Socrates of Platonic Dialogue - Essay Example

Socrates of Platonic Dialogue & Socrates of the CLOUDS INTRODUCTION: Socrates [470-399 BC] is one of the greatest philosophers of the human history who inspired and influenced the Western philosophy by his unwavering commitment to truth, and through the vivid example of his own life. He did not give formal instruction after the fashion of philosophers of his time, but went about engaging people in conversation, seeking, chiefly, by questions, to induce his contemporaries, and especially the young men, to think clearly and to act reasonably. Socrates devoted himself to free-wheeling discussion with the aristocratic young citizens of Athens, insistently questioning their unwarranted confidence in the truth of popular opinions, even though he often offered them no clear alternative teaching. Socrates pointedly declined to accept payment for his work with students, but despite (or, perhaps, because) of this lofty disdain for material success, many of them were fanatically loyal to him. Their parents, however, were often displeased with his influence on their offspring, and his earlier association with opponents of the democratic regime had already made him a controversial political figure. He made profession of no knowledge except of his own ignorance, and the famous "Socratic irony" was shown in his attitude of apparent willingness to learn from anyone who professed to know. The inevitable result of such conversations, however, was the reduction of the would-be instructor to a state either of irritation at the unmasking of his pretensions, or of humility and eagerness to be instructed by his questioner. It was natural that such a habit should create enemies, and Socrates was finally accused of introducing new gods and of corrupting the youth. His defense was conducted with his customary firm adherence to his convictions, and with entire fearlessness of consequences. He could, in all probability, have easily escaped the death sentence had he been willing to take a conciliatory tone, but he chose to drink the hemlock died (B.C. 399) a martyr to his unswerving devotion to truth. Socrates wrote nothing from which we may ascertain anything about himself and his philosophy. We have to depend on the information derived form the works of two of his distinguished scholars Plato and Xenophon and one his satirist Aristophanes. But unfortunately, these three sources also have quite contradictory views about Socrates which make the student of philosophy more skeptical about his philosophy. These three sources are (1) The Dialogues by Plato, the philosopher Plato, a younger contemporary and brilliant disciple of Socrates who presents Socrates as the main character in the majority of his dialogues. Plato characterizes Socrates as a prophet, a Christ-like figure whose unique way of inquiring originality of things inspires and compels us to investigate their reality and find the ultimate truth (2) The soldier and well-heeled country gentleman Xenophon (c. 430-c. 355), a petty bourgeois who presents Socrates as one of his own: a pompous, self-satisfied, rather dull Athenian aristocrat with intellectual tastes and (3) The Clouds by Aristophanes, in which Socrates is presented as guilty of impiety and against the gods. As the Socrates presented by Plato in his Dialogues differ remarkably from that of the Socrates of the Clouds presetsnted by Aristophanes, and also as there are some doubts lingering over the originality and authenticity of both of them, we have to review them separartely in detail to find the original Socrates. 2. Socrates of the Clouds: Aristophanes (448-385 BC), Athenian playwright, was first and foremost a satirist. During his lifetime Athens was facing a period of convulsive cultural and social change which provided Aristophanes ready target in the politicians, poets, and philosophers of his day. His works show no sympathy for the aristocratic party in Athenian politics. He wrote more than 40 plays. The Clouds (423 BC) satirizes Socrates and presents him engaged in meditating about heaven above and earth below and teaching reasoning for material gains. The Clouds was a personal satire, but no one in the audience took the comic playwrights attack seriously as the characters in the play were free to make fun of virtually anyone - even many of the gods - because of the temporary abeyance of social norms and rules during the festival. Only a bore would take Aristophanes' attacks personally. This same argument is used to explain Socrates' reference to Clouds in the Apology (18d). Socrates complains that he cannot confront, or even name, his more serious accusers - the people who have been slandering him in a general way for years - except, perhaps, for "a playwright" (clearly meaning Aristophanes. Many scholars use this passage to argue that the Clouds did damage Socrates' reputation, but it is possible that Plato's Socrates deliberately cites Aristophanes' comedy in order to demonstrate just how silly the people were who took this talk about him seriously. As revealed by Plato, Socrates was not a typical Athenian. He