equally or more prominent people coming against him. I always saw the apology as a sort of self funeral oration of the type Marc Antony gives in Julius Caeser. Socrates was trying to establish himself as a wise and innocent man done to death by the envy and lies of the powerful whom he frightened. If he could stick that image in people's minds, it would come back to enhance his reputation and cause trouble for those who condemned him.
If nothing he said was going to change the outcome, I think going out with a bang like this is pretty understandable.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
But according to Plato, the vote only went against him 280 to 220. If 30 people - i.e. 6% of the jury - had voted the other way, he would have been acquitted w/o any sort of penalty, and his accusers would have had to pay 10 miens - not a small sum.
If you read the Apology closely, you can see several points in the intial defense where Socrates gets the Athenians riled up through his "big talk" or boasting. Then, he gets them angrier in the second part, when he gets to propose his punishment. First he suggests getting free meals in the hallowed Prytaneum (an insult), then he suggests paying one mien (another insult), then he finally suggests 30 miens. But by this time, everyone is just angry - and they vote for the death penalty (which is the punishment suggested by the accusers) instead.
In Xenophon's account he doesn't even propose a penalty for himself, leaving the jury with no choice but to give him the death penalty.
One of the big questions concerning the trial in modern literature is "Why did Socrates want to die?"
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I dunno about wanting to die. He had enough followers that had he wanted to escape he could have. I was always under the impression that he felt a person ought to be subject to their govt and to take justice and injustice from them as a civil duty. For the betterment of the entire state.
I could be wrong, perhaps Socrates was not really noble. It doesnt help we have absolutely NOTHING he wrote first hand, its all 2nd hand.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I've always read that as Socrates knowing going in that there were enough people arrayed against him that he'd either be exiled or killed. It just sounds so much to me like someone being flippant in the face of his firing squad and, as you said, he hurts his case several times in a way he'd have to be aware of. It's the only way I've been able to make sense of it.
However, it was a very different time and he thought much differently than I did. Also, as I don't think much of Socrates as a philosopher (although he's obviously an important historical figure), I haven't really given it that much thought though.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
Socrates was a brilliant jackass. The best of both worlds.
Posted by B34N (Member # 9597) on :
Didn't Socrates coin the term Sophite or is that your point?
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
Since Socrates was, in point of fact, not a Sophist, I cannot answer the question.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)