The Figure of Socrates - Essay Example

Like with most ancient figures, Socrates is a man whose life is one part mystery, one part historical and biographical spectacle. He was, in his lifetime, a true enigma—a puzzle for the entire span of the Athens city-state to solve. And like most ancient figures, we should not seek to avoid separating Socrates the man from Socrates the philosopher, for the two are not so easily differentiated. It seems, according to most sources, that Socrates’ whole life consisted of philosophy and the search for truth; it is this overriding commitment to the love of wisdom which led to Socrates’ ultimate downfall at the hands of his fellow citizens. Socrates was truly one of the few philosophers in history to make a significant attempt to question and fundamentally change the methods and paradigms of philosophical examination. Although most of our current knowledge of Socrates comes down to us from second-hand sources, the nature of Socrates’ life as a man and as a philosopher seem to shine as brightly for any one man in throughout the course of history (Nails). Socrates’ trial and death seemingly mark the birth of philosophy—with his influence stretching far beyond the boundaries of the tradition. Socrates, as the founder of a grand tradition, exemplifies a life to many which is paradigmatic for the contemplative rational being. It is to this grand figure that we now turn an explorative eye, in order to grasp the truth about the man and the philosopher. The question is whether one must know the man first to get to know the philosopher, or to know the philosopher first to get to know the man. The arguments for either approach are compelling: in one respect, Socrates was a human being completely devoted to a life of contemplation and a search for truth—thus making him fundamentally a philosopher. But, as Aristotle would say, the existence of a philosopher is predicated of the existence of man, for without there being a man, there would be no philosopher. Accordingly, we will follow the second approach: to broach the topic of Socratic philosophy from the backside—getting straight the facts of Socrates’ life, and then moving on to the facts which define his contributions to philosophy as a whole. According to Socrates, and fellow critics, the governance of Athens had become crooked and disgracefully inept—in stark contrast to the Age of Pericles only a few years before. “Philosophical” quarrels had become mere demagoguery: ploys to convince others; aspirations for political power slowly supplanted justice. Socrates knew that Athenians spoke of their values fluently, but seldom lived according to them—and even more infrequently examined them. In response, Socrates formed a practice of asking outwardly naive questions that ensnared his opponents within their own uncertainty and duplicity, and deconstructed the posturing of the times. And critical of their long-held convictions, he spoke “the unexamined life is not worth living.” He often said of that he is a “gadfly”—an insufferable pest with an agonizing bite—holding his fellow citizens from ever becoming as arrogant and pompous as they could have been (Solomon). What is known substantively of Socrates’ life as a man comes down in sources from dialogues of Plato and Xenophon, both of whom were devoted students, and the comedic plays of Aristophanes. The comedies of Aristophanes offer a satirical view of Socrates and those devoted to his teachings. Although by no means literal, Aristophanes’ characterizations of the philosopher are descriptive in the sense that they portray the man in addition to the widely-recognized thinker. Aristophanes’ The Clouds makes Socrates look absolutely outrageous. The Athenian public took pleasure in Aristophanes’ mockery as a gentle type of retribution for Socrates’ regular denigrations. The “clouds” refer to the bewilderment which one means when he says of someone having his head in the clouds. Aristophanes most likely articulated public opinion when he portrayed Socrates as a mere master of verbal trickery. Socrates’ students, however, practically worshipped him. They spoke of him as “the bravest, wisest and most upright man of our times” and identified him as a martyr in the name of the truth in a corrupt society (Solomon). Indeed, the cost of his philosophy was not just the lampooning of playwrights, as we shall see. The other secondary sources that provide us with the most information about Socrates themselves present special challenges, such as Plato’s usage of the character Socrates in developing his own philosophy. So difficult is distinguishing the historical Socrates from the literary Socrates of the texts in which he is used—and, furthermore, from the Socrates of later interpreters—that the full question is commonly spoken of as the Socratic problem. Each century, and each intellectual movement, creates a unique Socrates of its own, for it is no less true now that we do not have the “real” Socrates but only a collection of analyses, each of which corresponds to one hypothetically possible Socrates (Nails). What can be constructed as the biography of Socrates commences simply with a boy, son of Sophroniscus and of the midwife Phaenarete, born in Athens around 469 b.c. His family was respectable but at the same time humble. As a child, Socrates gained the standard instruction in gymnastics and music, and years later introduced himself to both astronomy and geometry—doing so by studying the methods of the pioneers of culture and thought in Greece. His education, typical of the young