Socrates was not only an innovator in the method which he developed,
but also in the topics of conversation which he emphasized. Aristotle summarized the original
contributions of various philosophers before him, including those
of Socrates and his own teacher, Plato.
In his Metaphysics he indicated that when Plato
was young. he "first became familiar with Cratylus and with
the Heraclitean doctrines that all sensible things are ever in
a state of flux; these views he held even in later years."1
In the dialog named Cratylus Plato
has Socrates express the idea that all things move, flow, and
change.2 The inspiration which Socrates felt during this dialog
of which he was unsure, is probably of the Heraclitean philosophy.
Socrates declared that the ideas he was expressing here were not
his own.3 However, it was not unusual for Socrates to discuss
whatever ideas were current and of interest to his listeners.
In the Theaetetus there was a discussion of Heraclitus'
notion that everything is in motion as compared to Parmenides'
view that everything is at rest. If things were always changing
in every way, then we would not be able to use names with any
accuracy.4 Some sort of a balance of these two theories apparently
seemed necessary to Socrates and Plato,
as the Cratylus is itself a discussion of the origin of
names, and Socrates mentioned Anaxagoras' idea that notions like
justice are mental.5
After mentioning Cratylus, Aristotle
gave his understanding of what Socrates and Plato
taught. Socrates, however, was occupying himself with ethical
matters and neglecting the world of nature as a whole, but seeking
the universal in these ethical matters, and concentrated thought
for the first time on definitions. Plato
accepted his teaching, but he held that the problem applied not
to sensible things but to entities of another kind-for this reason,
that the common definition could not be a definition of any sensible
thing, as they were always changing. Things of this sort, then,
he called Ideas, and sensible things, he said, were all named
after these, and in virtue of a relation to these; for the many
existed by participation in the Ideas that have the same name
as they. Only the name "participation" was new; for
the Pythagoreans said that things exist by "imitation"
of numbers, and Plato said they
exist by participation, changing the name.6
Toward the end of the same work, Aristotle
repeated the same view that the idea theory was developed in response
to the Heraclitean philosophy of change; ideas were differentiated
from sensible things. He repeated that Socrates was concerned
with the virtues of character and was the first to search for
universal definitions, though Democritus had defined the hot and
the cold, and the Pythagoreans had studied such things as opportunity,
justice, and marriage in terms of numbers (numerology). Aristotle
also credited Socrates with using inductive arguments (based on
cases or examples). "But Socrates did not make the universals
or the definitions exist apart: they, however, gave them separate
existence, and this was the kind of thing they called Ideas."7
Certainly Socrates used definitions and was aware of universal
concepts, but there is a fine line between this and Plato's
Ideas as formalized entities. It is possible that Socrates could
understand the difference between the visible world and the intellectual
world and hold that mind is the cause of all things, as he had
learned from Anaxagoras, just as he also believed that to truly
know what is good is to do it, without separating ideas and knowledge
from the lives and actions of people. Socrates seemed to have
been less theoretical and speculative than Plato
and Aristotle, as he focused
his energy on the practical questions of how to live the good
life.
Xenophon emphasized this point
rather strongly. He stated that Socrates was not concerned with
"the nature of the universe" or "the laws that
govern the phenomena of the heavens." He would ask those
who studied these things if "their knowledge of human affairs
was so complete that they must seek these new fields for the exercise
of their brains; or whether it was their duty to neglect human
affairs and consider only spiritual things?" Furthermore,
he noticed that they never seemed to agree.
Some hold that Being is one,
others that it is infinite in number;
some that all things are in perpetual motion,
others that nothing can ever be moved at any time;
some that all life is birth and decay,
others that nothing can ever be born or ever die. 8
He also pointed out that those who study human nature can apply
their knowledge for their own good and for anyone else they choose,
and he asked of what use was the knowledge of natural phenomena.
It is important to note here that Socrates was not against scientific
research which might have some use, but he was merely skeptical
of the value of idle speculation.
Then Xenophon listed very specifically
the type of questions which Socrates did discuss. His own conversation
was always considering human things, such as: What is holy, what
is unholy; what is beautiful, what is shameful; what is just,
what is unjust; what is prudence, what is madness; what is courage,
what is cowardice; what is a state, what is a politician; what
is government, what is a governor; and other such questions the
knowledge of which made "gentlemen" (good and noble
men), while ignorance should involve the reproach of "slavishness."9
Before we examine Socrates' views on each of these topics, let
us first consider his attitude toward the more customary educational
pursuits of his time.
The usual education for the young Greek citizen consisted of
gymnastics, music, and grammar. Gymnastics referred to the various
aspects of physical training including preparation for fighting
in battle. Music to the Greeks meant the various arts of the Muses
such as playing the harp and flute, singing, dancing, poetry,
and perhaps painting and sculpture. Grammar involved learning
to read and write. Socrates supported the idea of studying these
basic subjects, though he was not a teacher of them.
Socrates exercised his own body and recommended that others do
so also. Xenophon recorded
how he counseled Epigenes, who was out of shape, on the value
of physical training. Epigenes rationalized that he was not an
athlete, but Socrates pointed out that in case of war it was those
in bad condition who were killed or disgraced themselves, while
the physically fit fought valiantly and could help their friends.
Even though military training was not required by the state, he
ought to consider the advantages of good health caused by physical
conditioning. Bad conditioning and bad health could even lead
to loss of memory, depression, discontent, and insanity.10 In
another passage Xenophon told
us that Socrates very seriously urged his companions to take care
of their health. His advice centered around the idea that each
person should understand one's own unique characteristics.
You should learn all you can from those who know.
Everyone should watch oneself throughout one's life,
and notice what sort of meat and drink
and what form of exercise suit one's constitution,
and one should regulate them in order to enjoy good health.
For by such attention to yourselves you can discover
better than any doctor what suits your constitution.11
In Xenophon's Symposium
Socrates praised the dancing of a boy at the banquet because he
used all parts of his body actively. Then he requested to learn
the steps from the dancing master. The others laughed when he
said he wanted to dance, but Socrates asked in a series of rhetorical
questions whether they were laughing because he wished to improve
his health or get more pleasure from food and sleep or so that
unlike long-distance runners and boxers he could give his body
a symmetrical development by exercising his arms and legs or because
he would not need a partner for exercise or because he could do
it in any convenient place, or were they laughing because he had
a large paunch and wanted to reduce it. In fact Charmides had
caught him dancing just the other day, and after he had heard
the reasons he went home and practiced shadow-boxing.
In Plato's Republic
we have Socrates' polished view of gymnastics and its relation
to music. He suggested that training begin in early years and
continue through life. Socrates reminded his listeners that it
is the soul which improves the body and not the reverse. Discipline
of bodily habits was especially important for the guardians of
the state. This would prohibit excessive sleep, fancy dinners,
courtesans, and other luxuries. They should have no need of lawyers
and doctors who invent names for diseases and prolong illnesses
by pampering them. In Plato's
view the healthy should live and the diseased should be left to
die.12 Whether Socrates' attitude was this harsh is hard to say.
The traditional view was that gymnastics was for the body and
music for the soul. However, Socrates here indicated that the
purpose of exercise was not just to build muscles but also to
stimulate the courageous spirit. Socrates described the danger
of too much gymnastics without music as a harsh and ferocious
temper, while the opposite extreme leads to softness and effeminacy.
By balancing the two together the philosopher would be gentle
yet strong.
When a person allows music to play upon one
and to pour into one's soul through the funnel of his ears
those sweet and soft and melancholy airs,
his whole life being spent in the delights of song:
in the first stage of the process the spirit within one
is tempered like iron and made useful,
instead of brittle and useless.
But if one carries on the softening and soothing process,
in the next stage one begins to melt and dissipate,
until one has wasted away one's spirit
and cut out the muscles of ones soul;
one becomes a feeble warrior.If the spirit is naturally weak. one reaches this result quickly,
but if one is high-spirited the weakening makes one
excitable, easily irritated by the slightest provocation,
and as quickly burnt out.
Instead of being spirited
one becomes irritable, peevish, and discontented.In gymnastics, if a person takes hard exercise
and is a great eater, not engaging in music and philosophy,
at first the fitness of one's body fills one with pride and spirit;
one becomes braver and bolder than one was.
Then what happens?
If one does nothing else and has no contact with the Muses,
does not even that love of learning in one's soul,
having no taste of study or inquiry or discussion or the arts,
become feeble, deaf, and blind,
since one's mind never wakes up or receives nourishment,
nor are one's senses purified?
One ends up becoming a hater of reasoning, unmusical,
and never using persuasion by words,
one achieves all one's ends
like a beast by violence and savagery;
and in one's ignorance and ineptitude
one lives without propriety and grace.As there are these two principles of human nature,
I would say some god gave to mankind
these two arts, music and gymnastics,
for the service of the spirited and philosophical in them
(only indirectly for the soul and body),
in order that they may be harmoniously adjusted
by the proper degree of tension and relaxation in each.
