Arts & Humanities >
Ancient History
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedWas the philosopher Socrates of Athens a hero?
Results so far:
| No | 27% | 114 votes | Total: 420 votes | |
| Yes | 73% | 306 votes |
No
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesSocrates was not a hero if, by that word, we mean someone who makes sacrifices to help other people. He was a clever person who made a game out of ridiculing the simple. He often brought out the worst in the people around him. Last, his martyrdom was more in the tradition of a public spectacle than an actual act of self-sacrifice. Although he was self-controlled, occasionally upright, and often insightful, he was not in the habit of subordinating his own interests and desires to a cause larger than himself.
Socrates' most famous contribution to western philosophy is the dialectic method - a grand name for a simple trick that any clever person can play on a simple one. It has five steps: (1) ask someone to state an opinion; (2) ask a question about that opinion; (3) evaluate the response: if it is (a), reasonable, go back to (2); if it is (b) suspect, proceed to (4) invent a scenario where action on the premise given in (1) leads to an absurdity or a disaster, which proves that the premise given in (1) is incorrect. Last, you must (5) pretend not to have any opinion on the matter yourself. This works because every question is an invitation to for the answerer to make a mistake, whereas the questioner, having no opinion, can never be wrong. If, then, the questioner gets to ask questions indefinitely, and the answerer goes on answering them, the game must always have the same outcome - sooner or later the answerer slips up and the opinion is disproved. The questioner has nothing to lose, the answerer nothing to gain. So if this is truly the socratic method, what does it reveal about the people who practice it? Are they truly philosophers devoted to finding out the truth, to upright living, to helping other people? Are they heroes? Or are they just showing off at the expense of people who don't understand the game?
Several of Socrates' students turned into dangerous criminals. Critias and Alcbiades, for example, were both students of his who went on to do their country much harm. Critias was the leader of the Thirty Tyrants - the occupation government set up by the Spartans at the end of the Peloponnesian war -, and he used his position to disappear his enemies and to confiscate their estates. Alcibiades career in double-dealing and amorality is almost beyond belief. He slept, bribed, and talked his way to the top; lead an unprovoked and disastrous attack on far off Syracuse; betrayed Athens to Sparta, cuckolded the Spartan king, and at last fled to Persia, where he betrayed all of Greece to a mortal enemy before the Persians shot him full of arrows. Socrates cannot be blamed for how these men chose to live their lives, but his habit of attacking every firm idea as to the nature of justice, piety, virtue, etc., cannot have helped. A real hero would have worked to strengthen these concepts, but Socrates worked to destroy them. With his dialectic method he convinced everyone that any idea about justice, piety, virtue, etc., was somehow lacking. From there it followed (and follows) that no one knows what these things are. Therefor no one has a right to expect another person to behave with justice, piety, or virtue. In effect, Socrates gave everyone a free pass to do wrong, on the grounds that no one knew what was right.
What about Socrates' trial? Didn't he bravely defy a council of short-sighted bigots, choosing to die rather than to give up his freedom to think and say whatever he wanted? Isn't he a hero of intellectual liberty? Perhaps. But it would be unwise to dismiss too quickly the point of view of his prosecutors. They had now, for forty-plus years, born patiently a man whose life's work was to irritate people, to undermine their ideas about right and wrong, and possibly also to subvert the democratic government they believed in. The leader of the prosecution, Anytus, provides a good study in contrasts with the philosopher. Anytus fought the Spartans throughout the whole of the war (Socrates sat most of it out), went into exile after the Spartans won (Socrates stayed), and led the democratic restoration that expelled the Spartans (Socrates had no active part in that either.) But what really bothered Anytus was that his son was one of Socrates' students. Instead of doing right, like his father, he stayed home and got drunk. So it's easy to see that the official charge - corruption of the youth - was not vague and unsubstantiated. There are three specific instances known to us at a distance of two and a half millennia. Who knows how many more the Athenians could think of? In any case Socrates made a joke out of the trial. He though the accusations against him were ridiculous, and said so; convicted of a capital offense, he offered to pay the equivalent of a parking ticket fine to make amends; given multiple chances to escape, he declined them all. Although he did, it is true, die for a point of principle (the freedom to say whatever he wanted), it was a fate that he actively courted. It is not to be compared with the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, for instance, or with the crucifixion of Christ. Both of those men would have preferred to go on living. Socrates, by contrast, felt that at 70 he was going to die in a little while anyway, so he had might as well make history doing it.
For these reasons it is unfair to call Socrates a hero. His most famous contribution to western philosophy is a mean-spirited game; his students were rascals, or non-entities, with only one exception (Plato); and his martyrdom was in fact a self-glorifying suicide. Socrates had admirable qualities, like self-control, insight, and personal bravery; but we should not call him a hero. That word should be reserved for people whose sacrifices, courage, and contributions are beyond question.
Learn more about this author, George. Washington..
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
As one would expect, Plato's portrayal of Socrates in those parts of the Phaedo that I have read is immensely positive. In the time before Socrates execution, Plato seems to attempt to show how far from being a dangerous, unwanted element; Socrates is the paragon of all things good about Athenian values and customs. Plato achieves this in three ways: the portrayal of Socrates as pious; the display of Socrates prodigious intelligence and courage; and the demonstration of his worth as a friend and teacher.
