Socrates

Freshman Year – Socrates:

Socrates is a classical Greek philosopher of epistemology (philosophy of knowledge) and ethics and is considered to be one of the founders of Western thought. He resided in ancient Athens, and especially important backdrop for his developing philosophy because it was the first successful democracy. In this democracy, the citizens enjoy many freedoms including a say in politics and a trial by jury. It is here Socrates challenged conventional knowledge of universals such as love, beauty, piety, and morality. Socrates is most known for his unique awareness of his own ignorance, and his realization of others’ inability to succumb to the fact that they too are ignorant. Perhaps his greatest contribution to Western philosophy is his method of inquiry, now known as the Socratic method. The Socratic method is a process or series of questions that eventually leads others to the realization that they too are ignorant. He did not challenge people with questions but rather tried to lead them on a journey of knowledge and understanding. 

            In the Euthyphro by Plato, Socrates leads his friend (Euthryphro) down the path to ignorance through the Socratic method. Upon asking for a definition of piety, Socrates is informed by Euthyphro that piety is doing what he is doing, namely – “prosecuting anyone who is guilty of murder, sacrilege, or of any similar crime…and not to prosecute them is impiety”. Socrates is quick to point out that not all of these things can be piety itself. These appear to simply be examples or instances of piety. Socrates reminds Euthyphro that he is looking for some universal criteria of piety. He wants the “general idea which makes all pious things to be pious.”

            Euthyphro quickly corrects himself by saying that, “Piety, then, is that which is dear to the gods, and impiety is that which is not dear to them,” But Socrates again refutes this definition by saying that the gods have “differences of opinion…about good and evil, just and unjust, honorable and dishonorable.” etc. So then, there is no universal piety if the gods like and dislike different things. If what is dear to the gods cannot first be agreed upon, this definition of piety is rendered useless. Euthyphro, seeing the problem with his argument, changes his proof to say that which all the gods love is pious. However, Socrates takes Euthyphro on a journey, finally asking him if “that which is dear to the gods is dear to them because it is loved by them,” or if “it is loved by them because it is dear to them.” In other words, something the gods love has to be inherently pious, if not, the gods would not love it. Socrates says, “what is the essence of holiness, to offer an attribute only, and not the essence-the attribute of being loved by all the gods. But you still refuse to explain to me the nature of holiness. And therefore, if you please, I will ask you not to hide your treasure, but to tell me once more what holiness or piety really is, whether dear to the gods or not (for that is a matter about which we will not quarrel) and what is impiety?” Socrates wants to know what holiness in terms of humanity, not in terms of the gods. He wants a working definition that is applicable in life. Socrates says that to say the pious is something the gods love still begs the question of which came first – the piety or the love? If an object is loved because it is pious, then piety itself still needs to be defined. If the object becomes pious when it is actively loved by the gods, then the characteristics that make these objects loved by the god need to be defined. By simply questioning a conventional belief, Socrates is able to lead Euthyphro from out of the darkness.

            It appears that all of Euthyphro’s definitions view the gods as made in the human image. Socrates wants a definition that is independent of human subjectivity however. And if you can’t first define god, how can you define piety?

            It is precisely this sort of radical thinking and questioning that is so characteristic of Socrates and eventually brings about his arrest, trial, conviction, and death sentence. Those in power see him as a challenge to society and because he does not blindly accept what he has been taught to, Socrates becomes a threat to the state. At his trial, he claims he is not trying to teach people anything or corrupt the youth but Socrates merely believes he is on a search for truth and that his occupation is not to disrupt peace but rather to simply discuss philosophy. Socrates was a sort of social ‘gadfly’ however, constantly stinging at and annoying the prominent Athenians. Being the only one aware of his own ignorance, Socrates helped other men who thought they were wise come to the conclusion they are far less wise than they had thought. His unique wisdom made others seem foolish and ignorant and often led to their public embarrassment. It is no surprise then that Socrates is convicted be his peers of corrupting the youth and sentenced to death by hemlock.