Then the one who blends gymnastics with music
and applies them most appropriately to the soul
is the one we may most correctly call the perfect musician
and harmonist, much more than the tuner of strings.13
In the Republic
Socrates and his friends agreed that music and poetry were useful
in the important early education, though they felt there should
be censorship for the protection of the children. The false and
ignominious stories about the gods which the poets have invented
should be eliminated, for the young were not able to understand
the allegorical meanings. God is good and should be portrayed
as such. God would not represent itself falsely; the lies of the
poets were not useful to the gods or to people; therefore the
false tales were to be rejected.14 Discouraging and erroneous
myths about the underworld and the nature of the soul also must
be cast out in order to remove the fear of death. Weakening and
pitiful lamentations should be avoided as should excessive laughter
at the expense of the gods. The poets should not show the heroes
behaving oppositely to the virtues and qualities of good character.
The purpose of poetry is to reveal the truth, not what is false.15
Socrates would have poetry show people admirable examples so that
there would be positive patterns for the masses to follow.
In terms of style, Socrates saw tragedy and comedy as imitative,
some poetry as simply narrative, and epic poetry as a combination
of the two. The guardians should not imitate bad qualities. The
musical harmonies and rhythms can be simple or complex, but the
simple ones are to be preferred since the others may be confusing.
The harmonies which are soft and indolent are not considered to
be beneficial to the education for strong character; rather the
military strains which lead to self-control and courage are to
be selected. Musical instruments are to be reduced to the lyre
and harp for the city and the pipe for the country shepherds.
Harmony is an important quality, but it is chiefly to be found
in the life of virtue where the beauty of the soul harmonizes
with the beauty of the body. Love should be true, temperate, and
free of sensual indulgence and crudeness.16
Such a radical proposal did not appear in the works of Xenophon
nor any other Socratic except Plato,
and it is therefore likely that he took some ideas of his teacher
and went beyond them. Although we may not agree on all the reasoning
or the conclusions because many important values may not have
been examined (such as Aristotle's
purgation of the emotions theory), still it is useful to note
the search for the ideal development of character always keeping
the good in mind. In this sense the discussion was Socratic, as
Socrates was always investigating what is beneficial for people.
In Book X Plato again represented
poetry as inferior because it is imitative. Here is perhaps Plato's most definitive statements
of the ideas as separate entities (except perhaps the Seventh
Letter) which Aristotle
told us was Plato's unique contribution.
Here three levels are presented. There is the single idea of the
bed as created by God, physical beds made by carpenters, and representation
of a bed as imitated by a poet or painter. This last is only an
imitation of the appearance of the physical bed which is based
on the idea of a bed. Therefore the poetic and artistic imitator
is the farthest from truth and real knowledge. There are three
arts related here. The user of a things knows it best from actual
experience. The maker is instructed by the user and has belief
but not knowledge. The imitator has neither belief nor knowledge.
Poetry is also seen here as being deceptive and as dragging people
down into negative emotions such as pity, sorrow, fear, buffoonery,
etc. Although they admit that they love poetry, according to these
arguments they must expel it from the ideal state.17 It is also
useful to keep in mind that the purpose of this discussion was
to delineate the perfectly just state, and that poetry was being
examined here in relation to that according to certain definite
criteria. This author feels that these criticisms of poetry are
certainly open to criticism themselves, but this is not the place
to explore those areas.
Even disregarding the radical ideas of Plato,
Socrates could certainly be critical of poets and rhapsodes. In
Xenophon's Symposium
he agreed with Antisthenes' comment that these reciters who had
memorized Homer were not really wise. "No," said Socrates,
"and the reason is clear: they do not know the inner meaning
of the poems."18 Here we can perhaps infer that Socrates
placed some value on understanding the inner meaning of poetry.
In Plato's Defense
of Socrates, Socrates told how he discovered that the
poets were not wise but rather inspired as were prophets and oracles.19
At the end of Plato's Symposium we find Socrates
arguing with the drowsy Agathon and Aristophanes that the genius
(spirit which does the inspiring) of tragedy and comedy are the
same.20 Because of his own genius, or divine sign, it is possible
that Socrates placed more value on inspiration than the rationalistic
Plato, even though Socrates recognized
that inspiration did not necessarily give true wisdom.
The Ion showed Socrates questioning a Homeric rhapsode
to see if he possessed the wisdom concerning what is portrayed
in the poems. Socrates discovered that this reciter was not able
to answer questions about the material to demonstrate that he
was wise. Using the analogy of the magnet Socrates concluded that
God inspired the poet who inspired the rhapsode who inspired the
listeners.21 Since he was primarily searching for wisdom, Socrates
discovered that poetry was not the answer.
In discussing the ideal state in the Republic
Socrates argued that women should receive the same education as
men because their nature is not essentially different for learning.
Here again we have a very theoretical discussion, considering
that there were no female disciples of Socrates. Another radical
idea, which was not practiced as far as we know, was the plan
that the guardians should have their wives and children in common.
This revolutionary challenge to the family system has not been
adopted by any major culture. The reasoning here was to substitute
a wider expansion of love and brotherhood among the whole community
rather than limiting it to the family. However, results so far
have shown that blood is still thicker than water. Matrimony was
still to be held sacred while licentiousness was discouraged,
but the plan to do so was to reward heroism and excellence with
conjugal freedoms-a kind of aristocratic eugenics. The others
were to be deceived by telling them the pairings were because
of a lottery. Women were to bear children from the age of twenty
to forty, while men could beget from twenty-five to fifty-five.
Children were not to know who their physical parents were, but
the entire state was to be as one family. Children would have
special nurses and be trained for war.22
It is hard to imagine the practical side of Socrates suggesting
such a contrived and artificial system except merely as an interesting
topic of discussion. In fact the ideal state for Socrates did
not require an army because all the citizens would live moderate
and self-controlled lives. It was only when Glaucon, Plato's
brother, objected to the simplicity of this life-style and requested
that they have the modern conveniences of sofas, dining tables,
sauces, sweets, etc. that Socrates realized that they wished to
examine not the best state but a luxurious state. He agreed to
this as an exercise to see what the origins of justice and injustice
are.23 Therefore the breakdown of the family and private lives
of the citizens in this greedy and feverish state was more a result
of the dialectical proposal of his listeners than it was his own
personal recommendation. The result from this point of view represented
more of a compromise with the reality of people's greed and lusts
than a portrayal of the true and practical ideal of Socrates'
personal life-style.
Socrates occasionally discussed women, children, family, and education.
He often recommended the famous lady, Aspasia, as a teacher. As
the mistress of Pericles, she was believed by some to be the "power
behind the throne." A few fragments and references to the
dialog of Aeschines called Aspasia indicate that Socrates
recommended her to Callias for the education of his children.
He was surprised that men could be educated by a woman, but Socrates
described the achievements of some of the famous women in history.
Aspasia not only influenced Pericles, but she raised Lysicles
after Pericles' death from obscurity to a prominent position in
Athens. He then described a counseling session she did for Xenophon and his wife. She Socratically
asked them if they preferred the more valuable possessions of
their neighbors to their own lesser ones, and they did. Then she
asked if they would prefer to have their neighbor's husband or
wife if they were better, and they were each silent. Her conclusion
was that they ought to improve themselves so that they each would
have the best husband and the most excellent wife.24 Socrates
apparently had great respect for women who were truly wise.
In Xenophon's Oeconomicus
there is a long description of how Ischomachus educated his wife
to cooperate with him in household management. Socrates appeared
to be very eager to learn these things and pass them on to the
inquiring Critobulus.25 Diogenes Laertius recorded a clever quip
of Socrates when someone asked him whether he should marry or
not. He replied, "Whichever you do you will regret it."26
This comment really struck a chord in the indecisive Kierkegaard.
Xenophon narrated an extended
lesson given by Socrates to his son Lamprocles when he observed
the young man's attitude toward his mother was negative. He reminded
him of the gratitude he ought to have towards her for all the
benefits she had given him. He explained how a man chooses a wife
to bear his own children, how she labors for the child, giving
her own food, and after birth raises and cares for it, how she
guesses the needs and likes of the child and supplies all these
things over many years without knowing what she will get in return.
He asked if Xanthippe's brutality was worse than a wild beast's
or her words any more harmful than an actor's threats in a tragedy.
Did she not do everything she could for his own good? Parents
are more deserving than anyone of gratitude, and if one is ungrateful
to them, what will other people or the gods think of one?27 According
to Xenophon, Socrates' feelings
of family loyalty were very strong.
