Socrates 2
Exotic Journeys: A Tourist's Guide to Philosophy
brought to you by Ron Yezzi
Emeritus Professor of Philosophy
Minnesota State University, Mankato
© Copyright 2003, 2015, 2020 by Ron Yezzi
Return to History of Philosophy
Socrates 1 - Introduction, Savory Info, Socratic Themes, The Socratic Problem
Socrates 2 - "Reading" Socrates, Euthyphro, Apology, Meno
Topics
"Reading" Socrates
Euthyphro
What to Look For
Study Guide
Apology
What to Look For
Some Positive Claims
Some Negative Claims
Meno
What to Look For
Study Guide
"Reading" Socrates
Of course, you have no direct works of Socrates to read. But Plato’s dialogues give you a “second best way” of understanding the man and his thought.
[Note: If you have wondered about those numbers in parentheses after mention of ancient works, remember that they are standard ways of referring to line numbers in the works of Plato and Aristotle.]
The dialogues of Plato are widely available in numerous editions. They also are available on the internet at no cost, in the nineteenth century Benjamin Jowett translation, at
Plato: Five Dialogues, translated by G.M.A. Grube (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co., 1981) is inexpensive and contains most of the dialogues listed below.
For a basic introduction to Socrates, start by reading the Euthyphro, a short dialogue that illustrates Socrates’ method of question-and-answer discourse and his self-proclaimed role as gadfly of the state. Then read Plato’s Apology. You might then add the Meno to your reading list, a more elaborate dialogue that still retains Socratic themes. The Ion, Crito and Protagoras are three other good choices. For more biographical details about Socrates, read Phaedo, 96a-99c and 116d-118b, and Symposium, 219e-222a.
Once you familiarize yourself with the Socrates of Plato’s dialogues, you may then want to turn to Aristophanes’ Clouds and Xenophon’s dialogues to further round out your understanding of Socrates.
My Sources
Reference has already been made to the works of Plato, Aristophanes, and Xenophon. For anecdotes about Socrates' life and character, Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, tr. by R. D. Hicks, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972) is useful--although you may have to take some of the stories with a grain of salt. My main scholarly source for Socrates is W. K. C. Guthrie's Socrates (London: Cambridge University Press, 1971), taken from the third volume of Guthrie's History of Greek Philosophy.
A more recent work of interest is Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, eds. The Trial and Execution of Socrates: Sources and Controversies (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002).
Euthyphro
The Euthyphro presents a grand irony. Two men are going to trial, where impiety is an issue; but the moral world seems turned upside down. Euthyphro is going as a prosecutor, whereas Socrates is going as a defendant. Yet Euthyphro, who claims to act piously in charging his own father with murder (under circumstances where the accuracy of the charge is questionable), shows through the discussion that he does not know the meaning of piety―whereas Socrates, who is both wise and honorable, must face a trumped up charge of impiety.
What to Look For in the Euthyphro
(1) The question-and-answer discourse here is fairly typical of what Socrates did. So you want to note his procedure in asking questions―including the sort of universal definition he is seeking and his rejection of an initial attempt to define through an example. Note the feigned humility (Socrates always wants someone to help him out in understanding something) by which he entices Euthyphro to converse with him and then proceeds to show that Euthyphro does not know what he thinks he knows. You should be able to see both how Socrates performs a stinging gadfly function by challenging persons of reputation in Athens and how some Athenians might have a negative reaction to his questioning. Note as well that the dialogue presents the search for a definition of piety, but no satisfactory solution to the problem.
(2) The dialogue presents a number of definitions of piety, none of which stands up to Socrates’ scrutiny:
(a) First Definition: prosecuting the wrongdoer, regardless who the wrongdoer happens to be;
(b) Second Definition: what is dear to the gods;
(c) Third Definition: what all the gods love;
(d) Fourth Definition: what is just;
(e) Fifth Defintion: the part of justice concerned with care of the gods; and
(f) Sixth Definition: knowledge of how to give to, and beg from, the gods.
Try to follow how each definition runs into problems. In particular, you want to note how the Sixth Definition turns into the Second, thereby showing that their discussion has produced a circle whereby they are back where they were earlier. You might want to consider whether Socrates’ questions are fair ones and whether you might have provided different answers that would have taken the dialogue in a different direction.
(3) Socrates makes a fundamental distinction between something being pious because the gods love it and the gods loving something because it is pious. This distinction exemplifies an important perennial problem in the philosophy of religion: Is an action good simply because God commands it or is an action so good in itself that even God must recognize its goodness? And likewise for evil actions. For example is murder wrong simply because God commands human beings not to commit murder or because murder is so wrong in itself that God could never command us to commit the act?
