History Of The Philosophical Discussions - Book Report/Review Example

History Of The Philosophical Discussions (1) Socrates faced a desperate situation of his life-time and what was at stake was his life itself. It was not a life and death situation. It was life or certain death. His faults were his beliefs and convictions. They were not acceptable by the yardsticks of the society to which he belonged. “The modern image of Socrates on trial is of a defiant philosopher standing alone against his city and daring to repudiate its narrow-minded superstitions.”(p.9) Socrates was constantly at an ideological war with his political community. “The Platonic dialogue Euthyphro takes place just before Socrates’ trial on a charge of impiety and corrupting the young. The theme of the Euthyphro is a question—“what is piety?”—that is crucial to understanding the charge against him.”(p.9) The main features of the Platonic dialogues are Socrates’ method of question and answers, his zeal for definition, his avowed professions of ignorance, and his main thesis that virtue is knowledge. This is almost on par with the contemporary conception of scientific understanding than ordinary knowledge. Plato’s dialogues have a distinct charm about them. They do not create a fictional world but are thought-provoking, and kindle the inquisitiveness of the reader. They set philosophical discussions, with an initiation depiction-like a wealthy man’s house, a religious festival, a visit to a prison, a long walk on a hot day etc-- The topics seem to be simple, from the ordinary walks of life, and they provide vivid portraits of a social world. A clear picture of the social mores prevailing at that time emerges. Socrates is not the invention of Plato; one sees acceptance of teachings of Socrates in Plato’s dialogues. Socrates is the principal character of Aristophanes' comedy, Clouds; and Xenophon, a historian and military leader, wrote, like Plato, both an Apology of Socrates (an account of Socrates' trial) and other works in which Socrates appears as a principal speaker. “The Clouds” is not the yardstick to judge the distinctive mode of Socrates’ philosophizing. It is not intended as philosophical work either. The most part of it is an attack on philosophy itself--Apology does not contain a complex philosophical agenda. Nevertheless there is enough justification for accepting Socrates’ speech in Apology as reliable evidence about the historical Socrates, and thus whatever related to that speech in other works, can also be attributed to Socrates. 2) "The Clouds" is a play, not a scientific or mathematical treatise. It has characters and dialogue that respond to the need of the plot. The plot is generally relevant to the era and the conditions prevailing during a particular period of time. “Aaristophane’s Clouds puts forward in comic form a profound critique of Socrates by a leading poet of the day—a critique that appears to lend support to the much later prosecution presented in Plato’s Apology. Socrates mentions the play in his defense speech. It is a leading cause, he says, of the prejudice against him that led to his trial” (West, Introduction, p.9) Aristophanes wrote a play entitled The Clouds in which Socrates is ridiculed. The example given by him is that Socrates is floating in the air and contemplating the sun. (Which mean his ideas are not practical?) When further clarification was sought from Aristophanes the basis for such adverse assertions, he replies, "I have to suspend my brain and mingle the subtle essence of my mind with this air, which is of the like nature, in order clearly to penetrate the things of heaven. I should have discovered nothing, had I remained on the ground to consider from below the things that are above; for the earth by its force attracts the sap of the mind to itself. It's just the same with the watercress." Aristophanes creates a caricature of Socrates and makes fun of his ideas. He ridicules them as impractical, esoteric speculation about the cosmos, and the Athenians do not appreciate it. According to him the philosophical ideas of Socrates, go beyond the ethical. The Problem of the Historical Socrates is manifold. He finds a permanent place in the history of Western philosophy on account of the exposure given to his ideas by Plato in his dialogues. The problem is to discover as to what extent the Platonic Socrates is true to the historical Socrates. A reasonably accurate method to reconstruct the Historical Socrates is possible with the biographical details about Socrates in Plato’s dialogues. As a youth Plato was a student or follower of Socrates, though in the strict sense of the terms, Socrates did not accept anyone as a student and follower. The historians need to have a guarded approach about the tendency for idealization of Socrates. Aristophanes’ description of Socrates is unreliable since it is intended as satire. The mental reach of Aristophanes could be limited. Didn’t the fox say that the grapes are sour, when it could not reach to it? Plato uses Socrates as a mouthpiece for his own views. Socrates is neither against nature nor does he follow it blindly. He propounds truth in the light he perceives it. (3) “The Unjust Speech shows that the position of the Just Speech is inconsistent and argues that its official or public side should reflect its seamy underside. The Unjust Speech defeats the Just Speech, finally be pointing to the audience—all the leading men, the lawyers, the rhetoricians, and the poets—who are nothing more than “buggers.” The Just Speech has tried to find justice in the authoritative beliefs of the Athenian City, but the Unjust Speech shows him that even the authorities of the city do not live according to those beliefs.”(Nichols, 1987, p.21) The speech of Socrates is termed as unjust by those accusing of doing so, for the simple reason that he was preaching against the belief systems that were practiced then by the rulers and the intelligentsia of the day. Amongst others, the main charge was atheism of Socrates. Meletus reiterates his accusation that Socrates believes in no gods. Socrates corners him to admit that the one who is engaged in divine activities must believe in a god and he is engaged in divine activities. Socrates defends himself that he is carrying out the divine will (which he later says that he first heard as a child) and he lives the philosophical life. Socrates further asks, one who is just, involved in divine activities, should not fear death, as such fear is an indication of pretended wisdom. This according to him is based on the assumption that death is bad for an individual, but the fact is that one is ignorant of the matter. Socrates admits that he has no knowledge of the underworld (what happens to an individual after death), he claims to know how to live the present life. It is bad and shameful to do wrong, one should obey the superiors, whether god or man. Socrates says that it is his mission to strive for the best and try for perfect state for the soul. It is excellence of the soul which leads to wealth and other material goods, rather than vice-versa. Socrates further says that he is not arguing on his