This is further demonstrated in his counseling of Chaerecrates,
the brother of Chaerophon, when Socrates discovered they had been
quarreling with each other. He pointed out to Chaerecrates that
he only had one brother, even if they did have to share the family's
possessions. Is not community better than solitude? Why cannot
there be friendship between brothers? He said, "Common parentage
and common upbringing are strong ties of affection."28 However,
Chaerecrates said that Chaerophon treated him worse than everyone
else. Socrates asked if he could manage a horse without knowing
the right way. Although Chaerecrates was willing to return kindness
for kindness, his brother only annoyed him. Socrates suggested
that he could tame a growling dog by kindness rather than by getting
angry. Chaerecrates felt the need for some wisdom, and Socrates
asked him if he wanted an invitation to dinner, what would he
do? He replied that he would first extend an invitation. A similar
process would work in doing a favor for the other person. Socrates
suggested that Chaerecrates, even though he was the younger, was
the most worthy to begin this process of kindness. He said, "Worthless
people, it is true, yield most readily to gifts, but kindness
is used to be most successful with a gentleman."29 Socrates
offered the analogy of the hands which are given by God to help
each other? Hands cannot stretch more than six feet apart, but
brothers can help each other at long range.30 Again Xenophon
showed us the practical Socrates, offering good advice in personal
situations as they arose.
Xenophon gave us a pragmatic
Socrates also in terms of the extent the study of any given subject
should go, the criterion being usefulness. In geometry that meant
being able to measure and divide land and compute the yield. Xenophon wrote that Socrates was
not unfamiliar with the more complicated problems; but he felt
that they could take up a lifetime, and there were more useful
studies.31
Astronomy was similarly held to be valuable as far as it was useful,
which was to tell the time of day, month or year, and for navigation.
Socrates attended lectures on the revolutions of the planets and
such things, but Xenophon deprecated
the investigations of Anaxagoras regarding the heavenly machinery
and that the sun is fire and pointed out some of the differences-notably
that sunlight is essential to vegetation while fire withers things.
Arithmetic likewise was to be studied as far as it was useful.32
Here Xenophon seemed to be
giving his own experience with Socrates and also defending him
against the charges which were leveled at Anaxagoras and other
innovative thinkers. He did hint that Socrates had curiosity and
knowledge in these areas. It is likely that Socrates was probably
somewhere in between Xenophon
and Plato on these points, or
perhaps he comprehended them both. Plato's
views will be discussed when we examine the education of the philosopher.
In his treatise, the Oeconomicus, Xenophon
gave us a Socratic definition on estate management. Socrates began
by showing the young Critobulus that it is valuable to be able
to manage one's property and possessions well, and that true wealth
is what is useful and beneficial. Therefore the correct use of
money and possessions is very important. Next he aided Critobulus
in becoming aware that he needed to learn how to manage his money
better. Then Socrates delineated the elements of household management.
For studying the relationship between the husband and the wife,
he offered to introduce the young man to Aspasia. Socrates discoursed
for a while on the values which farming teaches. When Critobulus
asked what makes some farmers so much more successful than others,
Socrates recounted a long interview he had with the gentleman
Ischomachus.
Socrates drew the successful gentleman out on how he educated
his wife to cooperate with him in managing the household in a
well-ordered and industrious manner, and how he taught his wife
to change from using cosmetics to the natural beauty of good character.
Socrates who only considered himself to be an idle chatterer and
not a true gentleman, asked Ischomachus to explain the occupations
of a gentleman. Then Ischomachus described his piety toward the
gods and his pursuit of wealth so that he could benefit his friends
and the city. He described his daily routine as a country gentleman
in taking care of his farm and servants. He explained to Socrates
how he educated his stewards to good will, diligence, as supervisors,
and to be just. Ischomachus taught Socrates the art of agriculture
by Socratic discussion from the nature of the land and soil to
sowing, reaping, threshing, and winnowing to planting; he gave
a summation of the art of farming as taking loving care of everything,
and gave a description of the kingly man.33
This dialog has often been ignored by Socratic scholars as merely
the views of Xenophon, but
a careful examination shows not only the use of Socratic questioning
but also his helpfulness in counseling Critobulus, his defining
of the subject, his step-by-step reasoning, and even the pedagogy
used by Ischomachus on his wife and servants, and the ideals towards
which he educated them. Naturally Xenophon
was more interested in estate management and agriculture than
Socrates was, but continuously Socrates demonstrated the desire
and ability to discourse intelligently with people on any subject
of concern to them. Apparently Xenophon's
personal philosophy was much influenced by his contact with Socrates
when he was a young man. Again Xenophon
portrayed for us a pragmatic Socrates who by his conversation
became extraordinarily useful to his friends.
Xenophon also described some
of Socrates' visits to the artisans for which he was well-known.
In conversing with an armorer whose breastplates were more expensive
than others, Socrates discovered that they were better because
of his making them with better proportions so that they fit and
were easier to wear. Socrates pointed out that some people's bodies
were not well-proportioned. How then could he make it well-proportioned?
The answer was that he made it to fit, and a good fit is well-proportioned
in this case.34 Here the ideal is not a pre-conceived pattern
of beauty, but rather what is going to be practical for the individual.
Xenophon gave Socrates a different
point of view on art than is found in Plato.
When he visited the house of a painter, he asked him if painting
is a representation of things seen. It is. Then he asks if artists
in copying types of beauty have difficulty finding a perfect model
and therefore combine the beautiful details of several to make
the whole figure look beautiful. They do. He inquired whether
they can reproduce the character of the soul. The painter asked
in response how they could imitate what is not visible. Now Socrates
began to probe for the subtle and real level of experience.
"Do people commonly express the feelings
of sympathy and aversion by their looks?""I think so."
"Then cannot this much be imitated in the eyes?"
"Undoubtedly."
"Does it seem to you that the joys and sorrows of their friends
produce the same expression on men's faces,
whether they really care or not?""Oh no, of course not; they look radiant at their joys,
and downcast at their sorrows.""Then is it possible to represent these looks too?"
"Undoubtedly."
"Moreover, nobility and dignity, self-abasement and servility,
prudence and understanding, insolence and vulgarity,
are reflected in the face and in the attitudes of the body
whether still or in motion.""What you say is true."
"Then these, too, can be imitated, can't they?"
"Undoubtedly."
"Now which do you think the more pleasant sight,
people who reflect a beautiful and good and lovable character,
or those who are shameful and worthless and hateful?""By God, there is a great difference, Socrates."35
Socrates had a similar conversation with a sculptor about "faithfully
representing the form of living beings" by careful and accurate
attention to details such as "the flesh wrinkled or tense,
the limbs compressed or outstretched, the muscles taut or loose."
These make it more convincing. Socrates further pointed out, "Does
not the exact imitation of the feelings that affect bodies in
action also produce a sense of satisfaction in the spectator?"
If these feelings are accurately portrayed, "It follows,
then, that the sculptor must represent in his figures the activities
of the soul."36
It is clear that Socrates understood art as an imitation, but
in these cases he did not make a judgment about it being farthest
removed from reality. Rather he focused the attention of the artists
on the soul and the human expression, perhaps so that they could
improve the quality of their work to the benefit of them and the
spectators.
Since just about all he ever did was talk with people, the study
of language was important for Socrates. Prodicus was the reigning
expert on grammar and semantics, but Socrates admitted that he
was too poor to take his fifty-drachma course.37 However,
in the Cratylus Plato
showed Socrates in long discussion on the meaning of names and
the origins of words. A unique characteristic of language is that
it can be true or false. Things and actions have their own reality
and nature. Is this true of speaking? Teachers use names and words
as instruments, and therefore must depend on the lawgiver or inventor
of names. The sound and the form of the syllables ought to fit
the thing named. Because the user of something knows it best,
the dialectician, who uses words in question and answer, ought
to guide the lawgivers or name-makers. Then Socrates analyzed
many names from Homer to show how the name matches the nature
of the person. Assuming that the first inventors of names must
have been philosophers, Socrates indicated the hidden meaning
or origin of various concepts and names of gods. These are often
somewhat contrived or fanciful explanations in order to make certain
points. Most names were derived from other words, and some have
foreign origins. However, the earliest roots of words were invented
according to the sounds of the letters and the rhythm of speaking.
Socrates then analyzed the basic meanings of the different letters.38
Socrates asked Cratylus if he agreed with the discussion he had
just had with Hermogenes, but Cratylus denied that names could
be false at all. For Socrates language is an imitation like pictures
and therefore may be an imperfect or false portrayal of the reality.
Socrates pointed out that although the ideal is for the sounds
to reflect the meaning, many words are merely based on customary
usage. The result is that the meanings of many words are contradictory
to their expression. Cratylus had held that knowledge of words
gives knowledge of the reality, but Socrates asked about the very
first name-makers and the distinctions we can make between the
true and false use of language. Therefore we must be able to know
things without words. Is it not better to know the things themselves
rather than their names? However, if everything is always changing,
then we could never really know anything. He said,
But if that which knows and that which is known exist forever,
and the beautiful and the good and every other thing also exist,
then I do not think that they can resemble a process of flux,
as we were just now supposing.