            Plato’s Crito is a dialogue that takes place in Socrates’ prison cell between, Socrates and his close friend Crito. Crito has essentially come to bale out Socrates, as it was a common practice in Athens to pay off the guards and flee the country when sentenced to death. Crito soon learns that it is not the guard he has to convince but rather Socrates, who seems to have peacefully accepted his sentence. Socrates even says, “It would not be fitting at my age to resent the fact that I must die now.” Crito claims that it is selfish and unjust to stay and die. Not only will he develop a reputation of a coward, but also Socrates has family and friends that need him. Crito tells Socrates he is “betraying his sons by going away and leaving them” and moreover, betraying his peers who have come to love him and find him valuable to society. The citizens think Socrates should escape because he helps people think about the nature of love, justice, piety and other philosophical issues. Socrates asks Crito why he cares what the majority of people think? By listening to others, Crito is giving up his own autonomy and rationality. And as Socrates has already proven multiple times, the people are ignorant. They don’t understand what justice is and therefore do not constitute Socrates’ escape as being just. He states, “As for those questions you raise about money, reputation, the upbringing of children, Crito, those considerations in truth belong to those people who easily put men to death and would being them to life again if they could, without thinking; I mean the majority of men. For us, however, since our argument leads to this, the only valid consideration…is whether we should be acting rightly…or whether in truth we shall do wrong in doing all this.” Put more simply, Socrates wants reason to escape beyond others’ speculation and opinion – which he believes can easily be cast aside.

            Crito tries to convince Socrates that he has suffered an injustice in that the people have judged him wrongly. Why should he stay and suffer more? Socrates proposes that “wrongdoing is in every way harmful and shameful to the wrongdoer.” Therefore, one must never do wrong. Crito agrees.  He goes further by saying that, “one should never do wrong in return, nor injure any man, whatever injury one has suffered at his hands.” Although Socrates is suffering an injustice, this does not justify his escape if it is indeed, unjust. According to his belief, “it is better in life to be the recipient of injustice rather than a perpetrator of injustice.” In returning harm to the state, Socrates would simply be perpetuating the injustice in the world, thus becoming a hypocrite. An eye for an eye leaves a room full of blind men. Socrates believes it is the nature of a person to be rational, and rationality should never accept violence or injustice to other people. The last thing he wants to do is escalate violence for his own personal gain.

            Socrates is a social contract theorist in a way. He believes he is in agreement with the state of Athens, or a relationship, that he cannot easily destroy. To Socrates, this relationship of individual to state is comparable to that of child to its parent. Athens has educated, nourished, and protected him just like a parent does for a child. Socrates is an “offspring and servant” to Athens. Much in the same way a parent helps shape the child’s identity, Athens has actively shaped Socrates identity. He is an Athenian, which means he has an Athenian belief system and the habits of other Athenians. If Socrates were to flee Athens, he would be like an orphan lost in the world. He simply will not fit in or be comfortable anywhere else. Crito quickly points out that Socrates is now only describing why it is uncomfortable to leave Athens, not why it is immoral. This argument of discomfort, according to Crito, does not explain why fleeing is immoral or unjust. Socrates corrects himself by saying that he is not just an individual or child of the state, but a citizen. The contract goes two ways, and as a citizen,  Socrates has his end of the bargain to uphold. Socrates, in return for the comfort and security of the state, must allow himself to be subjugated to its rules and regulations. He must respect the right of Athens to put him on trial, and further, he must respect the verdict of his peers even if it is unfavorable. Socrates asks Crito, “Is your wisdom such as not to realize that your country is to be honoured more than your mother, your father and all your ancestors, that it is more to be revered and more sacred, and that it counts for more among the gods and sensible men, that you must worship it, yield to it and placate its anger more than your father’s?” He goes on to say that, “you must either persuade it or obey its orders, and endure in silence whatever it instructs you to endure, whether blows or bonds, and if it leads you into war to be wounded or killed, you must obey. To do so is right.” Civil disobedience is acceptable, but only in cases where the institution can be convinced of its wrongdoing. Man cannot disobey laws simply because he disagrees with them because in doing so, the social contract which protects him is rendered meaningless. In order to go about civil disobedience in a reasonable fashion, Socrates suggests that the citizen try to persuade the state of his point. If it is just, the state will compromise. However, if the state remains resolute in its decision, the citizens must accept its decision.

            And so Socrates accepts the inevitability of his death and drinks the hemlock. It seems that it is his own reason and inquisitiveness that brings about his fate. It is through the Socratic method that he gets convicted to jail. And again, it is through over-analyzing that Socrates is unable to flee from his sentence. It seems ironic that in while teaching others to question the world around that, it is precisely those actions that get Socrates killed. His overcoming of ignorance actually brings about his downfall.