Despite the fact that one of the two charges of which Socrates was found guilty was that of believing in different gods to those of the state, in the Phaedo, Plato portrays Socrates as an incredibly pious man. In his last days on earth, Socrates is shown in the Phaedo to be ensuring that he has carried out the will of the gods, as expressed in his recurring dream, to its full extent. Whereas before he had interpreted the command to "make art" as encouragement to continue with philosophy, "the greatest art of all", now he knows that the end is near, he covers other possibilities, writing a Hymn to Apollo and poems based on Aesop's fables in an attempt to make sure that he has pleased the gods. Similarly, Socrates condemns suicide, because "they say that this is not right". He does this despite the fact that he is of the belief that he would be better off dead. This, again, shows Socrates piety and religious orthodoxy. This display of piety is doubtless one that outlines Socrates, as he is in the Phaedo, as an intensely pious man, a very important facet of the picture that emerges from the dialogue.
Of Socrates formidable intelligence there can be no doubt. He was, after all, recognised as the greatest philosopher of his time. Indeed, his intelligence is such that he has been able to attract pupils from other parts of Greece: Cebes at one stage speaks in his own, foreign, dialect. This is not the only evidence of Socrates wisdom. In the Phaedo, it seems that Socrates pronounces statements that seem to be illogical, draw out the objections of his friends, but are in fact, as Socrates always manages to prove, correct. A good example of such an ostensibly false conclusion is that at the beginning of the dialogue, when Socrates claims that "those who would be better off dead may not without sin do themselves a good turn. Despite this seemingly illogical conclusion, Socrates proceeds to demonstrate to his sceptical students the validity of his argument. Additionally, Socrates' intelligence is shown by the reactions of his friends to his arguments, usually or , depending upon whether Socrates is looking for a positive or negative response, but he always, in the end, overcomes any objections to his theories.
Socrates, however, is not simply a persuasive orator and philosopher, rather his intelligence also spills over into "art in the popular sense". While Socrates has been imprisoned and awaits his execution, delayed by the festival of Apollo, it transpires that he has written a Hymn to Apollo and put into verse the fables of Aesop. About these creations Socrates is incredibly modest, saying that he has not been trying to out-do Evenus since he "knew that wouldn't be easy". Thus, Socrates combination of wisdom and modesty about his wisdom is demonstrated in the Phaedo, another part of the picture that emerges from the dialogue.
In the Phaedo Socrates' courage and certainty of the rewards awaiting him after death are also displayed, showing another aspect of Socrates character. In the face of what most would see as impending doom, Socrates maintains his aura of calm. The best display of this is the rather bathetic interjection of Crito, who tells Socrates that the executioner doesn't want Socrates to get worked up in case this means he needs either a double or triple dose of hemlock. Socrates' dismissive reply is that Crito should ignore him and "let him prepare his stuff so as to give two or even three doses if need be". Here, Socrates admirably shows that he would rather spend the "time until sundown" talking with his friends, even if that means a much more painful death. His stoicism is compounded by Crito's remark that he "pretty well knew" that Socrates would answer in this manner. In this way, Socrates shows his lack of fear in the face of an excruciatingly painful death, about to be made worse by his determination to continue philosophising. Not only does Socrates remain unfazed by his impending death, but is in fact able to make jokes, at one point reducing Simmias to laughter with an argument that he was surely aware had a comic side to it.
Furthermore, Socrates displays considerable courage in his convictions, remaining absolutely certain that he will be better dead, even referring to his executioner as "a benefactor" who will release Socrates from his prison of flesh into a new freedom in which he hopes to be able to contemplate the beauty of the forms: Socrates retains an absolute conviction that he will "enter the presence of the gods" after his death. Thus, Socrates' courage, both in terms of his waiting for his execution, and his unfaltering belief in himself, emerges from the dialogue.
Next, it would not be surprising if someone of Socrates' intelligence and understanding was somewhat aloof or haughty among those more ignorant than himself. Socrates, in direct contrast to this, remains, despite his death sentence and at times slightly slow pupils, to be good tempered and proud of those he has taught. "There goes Cebes, always hunting down arguments and not at all willing to accept at once what anyone might say" says Socrates after his argument was attacked by Cebes. In this moment of dialogue, the knowing master and keen pupil relationship that existed between Socrates and his friends is at its most poignant as Socrates' pride and delight in the inquisitive spirit that he has engendered in his pupils is apparent.
Similarly, Socrates allows his pupils to attempt to argue in his fashion. The clearest instance of this is in the argument from recollection' when Cebes "attempts" to persuade Cebes that what is commonly called "learning is nothing other than recollection". This shows how Socrates is intent not only on having rigorous academic discussions, but also to ensure that his pupils will be able to once he has been executed. This is a sentiment that is compounded at the end of the section of the Phaedo that I have read, where Socrates makes it clear that Simmias and Cebes must try to find some other great Philosopher, either in Greece or in foreign lands. Socrates does, however, mention that they are unlikely to find anyone better than themselves. This shows Socrates' pride in his pupils, another facet of the picture of Socrates that emerges from the dialogue.
Learn more about this author, Bertie Radcliffe.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