Therefore Socrates cautioned Cratylus concerning the doctrines
of Heraclitus and warned him not to be led astray from reality
simply by the power of names.39 Socrates loved to play with words
and their meanings as his tools in the dialectic, but he was also
aware of their danger in being able to be true or false and of
their limitation as being only a representation of reality.
Rhetoric was a subject introduced by the sophists which became
quite popular in the time of Socrates. Those who wished to be
successful in the political assembly or the law courts would pay
money to learn how to be a good speaker. The best of the rhetoric
teachers was said to be Gorgias, and Plato
portrayed him in a discussion with Socrates. Socrates asked him
what rhetoric is, and he discovered that it is the art of persuasion
using words. However, when Gorgias added that it is used in the
courts and assemblies concerning the just and unjust, Socrates
labored to show him that since it can be used for right or wrong
it cannot of itself be just. Socrates in fact defined rhetoric
as a kind of flattery rather than a true art, which is always
concerned with what is good.40
Another well-known rhetorician was Lysias, and in the Phaedrus
Socrates gave a critique of what was said to be a speech written
by Lysias. To do this Socrates ignored the content and examined
the rhetorical manner which he found repetitive.41 After giving
a couple of speeches himself, Socrates discussed with Phaedrus
the principles of good and bad speaking. First the speaker should
know the truth, but this is not enough to persuade, just as the
art of speaking cannot be divorced from the truth. Even the deceiver
has to know the truth and how to disguise things in its likeness.
In further criticizing Lysias' speech Socrates indicated the features
it lacked. The speech ought to be organized like a body with head
and feet. The subject should be defined to show its unity and
then classified into its various divisions. A speech should begin
with an introduction, followed by a presentation of facts; third
comes the proofs, fourth the future probabilities, then confirmation
and refutation, and finally the summation. Ultimately oratory
is the art of enchanting the soul, and the orator therefore should
learn the differences of human nature by experience and reflection
so that one's speech can be perfectly suited to one's listeners.
But the highest form of rhetoric is to speak what is acceptable
to God.42 Here Socrates described the various levels of rhetoric
from the art of clever lying to the textbook outline of the speech
to the human psychology of communication and ultimately to the
ethical and mystical oneness with God.
The dialog concluded with Socrates' critique of the written word
as being artificial rather than alive in that one cannot ask it
questions. Books serve though for recreation and amusement and
as memorials to be treasured against the forgetfulness of age.
However, dialectic is a far more serious and useful art.43
Another traditional subject related to politics was the science
of warfare. Xenophon recorded
how one of Socrates' companions desired to become a general. Socrates
pointed out to him that if the state is to trust him he had better
learn the art of the general. The man returned after studying
tactics, whereupon Socrates indicated various other aspects of
generalship such as providing equipment and supplies, and he must
be "resourceful, active, careful, hardy, and quick-witted."
If he is to arrange the men properly, he must be able to tell
the good men from the bad. Finally Socrates sent the man back
to his tutor for more instruction.44 Understanding the personal
goal of the man, Socrates was able to guide him and test him so
that he could move closer to it.
On another occasion Socrates questioned a man who had been chosen
as a cavalry commander. Since he had never been selected as the
commander of the horses and their riders, he ought to know how
to improve the horses. This being understood, Socrates suggested
that he look to improving the men by training them to mount and
fight in the kind of terrain occupied by the enemy. He must also
raise their spirits and give them courage by his speaking ability.45
The result was that the man became more aware of his duties as
a cavalry officer.
Nicomachides, a scarred veteran of battle, complained once to
Socrates that the Athenians had elected a business-man as general.
Socrates pointed out to him that the man had demonstrated his
skill at handling men and supplies in that his choruses had always
won the prize in the theater. A good business person knows how
to make subordinates willing and obedient, put the right person
in the right place, punish the bad and reward the good, win the
goodwill of those under one, gain allies, keep what one has, and
be strenuous and industrious in his work; all of these abilities
were required by a good general. The only difference is the fighting,
and yet the business person knows the economic advantages of victory
and the heavy losses of defeat. Success in public affairs is very
similar to success in private life.46 Thus Socrates helped the
man gain a wider perspective of the situation and perhaps to become
more accepting of the choice.
Xenophon also recorded a conversation
between Socrates and Pericles' son prior to a war with Boeotia
in which he gave the young Pericles numerous suggestions for raising
the Athenians' morale and even some strategic ideas for defending
Athens. In drawing upon the past experience of the Athenians,
Socrates continually looked at how it could be of positive advantage
to them. Their heroic pride should be a heritage of inspiration,
and their recent defeats should sober them up to take these challenges
seriously. Even though their military discipline and training
was slack compared to the Spartans, yet they did maintain their
ships, excelled in athletics, and obediently followed the chorus-trainers.47
Socrates knew when and how to meet discouragement with intelligent
reasoning and even a pep talk to encourage a positive attitude.
Whereas Xenophon showed Socrates
giving practical suggestions in real, historical situations, Plato described some of Socrates'
ideal plans in the Republic.
Children were to be trained and prepared for war by having the
opportunity to observe battles from a safe distance. Cowards were
to be demoted and heroes rewarded with honor and favors from their
beloveds. No Greeks were to be enslaved, and the soldiers were
to exercise self-control by not despoiling the enemy's dead. In
fact fighting between Greeks was especially discordant and should
be replaced by friendship among all Greeks.48 The purpose here,
which may be more Platonic than
Socratic, was to provide incentives for courageous deeds.
Most of the Republic
is an attempt to formulate a just state. Even though they recognized
it does not exist anywhere on earth, Socrates indicated there
is a divine pattern in heaven for whoever wishes to contemplate
it.49 The state they were imagining began with a simple life based
on a division of labor. Once luxuries were requested, expansion
of territory and war became necessary.50 Specialization led to
a division of classes also. The guardians, however, would have
no money or private property; therefore the soldiers would be
disciplined and self-controlled. The state must remain small enough
to remain unified and well-ordered. The statesmen should exemplify
wisdom, the guardians courage, and the whole state must be temperate
and self-controlled. Justice would result when each person did
one's own proper business.51 This form of government was called
aristocracy, originally meaning rule by the virtuous or most excellent.
Although this type of government had never been found, Socrates
had made a careful study of political systems and apparently was
the first not only to propose an ideal but also to delineate the
major patterns of government he had observed.
In Book VIII he described the four principal political systems
and how each tended to degenerate from the one immediately above.
He showed also how the larger state reflects the individual psychology
which is prevalent in the community. "States," he said,
"are as people are, because they grow out of human characters."52
Timocracy, which is government based on honor and ambition, develops
out of aristocracy because of negligent eugenics and the rise
of the military character over the philosophical nature. The timocratic
person loses interest in culture and becomes ambitious. That one
treats slaves with contempt but is respectful to free men, is
obedient to authority and a lover of honor and power. That one
despises riches when young but becomes avaricious when older,
forgetting virtue. This character is formed when one's mother
is always complaining that her husband and her have lost their
prestige because he is not eager to struggle for power or money
as he lets his thoughts center within himself. The servants also
encourage the boy to strive for honor and position while his father
attempts to give him wisdom. The result is:
He being not originally of a bad nature,
but having kept bad company,
is finally brought by their mutual influence to a middle point,
and gives up the kingdom which is within him
to the middle principle of aggression and passion,
and becomes arrogant and ambitious.53
Oligarchy or plutocracy, which is the rule of the wealthy,
occurs because of an increase in the private accumulation and
expenditure of money. As the citizens grow richer, they think
less of virtue, and soon rich people are honored above all others.
They become lovers of money, and possession of property becomes
a qualification for citizenship. Now neither the wise nor the
honorable are ruling, but merely the rich. Another result is that
as the rich get richer and the poor are excluded, there develops
two states in conflict with each other. The rulers are few and
have no courage for battle; but if they arm the masses, they become
more afraid of them than the enemy. Also their love of money makes
them unwilling to pay taxes. Those who are driven out of business
or lose their jobs become the unemployed and useless drones who
drain the state and often turn criminal. How does the plutocratic
person arise? When one sees one's father pursuing honor and ambition
but floundering on the sinking ship of state as his position of
prestige and his property are taken from him, the son humbled
by poverty looks down on ambition and strives only to become wealthy.
To do so he becomes frugal and stingy, even cheating if the opportunity
presents itself.54
Democracy develops as the powerful wealthy buy up the estates
of the spendthrift youth. The poor are becoming eager for revolution,
but the rich mollify the drones by giving them hand-outs. The
rich meanwhile live in luxury and idleness, caring only for pleasure
as they ignore virtue and the poor. Finally on some pilgrimage
or march the lean poor men notice the weakness of the fat rich.