Athenian citizen, included both instructions in the language of his mother and in readings of the great Greek poets (Mavia, Socrates: The Man and His Philosphy). After his adolescence, Socrates is known to have served the Greek armies as a foot soldier (a hoplite) and fought at the battle of Deliurn, as well as at Amphipolis and Potidaea. His service is known to have been commended by friends for his endurance and bravery on the field of battle. However, while he executed his duties as a Greek citizen, he neither acquired nor wanted political position. Socrates said that the “divine voice” had cautioned against politics, apparently because office would mean the forfeiting of principles (Mavia, Socrates: The Man and His Philosphy). It was somewhere in the middle period of his life that Socrates relinquished any semblance of a real profession and made of himself a self-styled seeker of truth—a philosopher. However, unlike others, he did not seclude himself. But neither did he open a school, as some had done. Socrates, instead, chose to disavow any role as “teacher” or “instructor”, and instead practiced his craft by conversing as he walked, or, “to prattle without end”. Socrates, in the early morning, would visit the public walks, attend the gymnasium for body training, and stop by the school where youths were being instructed. Socrates would make it a habit to be in the marketplace during its most busy hours, and he would spend most of his day in this public arena (Mavia, Socrates: A Life Examined). The other party in his conversations would be anyone—citizen or not, young and old, rich and poor alike. He would do so as others stood by and watched, hearing what he had to say. Before long, Socrates could draw an audience almost automatically: his conversations were thought-provoking, instructive, and humorous all simultaneously. Visitors to the marketplace, just as Socrates made it a habit to converse, made it a habit to listen. What made Socrates special was, after all, the almost religious nature of his quest for flushing away ignorance (Mavia, Socrates: The Man and His Philosphy). In the earliest stages of Socrates’ life as a philosopher, a friend and follower named Chaerephon consulted the Oracle at Delphi, and asked whether any man was wiser than Socrates, to which the Oracle responded that there was none. Socrates, oddly, did not find this to be an accolade; instead, it confused him. He asked himself whether he had any wisdom, on any subject. Socrates, searching for the answer, decided that in order to measure his own knowledge, he must have some standard by which to measure it. To this end, he resolved to evaluate his own knowledge in the context of that of his fellow citizens. By questioning so-called “wise” politicians frankly, Socrates found that these men’s wisdom was not wisdom at all. After noting the evident lack of wisdom in his fellow citizens, Socrates was left to the conclusion that his wisdom consisted not of his superiority over others, but in his consciousness of his ignorance. From this conclusion, Socrates developed a life-long goal: of questioning men from all professions about their knowledge, and to force them to be conscious of the ignorance which characterizes wisdom (Mavia, Socrates: The Man and His Philosphy). Continuing with the context of Socrates’ biography, we skip past the many years he spent completing his self-assigned mission of rational enquiry. Socrates’ freedom as a citizen of Athens was cut short, for in the year 400 b.c., the philosopher was indicted on charges of “for not worshipping the gods whom the city worships, and for introducing new divinities of his own; next for corrupting the youth”, and for which “the penalty due is death”. Socrates’ trial was held before 557 citizen-judges of the court. Socrates’ student Plato recorded the proceedings of the trial in the work entitled Apology (Mavia, Socrates: The Man and His Philosphy). The philosopher chose to dwell on that mission of revealing to men their true ignorance, ultimately for their benefit. At trial, he too declared himself a community blessing to Athens. He pronounced that on the event that the judges chose to preserve his life, he would continue in the same course, all the while regarding the specter of death with sheer apathy. By a majority, Socrates was found guilty—sentenced to death by drinking hemlock. On the last day of his life, Socrates conversed with his students and companions on the soul’s immortality. He then subsequently drank the poison, and died in 399 b.c. (Mavia, Socrates: The Man and His Philosphy). It should be noted that in prison, Socrates was given numerous opportunities to escape his fate. But he refused. He had always taught that “the really important thing is not to live, but to live well.” To “live well” meant, along with the more pleasant experiences of life, living in accordance with one’s principles. When his friends and companions sought to convince him otherwise, Socrates replied by speaking of his belief that the good of his “soul” was far more important than the fleeting delight in life. Accordingly, he favored death for his ideas than life as a hypocrite.