never accepted money for his teaching which made him seem abnormal. One reaction of society to the abnormal man is to laugh at him. And Aristophanes did not hesitate to take advantage of the comic potential of this unusual man. Besides, Socrates' general behavior of life also helped Aristophanes to produce his satirical comedy of this noble scholar who went barefooted on roads, didn't bother to shave or bath. The direct reference is made to this in the Clouds through Strepsiades as: "Use better language, and do not insult men who are clever and full of wisdom, who, to economize, never shave, shun the gymnasia and never go to the baths" (The Clouds). Further, Aristophanes makes fun of the way of teaching of Socrates by presenting Thoughtery or Thinkery (as the words are translated) where Socrates' disciples are engaged in pondering and meditating in funny ways. Aristophanes most probably conceived and distorted meditation method as it is believed that Socrates used to gaze over sky for a prolonged period of times. Aristophanes makes fun of it and shows us Socrates' disciples thus: STREPSIADES: [That is the Thoughtery of wise souls. There they prove that we are coals enclosed on all sides under a vast snuffer, which is the sky. If well paid, these men also teach one how to gain law-suits, whether they be just or not]. This is quite contrary to the fact as Socrates never accepted money for his teaching, if we may describe his philosophical reasoning as teaching at all. Rather Socrates used to walk into streets inviting people to argue with him and he concentrated more upon listening others arguments than lecturing himself. And it is also the fact that Socrates indulged into discovering truth and never meant to gain law-suits in order to gain material benefits. Aristophanes distorts the image of Socrates through Strepsiades that Socrates had two courses of reasoning, the true and the false, and that, thanks to the false, the worst law-suit can be gained. So far as Socrates' concept of gods is concerned, Aristophanes has comically and quite wrongly presented him asking as "By which gods will you swear To begin with, the gods are not a coin current with us" in reply to Strepsiades. And then moves on to explain his philosophy of nature and gods as: "They are the Clouds of heaven, great goddesses for the lazy; to them we owe all, thoughts, speeches, trickery, roguery, boasting, lies, sagacity". And still continues to present Socrates philosophy of nature as: "What you certainly do not know is that they are the support of a crowd of quacks, the diviners, who were sent to Thurium, the notorious physicians, the well-combed fops, who load their fingers with rings down to the nails, and the braggarts, who write dithyrambic verses, all these are idlers whom the Clouds provide a living for, because they sing them in their verses". Further, at a later stage, when Strepsiades asks was Zeus, the Olympian, not a god, Socrates replies: "Zeus! what Zeus! Are you mad There is no Zeus". And argues that those he would prove thus: "Have you ever seen it raining without clouds Let Zeus then cause rain with a clear sky and without their presence". And "Henceforward, following our example, you will recognize no other gods but Chaos, the Clouds and the Tongue, these three alone". These arguments create in the mind of audience the picture of Socrates as non-believer of gods for which he was ultimately trialed. Although, at the same time, Aristophanes showed the scientific approach of Socrates to the natural phenomenon when Strepsiades asked about clouds and thunders therein, "Who is it makes the thunder, which I so much dread", and Socrates replied "Being full of water, and forced to move along, they are of necessity precipitated in rain, being fully distended with moisture from the regions where they have been floating; hence they bump each other heavily and burst with great noise the Clouds, when full of rain, bump against one another, and that, being inordinately swollen out, they burst with a great noise". Aristophanes damaged greatly through his satirical comedy by presenting Socrates as speaking a rubbish and uncivilized language. Many a time in the play Socrates uses harsh and cursing language when irritated. He responses to Strepsiades' silly replies thus: "Plague seize the dunce and the fool! Come, perchance you will learn the rhythms quicker" "May death seize you, accursed man!" .. "You talk rubbish!". Such speeches certainly do not suit Socrates who even endures his shrewish wife with calm indifference and faces the trial against him fearlessly. 