Realizing their natural strength and the weakness of the divided
state, the poor classes either by revolution or some other means
take over the government. Then everyone has an equal share of
freedom and power, and governmental officials are elected. Because
of the freedom this spangled state will have a variety of characters
and constitutions. There is a great tolerance even in forgiving
condemned criminals, but in this wild liberty many principles
of order and good taste are trampled under foot by the mob. The
democratic person originates as one's miserly father tries to
train one in his middle-class ways, but the son becomes enamored
of pleasures and desires which are tacitly valued. He associates
with the drones and eventually his desires and pleasures overcome
his miserly upbringing, often after a fierce battle within himself.
He calls insolence breeding, anarchy liberty, waste generosity,
and impudence courage; the young man trained in necessity becomes
a libertine of useless pleasures. He cares not who is in the government
as they are all the same to him, and he spends his life going
from one fad to the next.55
Tyranny results from the insatiable desire for freedom in democracy.
The democrats wish the rulers to be like the subjects and to give
in to their every whim. The family situation is parallel as the
sons no longer respect or obey their parents, since all are equal.
The teachers fear and flatter their students, and the old condescend
to adopt the gay and frivolous manners of the young, not wishing
to be thought unpopular or authoritative. All classes and both
sexes are considered equal and free. Even the dogs and other animals
run around free and undisciplined. No one cares for laws or any
kind of authority. As excessive love for money brought the economic
downfall of the plutocracy, excessive freedom in democracy leads
to the slavery of a tyranny. In democracy the idle drones increase
and feed off of the wealthy class and the working class. When
the well-to-do and workers begin to defend themselves against
these infringements, the people find a protector who, once he
has tasted blood, requests a body-guard and eventually becomes
a dictator, liberating debtors and distributing land to his followers.
He is always stirring up wars and taxing his people. Any resistance
to his authority is considered as traitorously aiding the enemy
and is ruthlessly destroyed. To maintain his rule he must rid
the state of the wise, wealthy, and valiant who might challenge
his supremacy. This inverted purgation removes the best and leaves
the worst. Those willing to be enslaved by him become his supporters.
The tyrant seizes the public treasuries and when these are exhausted,
lives off the people. If they rebel, he punishes them cruelly.56
This understanding of the types of political systems and human
characters was probably elaborated and embellished a great deal
by Plato, but it is undoubtedly
true that Socrates studied and discussed these questions with
a depth and clarity never before approached. Xenophon
gave us only Socrates' brief definitions of the forms of government.
Kingship and tyranny in his judgment were both forms of government,
but he believed that they differed. For government of the people
with their consent and in accordance with the laws of the state
was kingship; while government of unwilling subjects not controlled
by laws, but imposed by the will of the ruler, was tyranny. Where
the officials are chosen among those who fulfill the requirements
of the laws, the constitution is an aristocracy; where ratable
property is the qualification for office, it is a plutocracy;
and where all are eligible, a democracy.57
Socrates considered it his duty to educate capable people for
politics even though he did not participate in government himself.
When he was criticized by Antiphon for avoiding politics, Socrates
replied, "How, Antiphon, should I play a more important part
in politics, by engaging in it alone, or by taking care to turn
out as many competent politicians as possible?"58 Socrates
often counseled his companions on how to prepare oneself to be
a good ruler. Even though Aristippus turned out not to be interested
in government, Socrates indicated in conversation with him the
need for self-control as a training for rulership.59
Xenophon also recorded a conversation
between Socrates and Glaucon reminiscent of those with Euthydemus
and Alcibiades. Glaucon was anxious to become an orator and was
striving to rise in politics even though he was still a teenager.
He was being dragged from platforms and was a laughing-stock,
and so Socrates took an interest in him for the sake of his brother
Plato and uncle Charmides. Socrates
got his attention by appealing to his ambition, and then he proceeded
to question him on government. Would he benefit the city by making
it richer? Yes, but Glaucon had no knowledge of the city's revenues
nor of its expenditures. Glaucon suggested he would get wealth
from the enemies, but he had no knowledge of the relative strength
of the city and its enemies, nor of its defenses, which were already
weak. He did not know why the silver mines were no longer producing
as much or even how much wheat was available to feed the population.
One must know the needs even of one household in order to manage
it successfully; yet Glaucon could not even help his uncle. Glaucon's
excuse was that his uncle would not listen to him, but if he could
not persuade one man, how could he ever get all the Athenians
to listen to him? Socrates pointed out the dangers of acting out
of ignorance and suggested that Glaucon gain the needed knowledge
if he wished to enter public life.60 On the other hand Socrates
advised Glaucon's uncle, Charmides, to use his ability and knowledge
to serve the state, because he had something valuable to offer.61
In Xenophon, Socrates' lessons
on politics were personal and practical for the individual.
In Plato's Republic
Socrates also discussed politics with Glaucon, but here they were
attempting to formulate universal principles. They gave special
attention to the qualities of character needed for their ideal
rulers. The elders should rule, and the younger should serve.
The candidates for rulership should be tested in every stage of
their life to make sure that they always do what is for the good
of the country regardless of the temptations of pleasure or fear.
Only those who have the inner golden quality of a virtuous character
are to be selected as leaders.62
Finally Socrates proposed that the ideal is for philosophers to
be kings, and he argued that until the political leaders become
wise, the human race will have no rest from evils. The correct
use of knowledge, not mere belief or opinion which can err, is
the sure guide in all action. The true philosopher loves truth
and wisdom and the joys of the soul above all else; consequently
one will be temperate, gentle, sociable, very intelligent, and
harmonious. However, the name of philosophy has been corrupted
by sophistry and the failure of society to recognize and make
use of the true philosophers. The true philosopher is rare, because
it is easy for one's philosophical nature to deteriorate, for
many reasons. There are few from the beginning. One strong virtue
may overshadow the others and prevent the development of a well-rounded
character. Beauty, wealth, strength, rank, and other prizes of
life may distract and corrupt. The finer and more subtle natures
are often more susceptible to negative influences. The public
opinion of the masses and the force of the crowd may sway them.
They may even be tried or put to death. The only consolation for
the philosopher is that one may come to good and be saved by the
power of God. When the society is not receptive to the wisdom
of the real philosopher, then one can only live one's own life
in goodwill, keeping oneself pure from injustice. Unfortunately
Socrates felt that there was no state in existence at that time
capable of adapting to the philosopher king.63 Nevertheless Socrates
must have believed that it was worthwhile to strive toward the
ideal, and they must know what it is in order to do it.
Usually the discussions of Socrates would focus around how
to become virtuous or attain excellence. Virtue was discussed
in this general sense and also more specifically in terms of self-control,
courage, wisdom, justice, and holiness. In the Alcibiades I
Socrates convinced the young man that what people really need
in order to be happy is virtue. Therefore, if he is to help the
state, Alcibiades must first become virtuous himself; this is
done by looking at what is divine and bright and by acting accordingly.
Only the virtuous can govern correctly; virtue makes a person
free, while vice enslaves.64
In the Laches Socrates
was consulted by two gentlemen to see how their sons' souls might
be improved and made virtuous or excellent.65 A frequently mentioned
assumption was that each human faculty has its natural function,
and virtue is what enables it to function at its best. Socrates
gave the example of the eyes; their proper excellence or virtue
is seeing. Accomplishing anything in the world depends on the
soul, and consequently happiness or success depends on the virtue
or excellent functioning of the soul.66
We have described in the previous chapter Socrates' attempts in
the Meno to define
virtue and discover whether it can be taught. Many ideas were
examined, but the results were not conclusive. The main definition
they considered was that virtue is the ability to attain what
is good. However, Meno was not able to defend this when Socrates
introduced a case where someone attains what one thinks is good
by unjust means.67 However, this refutation could be easily challenged
by showing that one cannot attain true goodness by unjust means.
If injustice is bad for someone, how can this be "attaining
what is good?"
Meno was more concerned with whether virtue could be taught. They
agreed that virtue is wisdom. Because wisdom is the right use
of knowledge, and knowledge can be taught, then virtue can be
taught. However, they were not able to verify this by finding
any teachers of virtue.68 There is some confusion here also because
often wisdom is considered only to be a part of virtue. Even if
wisdom can be taught, that does not mean that all of virtue can
be taught.
Since they agreed that there are some virtuous people, Socrates
suggested that virtue may be merely caused by right belief gained
by divine inspiration.69 This idea was not refuted, and it is
an explanation of the phenomena.
In the Protagoras Socrates
questioned the master sophist on what he proposed to teach young
men-virtue. Socrates asked whether justice and temperance and
holiness are parts of virtue which is one whole. Protagoras agreed,
saying they are like the parts of the face. Socrates revealed
a contradiction in his argument in that some of these parts of
virtue can have the same opposite.70 However, Socrates ended up
showing that the virtues depend on knowledge and therefore are
teachable.71 The assumption again is that virtue is inseparable
from wisdom. This position is also maintained by Socrates in the
Phaedo where he further
stated that the virtues without wisdom are only a shadow of virtue
and have no freedom or health or truth in themselves alone.72
A fundamental belief or axiomatic truth for Socrates was the idea
that no one desires what they know is evil. Or, in the positive,
everyone desires what they believe is good. This is a basic psychological
principle of motivation. However, this does not mean that everyone
knows what is good, nor does it deny that a person may think something
is bad and still do it. Actually it is a pragmatic principle which
verifies people's values on the basis of their actions. In other
words, everyone is doing the best they can with what they know.