own behalf, but to the defense of the jury. He, thus, turns the tables on the proceedings. He argues that he cannot be harmed by his accusers, as the soul of a better man cannot be harmed by his accusers. He is doing a useful mission from the gods. By condemning such an individual, the jury can bring harm to themselves. Socrates was never worried about death, but was not willing to do anything unjust or impious. He was not a teacher by profession, and he did not engage in discussions for money. Anyone could participate in the discussions and he questioned all-the rich and the poor. What he did was inspired by divinity. The clincher of his argument was that none of those he allegedly “corrupted” or any of their relatives framed charges against him. Socrates concludes his speech by giving detailed explanation about his refusal to beg for mercy. He considered it shameful to do so. He wished to teach and persuade the jury, so that they would uphold the correct principles of jurisprudence. (4) About the need of God to an individual, Socrates, states, “ Further, if Gods are guided by knowledge and do not give merely willful commandments, the guidance provided to men by divine law must be superfluous for one who is wise enough to discover for himself the truth of the good, noble and just. The wise man has no need of gods.”(p.14) The wisdom of Socrates and his style of talk—the defense of truth and plain speaking—was the problem with the so-called intellectuals of the day. The oracle at Delphi (a kind of prophet) had said that no man is wiser than Socrates. Socrates was perplexed with this answer. He considered himself to be not wise but then oracle does not lie! He investigated the issue further and made efforts locate someone wiser than himself and interacted with some but found them to be unwise. He told them frankly about his views and earned their displeasure. He also concluded that there is an inverse relation between reputation and wisdom. By honest comparison he discovered that those who are reputed to be wise are not wise at all. The politicians were an ignorant lot, knew nothing, but the poets were a little better, they were inspired. But they were individuals with poor knowledge. The position of the craftsmen was the same as that of poets. The assertion of oracle that human wisdom is worthless was found to be perfect by Socrates’. Socrates exposed the so-called pseudo-intellectuals and by doing so, he was doing service for the oracle. Socrates did not invent new God. Nor did he follow the Gods of the city, the Delphic Oracle. He just spoke plain truth and the so-called wise people interpreted his versions as per the level of their thinking—mostly they were unable to appreciate him and considered him to be a rebel against set procedures. (5)An honest philosopher will not give what the younger generation wants, but what the younger generation needs! The combustible youngsters of the era to which the philosopher belongs, may not appreciate or accept his viewpoint. “Socrates’ standard was truth about right or wrong. He did not think that truth was easy to come by. He sometimes wondered if it could be discovered at all. But he never gave up trying. He never stopped “conversing and examining both myself and others” on the topic of human excellence of virtue. (Apology 38a)” (p.10) Socrates was far ahead of his times. The laws, just because they are laws of the land, are not above board. Socrates went against the laws of Athens, but that was not done to corrupt the youth. He showed them a new path, guided them to think boldly. The youth question an elder that does not mean that they are disobedient. Stagnant water stinks; fresh water has to gush in. The ideas of Socrates were revolutionary. Socrates points out that if what Meletus is saying is correct, there would be only one person in the world that could train a horse and the rest would ruin the training (Apology 42). In secular issues, what is true at a particular time may not be for all time to come. Socrates was merely questioning Meletus about his beliefs. Socrates has no intention to corrupt the youth whatsoever, and if that is the consequence of his arguments, that was quite unintentional. Even in a grim situation Socrates maintains his sense of humor, by tendering a humorous generalization to Meletus, to study his reaction. The poser was—is it possible for an individual to be good even if has acted in an evil manner at some time in his life. Socrates, cannot be held accountable under the Greek law, “does not mention unintentional offenses” (Apology 43) And how to specifically prove that Socrates did corrupt the youth! No one was able to identify, what he taught was so destructive. Socrates had a piece of advice for the court as well. That it was a place of correction and not of instruction. The responsibility of the court is to interpret the law to the best of its ability and for the welfare of the accused, and not to confuse issues to put the interest of the accused in jeopardy. The so-called corrupt approach is also circumstantial. Is an individual corrupt if he is driving the car fast, more than the prescribed speed limit, to get his pregnant wife admitted to the hospital, who is in intense labor pains?“Socrates is a doer of evil and corrupter of the youth, and he does not believe in the gods of the state. He has other new divinities of his own."(Apology 41) Socrates defends himself by stating that the definition of corruption as perceived by him and Meletus are different. He also states that he is not harming the youth at all. According to him truth is more important than persuasion and eloquence. Now coming to the specific charge against Socrates that he corrupted the youth, as they followed his methods and resented the unwise people, the accusers failed to prove their charges as to how Socrates did it. It was a vague charge without any substance or proof. Many philosophers faced such accusations—that they talk about the supernatural, deny existence of gods, and present weak arguments intelligently to make them stronger. I am thoroughly convinced that Socrates in no way corrupted the youth. He was their guiding star and wished to teach them the sterling qualities of head and heart. He never taught them to be disrespectful to the elders. He believed and preached that devotion and providing real service to the people is a noble act that purifies the inner self of an individual. Just because of majority of the people did not appreciate his views, that does not mean what he said was not truth. The wise saying goes—the truth has necessarily go to three stages, derision, appreciation and finally a willing acceptance. Most of the ideas of Socrates, as enumerated by Plato have stood the test of time; many of them have led to serious discussions and also acceptance by the thinkers of the time. ********** Works Cited: Nichols, Mary P. Socrates and the political community: an ancient debate; Google Books, 1987. West, Thomas G. (Author), West, Grace Starry (Author) .Four Texts on Socrates: Plato's Euthyphro, Apology, and Crito and Aristophanes' Clouds : Cornell University Press; Rev Sub edition (October 1998) Read More