3. Socrates of Plato's Dialogues: Plato, born in 428 B.C of a distinguished family, became a disciple of Socrates at the age of twenty. In about 388, he established his school of philosophy in a garden near a gymnasium, called the Academy, and there he spent the last forty years of his life. Unlike Socrates, Plato took no part in the civic life of Athens, but he was much interested in political philosophy, and is said to have been consulted by statesmen both at home and abroad. All the works of Plato have been preserved and they take the form of dialogues, in which Plato himself appears, if at all, only as a listener, and in which the chief speaker is Socrates. As Plato developed the philosophy of Socrates, especially on speculative lines, far beyond the point reached by Socrates himself, it is impossible to judge with any exactness precisely how much of the teaching is the master's, how much the pupil's. Through the Plato's Dialogues, we come to know the charges leveled against this noble scholar and the arguments he produced in his defense. In Apology, Socrates forwards his arguments in an eloquent, convincing and logical manner and the reader at once becomes aware of the differences of the Socrates presented in the Clouds and that the Plato's Dialogues. If Aristophanes presented a comic and satirical figure of Socrates, we find a sincere, brave, righteous and just Socrates in the Plato's Dialogues. While defending in the court of law, he sums up the charges saying that: " I will sum up their words in an affidavit: "Socrates is an evil-doer, and a curious person, who searches into things under the earth and in the heaven, and he makes the worse appear the better cause; and he teaches the aforesaid doctrines to others". That is the nature of the accusation, and that is what you have seen in the comedy of Aristophanes; who has introduced a man whom he calls Socrates, going about and saying that he can walk in the air, and talking a deal of nonsense concerning matters of which I do not pretend to know either much or little - not of natural philosophy I have nothing to do with these studies" (Apology, translated by Benjamin Jowett, The Harvard Classics, 1937). The originality and basis of the charges leveled against him are well explained by Socrates himself. He addresses the jury and tells that due to his method of reasoning and disclosing peoples ignorance of their established ideas, majority of them turned against him as is the nature of mankind not to loose their conception even at the cost of reasoning. He explains that once, the god oracle said to one person that the wisest person on earth was Socrates. Having known this, Socrates thought he was not wise at all, and yet a god could not tell a lie. So, in order to justify it, he went to certain politicians about whom he believed they were wise. But when investigated, they were proved to be ignorant even though they believed they knew everything. Hence they turned his enemies as Socrates disclosed their ignorance. Then he proved ignorance of poets and then artisans, and found all of them were alike ignorant. Socrates, who believed he was also was not wise, at least admitted and knew that he knew nothing and that was the difference between him and the people. Through this investigation he made so many enemies. Finally he admits: " I myself possess the wisdom which I find wanting in others; but the truth is, O men of Athens, that God only is wise and in this oracle means to say that the wisdom of men is little or nothing; he is not speaking of Socrates, he is only using my name as an illustration, as if he said, He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing". Socrates vehemently refutes the accusation that he teaches the young men not to acknowledge the gods which the State acknowledges, but some other new divinities or spiritual agencies in their stead. He calls up Meletus and argues thus: "Did ever man, Meletus, believe in the existence of human things, and not of human beings I wish, men of Athens, that he would answer, and not be always trying to get up an interruption. Did ever any man believe in horsemanship, and not in horses or in flute-playing, and not in flute-players No, my friend; I will answer to you and to the court, as you refuse to answer for yourself .. I believe in spiritual agencies, as you say and swear in the affidavit; but if I believe in divine beings, I must believe in spirits or demigods; .. I do believe in gods; that is, if I believe in demigods. For if the demigods are the illegitimate sons of gods, necessarily implies the existence of their parents. Such nonsense, Meletus, could only have been intended by you as a trial of me (Apology, The Harvard Classics, 1937). Socrates laments the charges and invites the judgment of his listeners and judges to think for while why a philosopher, a lover of truth and a simple follower of divine inspirations could deny the existence of gods. He says: "For if, O men of Athens, by force of persuasion and entreaty, I cold overpower your oaths, then I should be teaching you to believe that there are no gods, then convict myself, in my own defense, of not believing in them. But that is not the case; for I do believe that there are gods, and in a far higher sense than that in which any of my accusers believe in them. And to you and to God I commit my cause, to be determined by you as is best for you and me". These lines clearly indicate Socrates believed in gods, and even in higher senses than his accusers believed. The presence of god is a natural phenomena and one philosopher who concentrated on discovering truth through his inquiring the realities and basis of general