In the Meno Socrates
clarified, "They desire what they suppose to be goods, although
they are really evils."73
Socrates expressed the same idea in the Protagoras.
"For no wise man, as I believe, will admit that any person
errs willingly, or willingly does evil and dishonorable actions;
but they are well aware that all who do evil and dishonorable
things do them against their will."74 Xenophon
had Socrates saying the same belief, "that all naturally
love whatever they think will benefit them."75
This premise leads to another important belief of Socrates, and
that is that the remedy for bad action is to educate the person
so one will know what is good. Both Xenophon
and Plato indicated that Socrates
recommended instruction rather than punishment for those who are
in ignorance. Xenophon had
him make a distinction between those who do evil out of ignorance
or because of madness; the mad need to be kept in prison.76 In
Plato's Defense
of Socrates, Socrates said that if he had harmed anyone,
he had done so out of ignorance. Therefore he asked Meletus to
instruct him how to improve his ways rather than punish him, since
his errors are unintentional.77
In the Euthyphro Socrates
got the righteous gentleman to agree that most people do not argue
whether a wrong should be punished, but they usually debate whether
an action is right or wrong.78 This leads to the question of values.
Socrates also discussed the relations of values and the principles
of good and evil in the Lysis,
though no conclusion was reached.79
In the Theaetetus Socrates declared that the concept of
evil is a necessary relative to good, but goodness itself is divine
and heavenly. Evil therefore is only found in earthly things.
Also those who become most virtuous become most like God. Seeing
the value of the good life, Theodorus expressed the hope that
evils among mankind will be lessened. He stimulated this response
from Socrates:
But it is impossible for evils to be eliminated, Theodorus,
for there must always be something opposed to the good.
They cannot have their place among the gods,
but of necessity they hover around
the mortal nature and this earth.
Therefore we ought to fly away from earth
to heaven as quickly as we can;
and to fly away is to become like God, as far as this is possible;
and to become like God is to become just and holy with wisdom.
But, my good friend, it is not very easy to convince people
that they should pursue virtue or avoid vice,
not merely that one may seem to be good,
which is the reason given by the world,
and in my opinion is only the repetition of an old wives' tale.
Let us tell the truth,
God is never in any way unjust, but is perfectly just,
and the one among us who is the most just is most like God.
Herein is the true cleverness of a person,
and also one's nothingness and cowardice;
for knowing this is wisdom and true virtue,
and ignorance of it is folly and manifest vice.
All other kinds of seeming cleverness and wisdom,
such as in politics and the arts,
are coarse and vulgar in comparison.80
Such cleverness is only vanity, for they do not understand the pain of injustice. There are two patterns: the divine which is most blessed and the godless which is most wretched. Evil people associate with evil and think these discussions are foolish; but if they are willing to stay in such a conversation, they can be brought to the realization that their arguments are unsatisfactory.81 Discussions on virtue, then, were an important part of Socrates' work. Let us look at the main virtues he examined.
Xenophon described how Socrates
pointed out that desires could lead to slavery if a person allows
them to rule one. Gluttony, lechery, drinking, gambling, foolish
and costly ambitions, any of these can get hold of a person and
force one to give over all one's profits to these habits until
one becomes old and miserable.82
Socrates also counseled Xenophon
and Critobulus against falling into sensual passion. Kissing a
pretty face can lead to the end of liberty as one begins to spend
one's money and time pursuing these pleasures. A kiss can be like
a scorpion's sting which injects a poison that is painful and
maddening.83 Here Socrates couched his warning in a humorous analogy.
He described envy as having pain at a friend's success, which
is clearly irrational, and can only occur in a fool.84 Such an
explanation could help a person to see this pattern and perhaps
change it.
In the Phaedrus Socrates
distinguished two principles within people: the natural desire
for pleasure and rational thinking which strives after what is
best. When desire irrationally drags one into pleasure, this misrule
is called excess. There are many types, such as gluttony which
is excessive desire for food.85 In the Republic
Socrates explained the difference between necessary and unnecessary
desires. Using the same example, the desire to eat is essential
to the continuance of life, but luxuries or large amounts are
unnecessary or excessive.86
Uncontrolled desires lead to slavery and are also a characteristic
of the tyrannical person. The passionate lusts of the appetites
become tyrannical if they are allowed to rule. The person is driven
to attempt to fulfill the desires by any means, even vicious ones.
Power then can increase the corruption because circumstances are
not as restraining. Ultimately the political dictator can cause
the most misery for others and oneself.87 Here Socrates portrayed
the extreme case of vice.
Socrates must have discussed pleasure often because it is such
a strong force for most people. The Philebus is an extensive
discussion of the topic. The debate was whether pleasure or wisdom
is the good. There are various kinds of pleasure. Pleasure without
awareness of it is not really valuable, and a life of wisdom devoid
of pleasure is not desirable. Therefore neither alone is sufficient,
and it is likely we shall have to mingle them to find the good
life. To understand pleasure we must also recognize pain. Pleasure
is the restoration of harmony which often occurs after the dissolution
of a pain. The soul can also experience pleasure and pain from
expectation in the mind. Desire is the wish to restore the harmony
as anticipated by the mind. Since the mind can have true or false
opinions in it, desires or pleasures can be true or false. It
is possible also to live without pain, which is not necessarily
the pleasantest life, since it could be neutral. The greatest
pleasures, or the most extreme ones, are the grossest or most
physical, such as scratching an itch. Mixed pleasures are of the
body and mind, and they usually include hope. Then there are pleasures
of the mind and emotions such as anger, fear, desire, sorrow,
love, emulation, envy, etc. Although these are not physical, they
still mix pleasure with pain. The pure pleasures are aesthetic
and intellectual, relating to beauty and knowledge. Although they
are lesser and more subtle, these are better than the impure pleasures
which include some pain. Pleasure and pain are generated out of
each other and are not absolute essences, like the good. Therefore
it is absurd to equate the pleasant with the virtuous and the
painful with the vicious. Certainly a good person may be experiencing
pain without becoming bad because of it!88
A similar but shorter discussion occurred in the Republic.
The lover of wisdom (philosopher) has greater experience than
either the lover of honor or the lover of wealth and therefore
can get a better perspective on pleasure. Pleasure and pain are
relative to each other. Again the lack of pain is not necessarily
pleasant. Intellectual things are longer lasting and more true
than bodily things; therefore intellectual pleasures are more
real than sensual pleasures. Again the sensual pleasures are mixed
with more pain. However, both kinds of pleasures are attained
to the highest extent when reason and knowledge are guiding. While
the tyrant suffers the worst pain, the true philosopher achieves
the highest pleasures.89 Such an analysis can be helpful even
to those who seek a life of pleasure.
The virtues which restrain and govern the desires for the sake
of excellence are self-control and temperance. Xenophon
gave us samples of Socrates' discourses on self-control (enkrateia).
Socrates asked his friends who they would trust to govern the
state or to educate their children or to take care of their possessions:
a slave of the belly or wine or lust or sleep? If they would not
choose such a slave, then they as masters ought to watch to be
sure they do not become vicious and harm themselves by stealing
or mischief.
Should not every person hold self-control
to be the foundation of all virtue,
and first establish this firmly in one's soul?
For can anyone without this learn anything good
or practice it in a worthy way?
Or what person that is the slave of one's pleasures
is not in bad shape, body and soul alike?90
Xenophon recalled a conversation
with Euthydemus typical of the ones Socrates held to remind his
friends continually of self-control as an aid to virtue. Socrates
asked him if he valued freedom, and then asked if he considered
the person free who is ruled by one's bodily pleasures. They agreed
the uncontrolled are the worst slaves because they are ruled by
the worst things. Wisdom and prudence are dulled and lost, and
the uncontrolled makes bad choices which turn out to be harmful.
The uncontrolled do not even experience as much pleasure as those
who are able to discipline themselves; they attempt to fulfill
their desires so fast that there is no pleasure at all, while
those who can wait enjoy greater satisfaction in eating, drinking,
sex, and sleeping. The self-controlled also take delight in learning
many things useful to their friends and the city. The uncontrolled
are like beasts, not caring at all for virtue, but the self-controlled
can see what is best and most pleasant, choosing the good and
rejecting the bad.91 Here Socrates showed the consequences of
the two types of life.
Temperance or self-restraint (sophrosune) was explained
by Socrates in the Cratylus as being derived from "salvation"
(so) and "wisdom" or "prudence" (phronesis).92
Unfortunately there is no exact English equivalent; it can mean
moderation in desires, self-control, temperance, chastity, sobriety,
etc. Plato's Charmides
is an attempt to define it, but it is far from conclusive. It
is certainly not quietness and modesty as Charmides suggested.