Apology
In his own defense at trial, Socrates adequately refutes the specific impiety charges against him, namely, that he has engaged in physical speculations that leave no place for gods and has corrupted the youth by teaching about gods other than those of the state.
These specific charges however serve as a smokescreen for the hostility engendered by his self-proclaimed role as the gadfly of the state. Instead of appeasing this hostility, Socrates praises, and pledges to continue, his challenging the wisdom of highly reputable, influential persons―particularly the politicians, the writers, and the skilled craftsmen. Since these groups probably composed the major portion of his jury of 500 citizens, his defense of his actions must have appeared quite arrogant and unyielding to many members of the jury who were angry or fearful because of his activities.
The greatness of Socrates lies in his upholding the integrity of the philosophic life―both as a personal quest and as a matter of social duty―without bending to the will of lesser men.
Posterity has favored him much more than his jurors. He was found guilty by a vote of 280 to 220 and was then sentenced to death.
What to Look For in the Apology
(1) Reading the Apology should provide details regarding Socratic positions that go against widely held common beliefs―namely, his denial that he is a teacher (19d-20c), the nature of his wisdom (20d-22c), unintentionality in evil actions (25e-26a), and his conviction that no evil can happen to a good person (41d). Try first to make the most sense you can of these positions. Then try to relate your judgments here to the earlier presentation of Socratic themes. Finally, consider whether or not you find his arguments convincing.
(2) In arguing that a good person has nothing to fear from death (40c-41c), Socrates lays out two possibilities: (a) Death is an annihilation of consciousness, in which case death is just like an eternal night’s sleep; or (b) Death is the passing over to another place. Follow out the details of his argument and then ask whether or not his remarks ease any fears you might have yourself about death.
(3) After you consider these more philosophical issues, you may want to consider some of the historical curiosity associated with the Apology. How accurately does the dialogue reflect what was said at the trial? What were the real reasons why Socrates was brought to trial? How effective was Socrates’ defense? Does Socrates really deserve the heroic status the dialogue seems to confer upon him? There is plenty of scholarly disagreement over these questions. Check out the Further Reading section.
The effectiveness of Socrates’ defense is a matter of continuing controversy―both in terms of the power of his arguments themselves and in terms of his manner of conducting himself. On the one hand, Socrates becomes a philosophical hero to many; on the other hand, his arguments are weak and evasive and his manner arrogant and unbending, to others. You want to decide for yourself the effectiveness of his defense.
Some Positive Claims:
(a) Socrates makes clear at the very beginning of his defense that he aims at speaking the truth rather than trying to convince his jurors with oratorical skills; what he says thereafter and what happens bears out his initial remarks.
(b) Socrates successfully refutes the specific accusations of impiety against him. He points out that his accuser, Miletus, has no genuine interest or expertise with respect to the subject of “corrupting the youth.” Moreover, he rightly points out that parents of young people influenced by S. or the young people themselves when older, rather than Meletus, would be appropriate accusers of S.’s corrupting the youth; yet these are not the ones bringing the accusations against him. And once Miletus (under cross-examination) turns his accusation against Socrates into simple atheism and backs it up by attributing to Socrates the view that the sun and moon are simply physical phenomena, Socrates provides a straightforward refutation: Meletus is contradicting himself, there is no sound evidence that S. is an atheist, and there is no sound evidence that he engages in physical speculations that do away with the need for gods.
Some Negative Claims:
(a) Socrates is accused of worshipping gods other than those of the state, new divinities; but he evades response to this accusation by only refuting the charge of atheism.
(b) Claiming that his wisdom consists in knowing that he knows nothing may be amusingly ironic; but it is a questionable claim, and not one likely to impress his jury.
(c) Socrates faced trial because he was seen as a political threat to Athenian democracy; and he does nothing in his defense to dispel this view. For example, he can be viewed as fostering doubts in the state’s young people by not clearly accepting the gods of the state, by challenging the wisdom of citizens, by suggesting that all citizens are not equally expert in making judgments, by showing disrespect for the jury.
In considering these historical matters, remember thought that the themes that Socrates espouses in his defense are philosophical positions meant to define his thought and to engender philosophical inquiry, in addition to being arguments made to the jury. Accordingly, their philosophical significance can be more important than their success in convincing the jury. Thus, Socrates’ claim about his own wisdom calls for everyone to examine its significance even if it fails to soothe the jurors.