beliefs could not deny the presence of gods. And Socrates himself has said on many a times that he received warnings from oracle and he devoted his life on his orders to discover truth and urge people to persuade every man that he must look to himself, and seek virtue and wisdom before he looks to his private interests, and look to the State before he looks to the interests of the State. Now that the question of Socrates believing in gods is settled, let us see if his speeches are just or unjust. Apart from the ugly appearance of Socrates, as we come to know through different sources, Socrates' ability to attract people by his eloquence and attractive speeches was such of high class that people flocked around him and listen him for hours. This he demonstrates in front of the jury and reason with utter calm and dauntless style. But his speeches are not dependent upon eloquence and words only. Rather he produces logical appealing and reasoning which affirm the truth of this philosopher. One example we may forward here of his just reasoning when he argues with Meletus about his believing or not believing in gods. Socrates asks Meletus to tell the court if Socrates believed in different gods or an entire atheist. When confirmed by Meletus that Socrates was a complete atheist, Socrates forwards his reason thus: "Friend Meletus, you think that you are accusing Anaxagoras; and you have but a bad opinion of the judges, if you fancy them ignorant to such a degree as not to know that those doctrines are found in the books of Anaxagoras the Clazomenian, who is full of them. And these are the doctrines which the youth are said to learn of Socrates And so, Meletus, you really think that I do not believe in any gods". Of following nature, one example from the Apology may be cited wherein Socrates shows his indifferent to the expected death saying he received warnings from oracle for any action in which he might be in danger, but he received no warning during all this trial, hence, infer that: "I regard this as a proof that what has happened to me is a good, and that those of us who think that death is an evil are in error. This is a great proof to me of what I am saying, for the customary sing (nature) would surely have opposed me had I been going to evil and not to good". Socrates was a firm believer of nature. That is why he was fearless of death as death is also a natural phenomenon. He says: "either death is a state of nothingness and utter unconsciousness, or, as men say, there a change and migration of the soul from this world to another now if death is like this, I say that to die is gain; for eternity is then only a single night. But if death is the journey to another place, and there, as men say, all the dead are, what good, O my friends and judges, can be greater than this" . 4. Conclusion: from the above lines we may conclude that the charges put against Socrates of impiety, corrupting young men and disbelieving in gods were not true as he himself acknowledged the existence of gods even in higher than his accusers did. Aristophanes, the satirist, produced the comedy just the way such satirists and playwrights are supposed to. And his purpose was to amuse the audience, not to bring a scholar to a serious trial. But as it is confirmed by Socrates himself in the Apology, he had made many so called wise men his enemies by investigation their wisdom and revealing there was none. Such a way of discovering truth ultimately turns one to be hated, and that is what happened with Socrates. Second, Socrates' links with the aristocrat class aroused doubts in the public that he disliked democracy also contributed turning people against him. Third, the basis of Socrates' inventing new gods is simply that he argued and investigated ideas and set beliefs by asking questions from anyone who was ready to converse with him. And it is also a fact that while conversing, Socrates put many bold questions of the reality of things and many a time, after revealing the men their hollowness of their beliefs, did not satisfy them with any plausible answer which resulted in increasing their doubts that Socrates was inventing new gods although it was his profound and curious nature that insisted him to know the exact base of the set beliefs. As public cannot comprehend such methodology of seeking truth through doubting and investigating it, certainly they were right to suspect his own beliefs. It further aggravated as the men in power had turned against him fearing Socrates could damage their authority and might influence young men of Athens, so they brought him under trial with the notion to exile him. It is sure that Socrates could escapes the charges and consequent sentence if he showed any sign of compromise on his pursuit of reasoning and discovering truth. But problem with Socrates was that he was a believer and persistent seeker of truth. Hence he was asked to drink the hemlock which he did bravely saying: "The hour of departure has arrived, and we go our way - I to die, and you to live. Which is better, Good only knows" (The Apology of Socrates, The Harvard Classics, 1937). Read More