Neither is it merely doing one's business. It is more than doing
good actions because it requires self-knowledge. In testing self-knowledge
as a definition, they decided it must be a science of something,
but it could not be knowledge merely of knowledge. The knowledge
needed for happiness is the knowledge of good and evil. Now we
are examining wisdom as the science of sciences, but this too
fails if it has no practical application as does, for example,
medicine, the science of health.93 This is another example of
Socrates getting people to think about something and to realize
they did not know what it is, as they had thought.
In the Phaedo Socrates
explained that many people become temperate and control their
passions and appetites in order to get more pleasure out of them.
They abstain from some pleasures because they are overcome by
others; in other words, they are temperate for the sake of intemperance.
However, true philosophers are temperate in every way for the
sake of wisdom and virtue.94 In this case Socrates transcended
temperance to move into wisdom, which includes temperance.
In the Republic temperance
or the control of pleasures and desires is described as a process
of self-mastery. Mastery is when the better principle rules over
the worse. This is reflected in the aristocratic state as rule
by the better.95 Here Socrates described this virtue on the individual
and collective levels.
Again in the Gorgias Socrates suggested to Callicles that
"a person should be temperate and master of oneself, and
ruler of one's own pleasures and passions."96 However, Callicles
believed that temperance and justice were only practiced out of
fear, and that any person who has power would be foolish to be
temperate. For Callicles pleasures were the real value of living.
Socrates described intemperance as the annoyance of always trying
to fill a leaky vessel. Socrates showed that a person may not
have good and evil at the same time, though one can experience
pleasure and pain together; therefore good and evil are not the
same as pleasure and pain. The good is prior to pleasure because
people seek pleasure and all things because they are good; but
goodness is not sought for its pleasure. The assumption here again
is that the essential purpose of all actions is for some good.
The flatteries or sham arts, such as beautification, cookery,
sophistry and rhetoric are sought for the pleasures they give
the body and soul, but the true arts of gymnastics, medicine,
legislation, and justice are practiced for the good of the body
and soul. Temperance and justice are aids in being lawful and
orderly for the good of the body and soul. Thus the temperate
soul is good, and the intemperate is bad.97 Socrates delineated
the difference between pleasure and goodness and also how they
are expressed in different activities.
Courage, or literally "manliness," is considered
one of the cardinal virtues. However, Socrates often pointed out
that truly courageous action depends also on knowledge or wisdom
so that the action will be right. In Xenophon,
Socrates demonstrated this point to Euthydemus and concluded,
"Those who know how to deal well with terrors and dangers
are courageous, and those who are mistaken in this are cowards."98
It follows from this that to some extent courage can be learned.
Socrates recognized that natural abilities varied, but he also
believed that they could be greatly improved by application. "From
this it is clear that all people, whatever their natural gifts,
the talented and the dullards alike, must learn and practice that
in which they wish to excell."99 Here Socrates was realistic
and practical and encouraging.
Most of the Laches
is an attempt to define the nature of courage with the help of
two famous generals. When Socrates asked what it is, Laches began
with the common understanding that courage is fighting in battle
without running away. However, Socrates pointed out that the Scythian
cavalry were very skilled at fighting on the run; besides courage
also showed up in perils at sea, in disease, in poverty, or in
politics. What quality does courage give in all these cases? Laches
then suggested endurance of the soul as its universal nature.
Foolish endurance did not seem wise; so Laches qualified it as
wise endurance. However, Socrates suggested cases that indicated
to Laches that wisdom usually makes it easier for one to endure,
and it appears then as being less courageous than the one who
endures without the knowledge. Then Nicias quoted a statement
he once heard from Socrates that "every person is good in
that in which one is wise, and bad in that in which one is unwise."
Therefore he offered the idea that the brave person is wise. However,
courage is certainly not all wisdom, such as knowing how to play
a musical instrument. Nicias then qualified it as "the knowledge
of that which inspires fear or confidence in war, or in anything."
Socrates asked if by defining courage as wisdom, that excluded
all animals, even the lion, from being courageous. Laches ridiculed
such an idea, but Nicias having been educated by sophists made
a distinction between boldness and courageous actions, which are
wise actions. Finally Socrates showed that this definition described
all of virtue whereas they had already agreed that courage was
only a part of virtue.100 In fact Socrates often ran into this
dilemma.
In the Protagoras Socrates
held that the courageous were those who are confident in their
knowledge and wisdom.101 In the Phaedo
Socrates made the same point about courage as he did about temperance,
that most people are only courageous out of fear of something
worse. Only the true philosopher faces death courageously without
fear of anything at all.102
In the Republic where
the three aspects of the soul were described as the appetites,
the passion or spirited, and reason, the virtues corresponding
to each of the three were held to be temperance for the appetites,
courage for the aggressive spirit, and wisdom for the reason.
One is considered courageous whose spirit retains
in pleasure and in pain the commands of reason
about what he should or should not fear....
One is temperate who has these same elements in friendly harmony,
in whom the one ruling principle of reason and its two subjects
are in agreement that reason ought to rule, and do not rebel....
And we call one wise who has in one
that small part which rules and proclaims these commands,
that part having a knowledge of what is
for the interest of each of the three parts and of the whole.103
We see here the interrelation of these virtues and the indispensable role of wisdom.
According to Xenophon, Socrates
believed in using human knowledge in those areas which could be
reasonably studied and inquired into, such as crafts and arts
and sciences. However, in regard to questions which man does not
understand, such as future events, he advised his friends to consult
the gods through an oracle. "If any person thinks that these
matters are wholly within the grasp of the human mind and nothing
in them is beyond our reason, that person, he said, is irrational."104
He considered it just as irrational to inquire of an oracle when
human reasoning and study could solve the problem.
In fact, in human affairs knowledge of how to do something is
what leads to success in that activity. Socrates explained this
to the young Pericles in terms of being a good general, that if
he did not have the knowledge needed, he seeks out someone with
good advice from whom he can learn.105 Experience shows us that
any given activity is governed by the one who knows how to do
it, while others who do not know will gladly take orders from
the knowledgeable one. This is true in government, on a ship,
in farming, even in spinning wool where the women govern the men.106
Note that in Xenophon's examples
he is not talking about abstract knowledge but the practical knowledge
of how to do something. Plato
demonstrated the same point as Socrates showed the young Lysis
how even his slaves were trusted by his parents above him in matters
which they knew better, while he was free and useful in those
subjects he had learned, such as reading and writing and music.107
In the Laches Socrates
pointed out that questions ought to be decided by those who know,
not by mere majority vote. The opinion of one knowledgeable person
may be of more value than the opinions of all the rest.108 Socrates
was always ready to take advice from someone who knew.
In the Euthydemus Socrates
asked what knowledge we ought to acquire. He answered his own
question with the obvious-knowledge which will do us good. Even
if we know how to find gold, we would still need to know how to
use the gold. Any knowledge, whether of money-making or medicine
or any other art which can make something, is not sufficient unless
we can use the thing made as well. Even the royal or political
art, although it does use certain things, does not grant every
wisdom which is useful to man. Thus the knowledge which benefits
by use was not found.109 Yet for Socrates we can see that usefulness
was an important criterion for beneficial knowledge.
The Theaetetus is an extended discussion in search of an
understanding of what knowledge is. Theaetetus gave examples of
the arts, but Socrates wanted a definition. Theaetetus suggested
that knowledge is perception, the notion of Protagoras that man
is the measure of all things. However, Socrates pointed out the
limitations of this subjective relativity, and by using memory
he showed that knowledge is more than sense perception. Also everyone
cannot know because many people disagree.110 Experts are able
to know better, as the wise can measure things more accurately.
The soul may perceive through the eyes and ears, but it is also
able to think about and combine these perceptions and also grasp
ideas directly, such as being, identity, beauty, and the good.
Learning occurs through education, and truth is found by reasoning,
not by mere sense.
When sense perception was shown not to be knowledge, Theaetetus
suggested that knowledge is true opinion. What then is false opinion?
This problem they were not able to solve. It cannot be simply
confusing perceptions with knowledge because it is also possible
to be wrong in abstract thoughts. It is not possible to know something
and not know it at the same time. Since this did not work, they
returned to examine what it means to know. Using the aviary metaphor
they considered it as having and holding knowledge. However, false
opinion still confused the issue, for how can possession of even
the wrong knowledge be ignorance? Putting aside false opinion,
they went back in search of knowledge. Perhaps it could be true
opinion with reasoning. As with letters and syllables, maybe the
elements are unknowable, but the combinations are knowable. However,
if the letters are unknown, then the syllables become the unknown
elements; if the syllables can be known, then the letters can
be known. This got nowhere. Rational explanation in speech or
the enumeration of the parts may indicate knowledge, except these
may be done without really knowing. Again this is merely right
opinion, even with the recognition of certain differences. The
conclusion was that none of their definitions was adequate, but
perhaps they were now humbler and better off because they realized
they did not consciously know.111 Such a discussion acquainted
them with the difficulties which still plague philosophers today.