Meno
The Meno deals with two major questions: What is virtue? And can virtue be taught? The dialogue is especially noteworthy because it exemplifies so well Socrates’ philosophical method and brings up so many themes associated with him: the search for universal definitions, the advantage in becoming aware of your own ignorance, persons not knowingly doing evil, virtue as knowledge, knowledge as recollection. In typical Socratic fashion, the dialogue ends negatively, without establishing a satisfactory definition of virtue and without showing that virtue can be taught―even though a close reading of the dialogue allows that there still are reasons for both being possible.
What to Look For in the Meno
(1) Socrates makes several basic points about definitions:
(a) As usual, he rejects a definition in terms of examples and insists instead on statement of the common element in any set of examples so that you arrive at a universal definition. This occurs, from 71e to 73c, when Meno begins by defining virtue in terms of a man’s virtue and a woman’s virtue. What Socrates is driving at becomes even clearer in discussion of the definition for figure, or shape (74b-76a).
(b) Socrates holds that you cannot deal with properties, or applications, until you first start with a definition. Specifically, in the Meno, you need to define what virtue is before you consider whether or not it can be taught (70a and 71b).
(c) Not every universal definition captures the essential properties of a term. Compare, for example, the two definitions of figure, or shape, that are considered: (i) the only thing which always follows colour, 75c, and (ii) the limit of a solid, 76a. Consider also the gorgeous definition of color, an effluence of form, commensurate with sight, and palpable to sense (76d), that appeals to Meno (a follower of the Sophist Gorgias) but not to Socrates.
(2) The Socratic theme that no one knowingly does evil comes up in the passage 77b-78b. Follow Socrates’ argument in the passage carefully and then check out what was stated earlier about this issue under Socratic Themes. Then evaluate the issue for yourself. Note that Socrates does not say that no one acts wrongly; rather he says that, at the time of doing the action, one believes the action to be beneficial instead of harmful.
(3) Read over what was stated earlier about knowledge as recollection in the Meno. Then follow the detailed discussion in the dialogue, 80d-86c. Decide for yourself how convincing the argument for knowledge as recollection is, through the discussion of mathematics with an uneducated slave boy. As noted earlier though, you need to give attention to Socrates’ conclusion at 86b-c.
(4) At 80a-b, Meno complains that Socrates’ perplexing questions have the effect of numbing him so he cannot respond, as if he has been stung by a torpedo fish, or sting ray. Socrates however wants to show that this numbing process by which we become aware of our own ignorance benefits rather than harms us. Note how he makes the point in the discussion with the slave boy, 84a-c.
(5) A major turning point occurs in the dialogue, 86d-87c, when Socrates agrees to consider whether or not virtue can be taught, even without a definition of virtue. Note that he proposes to proceed hypothetically―that is, he will begin with a hypothesis about the nature of virtue, namely, that it is knowledge. Socrates and Meno then agree that if virtue is knowledge then it can be taught, 87c. They run into problems however in the latter part of the dialogue when they are unable to identify any successful teachers of virtue.
You want to give special attention to this part of the dialogue because of its bearing on some Socratic Themes. First, the passage 87d-89a lays out a case for virtue being knowledge by showing the need for knowledge in acting virtuously. Secondly, the point that knowledge is teachable provides an explanation of the sense in which Socrates’ denial that he can teach entails that he knows nothing.
(6) At 89b, there is a brief consideration of whether or not persons are good, or virtuous, innately―that is, by nature. You may want to consider this issue in more detail.
(7) An important distinction between knowledge and true, or right, opinion takes up the final portion of the dialogue, 96d to the end: A person can have a correct opinion sufficient to guide actions well without knowing why the opinion is true. Socrates and Meno agree that true opinions can occur through divine inspiration. With respect to this distinction, you should try to decide whether or not knowledge is superior to true opinion.
(8) In outward appearance, the dialogue seems to conclude that virtue is not knowledge and that it cannot be taught. In reading and interpreting Plato’s dialogues however, you have to look carefully for qualifications. Thus, near the end (at 99e), note this statement from Socrates, “. . . if [italics added] all we have said in this discussion, and the questions we have asked, have been right, virtue will by acquired neither by nature nor by teaching. Whoever has it gets it by divine dispensation without thought, . . .” And at 100b, “On our present reasoning then, whoever has virtue gets it by divine dispensation. But we shall not understand the truth of the matter until, before asking how men get virtue, we try to discover what virtue is in and by itself.” These statements leave open the possibility that a different discussion, perhaps an intellectually superior one, might have a very different conclusion.