(Nails). Socrates’ death is a time when his life and central tenets of his philosophy intersect vividly. First and foremost, Socrates was a moral philosopher—a thinker devoted to questioning what it means to live a good human life. Socrates’ primary contribution to metaphysics is his well-known dialogue on the immortality of the soul, captured immediately before his death in Plato’s Apology. However, Socrates is also known to have discussed difficult topics in epistemology and ethics especially throughout his life (Mavia, Socrates: A Life Examined). The Socratic Method, or the elenchus, is a process of examination wherein a thinker investigates the implication of another person’s position, and in the process to encourage rational ideas and thinking. The elenchus is centered on an epistemological theory of concepts—treating concepts as that which all people think of when speaking of those entities perceived by the senses. Incidentally, in every man there exist notions common to all men, and hence, possess universality. These concepts then comprise the deepest levels of knowledge. The Socratic Method, accordingly, seeks to identify the concepts underlying the thoughts of his fellow citizens, and then correct their contradictions and prejudices (The Radical Academy). Socrates treats true knowledge as universal; hence, the knowledge of the sophists is, in some respects, incomplete for serving the real purpose of knowledge. He held that understanding through concepts constitutes true science insofar as concepts have a distinct universal character. Most of the Socratic dialogues written by either Plato or Xenophon contain the characteristic structure of Socrates’ examinations into conceptual understandings. Naturally, not all dialogues achieve the ideal, or correct, definition for a given concept. When this occurs, it helps even to support Socrates’ conclusion about himself that his superiority lay in his awareness of his own ignorance. When dialogues fail to realize their purpose of attaining true definitions, the dialogue is truly an act of self-mockery—an acceptance of Socratic ignorance (The Radical Academy). Socrates’ philosophical contributions, too, are ever-lasting. Not only did he inspire subsequent Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle to construct timeless theories of right action, but Socrates’ own thought stands on its own accord. Socrates’ ethics consists, not surprisingly, most fundamentally of statements of epistemology. Self-knowledge, Socrates would claim, is a sufficient condition for one’s ability to lead a good human life. In this vein, knowledge is intimately connected with virtue; so, if knowledge is learned, so is virtue. Contained within his claim that “the unexamined life is not worth living”, Socrates posits that one ought to seek wisdom prior—or apart from—ends outside of ethical action; that is, knowledge is the means to ethical action (Archie). Like most philosophers, Socrates ascribed a significant role to reason in the proper functioning of the human soul. He presumed that reason was the means to achieving the eudaimonia that the Greek philosophers like Aristotle after him spoke of. In other words, when one completes the function of a human being, he is achieving happiness—a state measurable by a long-term impression on the soul. And, like most ethical theories of the Ancient Greek philosophers, Socrates developed teleological notions of right action: any vitally mechanistic model of action is erroneous. Human action, accordingly, is driven to some end, and likewise there is some purpose to nature (Archie). In broaching the subject of evil, Socrates similarly draws on more epistemological subjects. Socrates held that all rational beings naturally good, for good is perfective of the function of human beings. Consequently, failures to reach the good—or cases of evil—are done by sheer ignorance and lack of knowledge on how to obtain such goods. Socrates would make this case by arguing that no rational being would try to harm himself; consequently, when harm does come, that person was seeking the good, but lacked the knowledge of how to achieve it (Archie). This examination of the life and philosophy of Socrates shall end by once again noting the necessary division between the two Socrates under discussion here: Socrates qua philosopher and Socrates qua man. The central thesis advanced throughout this discussion has been that in order to understand one, we must understand the other—just as to understand a computer, one must understand its constitutive parts. By looking at both his biography and philosophy, the hope has been to instruct and enlighten simultaneously both areas under investigation. Examining both separately requires acknowledgement of the point at which the two intersect: his death. The trial and death of Socrates ultimately is what justifies the modern view of him as a martyr for the faculty of reason and the practice of philosophy. His commitment to principles and willingness to apply theoretical principles of metaphysics and epistemology to his own life, even while facing death, characterize the attributes heralded in Ancient Greece as virtues. Socrates’ grand display of heroism at his trial demonstrates an astonishing continuity between Socrates the soldier and Socrates the respected philosopher of the agora. The life and death of this legend remain something to be admired and revered, even thousands of years later. Works Cited Archie, Lee C. The Ethics of Socrates. 21 November 2008 . Mavia, Luis E. Socrates: A Life Examined. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2007. —. Socrates: The Man and His Philosphy. Lantham, MD: University Press of America, 1985. Nails, Debra. Socrates. 16 September 2005. 20 November 2008 . Solomon, Robert C. Introducing Philosophy: A Text With Integrated Readings. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. The Radical Academy. The Philosophy of Socrates. 2003 10 June. 19 November 2008 . Read More