Usually Socrates was more concerned with self-knowledge than knowledge
in the abstract. Once when Phaedrus asked him about a fable and
myth, Socrates said that he could probably give a rational explanation
for them, but he had no spare time for that. This is the reason:
I am not yet able, in accordance with the Delphic inscription,
to know myself;
so it seems ridiculous to me,
while in this ignorance to consider irrelevant things.
Therefore I say farewell to them
and accept the customary belief about them,
as I was just now saying,
and investigate not these things, but myself,
to know whether I am a monster
more complicated and furious than Typhon
or a gentler and simpler creature
to whom a divine and quiet destiny has been given by nature.112
Socrates began by examining himself.
He also assisted individuals in looking at themselves, as we have
seen in the case of Alcibiades. Alcibiades claimed to have the
knowledge he needed, but then Socrates showed him that he neither
learned it from someone who knows nor did he discover it himself.
His confusion in answering the questions indicated not only his
ignorance but also his lack of awareness of his ignorance. This
is the most dangerous kind of ignorance because such a person
tends to make mistakes by acting on what one thinks one knows.
However, by realizing his ignorance he could quite simply avoid
mistakes by not acting.113 This self-knowledge of one's own ignorance
could save a person a lot of grief.
When they decided to study to know themselves better, Alcibiades
was again shown that he was ignorantly making suggestions on how
to improve the city. Socrates suggested that he learn to take
care of himself first. Next they must discover what the self is.
The one who takes care of things is the user of things, not what
is used. Since man takes care not only of one's possessions but
also of one's body, then the self must be the soul of man who
uses the body. The soul is the ruling principle, and it is the
soul which knows. How then can the soul know itself? Just as the
eye must look into the pupil of the eye to see itself, so the
soul must examine its virtue, which resembles the divine wisdom.
Those who are ignorant of themselves will not understand human
affairs and will fail and be miserable. Whoever knows the virtue
of the soul will act wisely and justly according to the will of
God as one looks in the divine mirror to know oneself and one's
own good.114 If this is true, and it certainly seems so to this
writer, then is not this process of self-awareness the key to
living well?
The opposite of self-knowledge is self-deception. In the Philebus
Socrates listed three common areas in which ignorance of self
appears-in regard to one's money, one's physical looks, and one's
wisdom and virtue. Many people tend to be conceited and consider
themselves richer, better looking, and wiser than they are. Of
these those with little or no power are merely ridiculous, but
the powerful can do great harm to others.115 Here Socrates pointed
out the most common pitfalls for individuals and the dangers to
mankind.
Xenophon told how Socrates
emphasized the importance for a tyrant to take good advice, because
if he does not, the resulting mistake will not go unpunished.
Nor could a tyrant kill a loyal subject without suffering some
loss.116 Here again the greater the power is, the greater is the
need for self-knowledge and wisdom.
Diogenes Laertius wrote how Socrates used to encourage people
to study and improve themselves. He marveled that sculptors could
work so hard to make a block of marble perfectly resemble a person,
but they would not care at all whether they themselves turned
out to be blockheads. To the young he recommended the use of a
mirror so that the handsome might acquire the corresponding conduct,
and the ugly might conceal their defects by education.117
Among the many occasions Xenophon
described of Socrates helping individuals to know themselves is
the one where he advised Charmides to go into politics because
his capabilities were needed. Socrates challenged him that it
would be cowardly for him to shrink from serving the state when
he had the ability. Socrates had observed Charmides giving good
advice to politicians and also correct criticism. However, Charmides
feared he would be timid and shy before a large audience; but
Socrates assured him that they were far more ignorant than he
was. Socrates concluded his talk with this exhortation:
My good man, don't be ignorant of yourself;
don't fall into the common error.
For many are in such a hurry
to pry into other people's business
that they never turn to examining themselves.
Don't refuse to face this duty then;
make more serious effort to pay attention to yourself,
and don't neglect public affairs
if you have the ability to improve them.
If they go well, not only the citizens,
but your friends and you yourself
will benefit at least as much as they will.118
Many who are ambitious are better off held back from public
life, but in this case Socrates felt the need to urge his friend
into government.
Xenophon also explained how
Socrates would discourage pretense to knowledge or ability among
his friends by showing what happens to impostures. First they
must try to gain the appearance of a musician or general or whatever,
which is expensive, burdensome, unprofitable, and disgraceful.
If the person is exposed, one becomes ridiculous; if one succeeds
in gaining a position, such as piloting a ship or commanding an
army, the results can be disastrous, bringing ruin and disgrace.
Therefore even a reputation for virtue which goes beyond one's
abilities can disappoint expectations.119 Thus by self-knowledge
and true humility a person could avoid many problems.
Xenophon showed Socrates making
a connection between wisdom and knowledge. A person is only wise
in what one knows. Because it is impossible for a person to know
everything, there can be no all-wise person.120 This enables us
to understand Socrates' humility in not claiming to be wise.
Wisdom requires knowledge, but knowledge of what? Xenophon
stated that Socrates made no distinction between wisdom and prudence
(temperance), and he believed that the wise and prudent person
"knows and practices what is beautiful and good, knows and
avoids what is shameful." Here wisdom implies the unification
of knowledge and action. When Socrates was asked the obvious question
about those who know what they ought to do and yet do the opposite,
whether they are both wise and self-controlled, he replied,
No, rather, they are unwise and uncontrolled.
For I think that all have a choice between various courses,
and they do the things which they think
are most advantageous to them.
Therefore I believe that those who do not act correctly
are neither wise nor prudent.121
The obvious solution then is to develop wisdom; but it must
be practiced as well as understood, or it is not truly wisdom.
According to Xenophon, Socrates
considered justice and all the other virtues to be wisdom, and
again he related it to action and knowledge of the ideals of beauty
and goodness. "For just actions and all forms of virtuous
activity are beautiful and good. Whoever knows the beautiful and
good will never choose anything else."122 This is knowledge
in its strongest sense, not thinking, nor thinking one knows,
but knowledge verified by action. Socrates described madness as
the opposite of wisdom, though ignorance was not considered exactly
the same. Madness was held to be an extreme case, as love is a
strong desire, where someone was mistaken in a matter of common
knowledge. However, "not to know yourself, and to assume
and think that you know what you do not, he put next to madness."123
Plato also portrayed Socrates
giving a pragmatic definition of wisdom. In the splendid exhortation
Socrates demonstrated in the Euthydemus,
Socrates showed how wisdom is the greatest good because it causes
success in every action. Any other thing which is considered good
may be harmful if it is not used wisely, but wisdom gives us the
right use of all things. To be able to use everything correctly
and gain success leads to happiness. Socrates concluded,
Since everyone desires happiness,
and we have shown that this comes from using things,
and using them correctly,
and the greatest correctness and good fortune
is provided by knowledge,
the inference is that everyone ought to prepare oneself
in every way to become as wise as one can.124
Because life consists of using things, Socrates has shown that
wisdom is helpful in everything.
Plato in the Defense
of Socrates also showed Socrates admitting that human
wisdom is worth little or nothing compared to the true wisdom
of God.125 Even so, human wisdom is still better than ignorance.
In the Crito Socrates
explained to his friend that he must follow the opinion of the
wise rather than public opinion. Therefore Socrates used his reasoning
based on the good life as his chief value to discover the wisest
and just action.126
Finally in the Phaedo
the proposition that the soul is immortal implies that wisdom
can be valuable even beyond this life. In the Euthydemus Socrates
had said, "If there were a knowledge which was able to make
people immortal without knowing how to use that immortality, there
would be no advantage in it."127 Now Socrates showed that
wisdom itself is the knowledge which benefits the soul, not only
in this life and in this world but also in the next world and
in future lives. In fact if the soul is eternal, then eventually
everyone must attain wisdom and goodness!
My friends, it is right to understand that
if the soul is immortal, we should care for it,
not only in respect to this time which we call life,
but in respect to all time;
and the danger now seems terrible, if we neglect it.
For if death was an escape from everything,
it would be a bargain to the wicked
when they die and are released from the body
and the wickedness with the soul.
But now since being is shown to be immortal,
there is no escape or salvation from evil
except to become as good and wise as possible.
For the soul takes nothing into the other world
except its education and upbringing,
which are said to greatly benefit or injure the departed
from the very beginning of one's journey there.128
The orderly and wise soul fares much better in following its guiding spirit and in understanding its circumstances, while the soul which desires the body wanders in the lower more visible realms until after much resistance it is forcefully led away by its guide.129 The choices of future lifetimes on earth are also determined by the wisdom of the soul. The value of developing wisdom in terms of all the future consequences can be great indeed!
CONFUCIUS
|
AND SOCRATES:
|