Socrates Overview

The ideas and character of Socrates, with particular reference to
Euthyphro, Apology, Crito and Phaedo (57a–69e; 116a–118a), from
Plato, The Last Days of Socrates (London: Penguin, 1993) (trans. H.
Tredennick and H. Tarrant), including:

– the reasons for Socrates’ trial and conviction
– the citizen’s duty to the state
– the nature and purpose of the Socratic method, and
– Socrates’ attitude to death.

Common essay topics:
• Historical causes of Socrates’ trial and
execution
• The manner in which Socrates conducted
his defense and to what extent he provoked
the jury into convicting/executing him
• Socrates’ philosophical beliefs ideas and to
what extent he was true to these in how he
lived
• Socrates’ views and ideas on death and
suicide
• Socrates’ ideas about law, authority and a
citizen’s duty to his state
• The steps and purpose of the Socratic
method
• The overall character of Socrates and why
he inspired Plato and later philosophers to
enquire into questions of morality

What the examiners expect:

The Standard
AS90513 - Explain in essay format an aspect
of the classical world – 6 credits


The Examiners’ Report and Marking Schedule


Candidates who achieved this standard most commonly
demonstrated the following skills and / or knowledge:
• ability to answer in essay format: they used the planning page and provided
a structured response, although sometimes expression was stilted or weak
• had sufficient understanding of the topic chosen to respond to most points
adequately, particularly the bullet points, although often an aspect of the
question was overlooked or omitted
• ability to recall sufficient topic knowledge to back up general statements to
some extent
• some familiarity with secondary texts and either a basic knowledge of
primary sources or at least an awareness of source material.

Candidates who did not achieve this standard lacked some or all of
the skills and knowledge required for Achievement. They also
commonly:
 answered less than half the question, providing little appropriate detail
 failed to structure their essay and had poor language skills
 misunderstood or did not read the question carefully or wrote off the topic to
fill out their essay with irrelevant detail
 lacked sufficient knowledge of topic content to sustain an essay response
 were unfamiliar with primary source material or unable to integrate primary
source evidence into their answer.


In addition to the skills and knowledge required for
Achievement, candidates who achieved the standard
with Merit or Excellence commonly:

• wrote a well organised essay and expressed themselves
fluently and clearly
• addressed all aspects of the question and showed a
comprehensive knowledge of the topic content
• integrated clear, pertinent references to primary and often
secondary source material into their argument
• explained events and processes, but also went on to
analyse the material they were addressing.

Some tips...

Underline dialogue titles so it is
clear you are talking about the
dialogue not a character in it.

Know what I said on main
themes such as my defence,
religion, philosophy, death and
the law in each dialogue. Don’t
get them mixed up!!! Try some
flash cards, perhaps.

Use Greek terms such as
elenchus, aporia, sophia…

• We use a collection of 4 dialogues set around Socrates’ death,
all by Plato, BUT we need to be aware of other sources as well
• The main PRIMARY/FIRST HAND sources are Plato,
Xenophon and Aristophanes – but we must treat Aristophanes
with caution!
• The main ancient secondary source is Aristotle
• Plato and Xenophon are apologetic – they seek to defend
Socrates
• There were many polemic sources (that attacked Socrates),
such as Polycrates, but they have mostly been lost.
Aristophanes can be classed as polemic.
• Aristophanes’ Clouds (whether intentionally or not) did a lot of
damage by showing Socrates as: a sophist who corrupted a
boy to the point where he beat up his parents, and a natural
philosopher who didn’t believe in the state gods but invented
his own – the clouds)

• Set outside the King Archon’s Court where Socrates’ trial is about to
take place. Socrates encounters and questions Euthyphro, who is
there
• Excellent dialogue to demonstrate the Socratic Method
• Unclear when it was written.
• Why it was written is more obvious – it seeks to posthumously defend
Socrates against existing popular prejudices and the actual charges
laid against him. Tries to show the strengths of Socratic enquiry and
to show Socrates as holy/pious/interested in the will of the gods/a
respecter of the authority of parents (not a corrupter of youth)

TIP FOR M/E – Read Harold Tarrant’s intro to the dialogue! It is
useful in understanding the whole work.

INTRO

Socrates tells Euthyphro that he’s being charged by
Meletus with manufacturing gods and corrupting the youth.
He asks Euthyphro why he’s outside the King Archon’s
court. Euthyphro explains that he’s prosecuting his father
for murder for the death of a hired worker. His father
arrested this worker for the stabbing of a servant and left
him in a ditch while he sent for word from the Interpreter.
This took too long and the hired hand died from exposure.
Socrates is shocked that Euthyphro would be confident
enough in his knowledge of what is holy/morally right to
prosecute his own father and, after flattering the man a bit,
seeks to become Euthyphro’s pupil.

“I don’t think it’s an action to be taken
by the man on the street, but only by
somebody already far advanced along
the path of wisdom…”
“In this case it would be best for me
to become your pupil…”

THE FIRST DEFINITION

Socrates asks Euthyphro to define holiness, but his
first attempt is in fact an example, not a definition.

“So for heaven’s sake tell me
now what you were just then
affirming you knew: what do
you say piety and impiety
are…?”

“…holiness is what I am doing now,
prosecuting a criminal…” “Zeus is the
best and most just of all the gods…he
imprisoned his own father…”

“...whenever somebody talks like this about
the gods, I find it very difficult to accept.”
“…you do say there are many other things
too which are holy?...this isn’t what I was
asking you to give me – one or two
examples…”

THE SECOND DEFINITION/ FIRST TRUE DEFINITION

Faced with Socrates’ prompting and questions,
Euthyphro comes up with another definition –but this
has a fundamental flaw.

“For you were in agreement, surely, that
it was by virtue of a single standard that
all unholy things are unholy and all holy
things holy…So explain to me what this
standard itself is…”

“Right, then: what is agreeable
to the gods is holy, and what is
not agreeable is unholy.”

“What of the gods, Euthyphro? If they disagree
at all, won’t they disagree for just these reasons
[over what is just/good/etc]?...But according to
your claim, the same things are considered just
by some, unjust by others…Then the same
things...are both disapproved of and approved
of by the gods...Then the same things would be
both holy and unholy according to this
account.”

THE AMMENDED SECOND DEFINITION

The wording of the definition is easily fixed – but there
is still a fundamental ‘which came first?’ problem.

“what all the gods disapprove of is unholy,
what all approve of is holy…is this how
you would like our definition to run…?”

“What is there to
prevent it…?”

“…Consider the following point: is the holy
approved by the gods because it’s holy, or is it
holy because it’s approved?...” [Example –
something is ‘carried’ because someone carries
it and something is ‘seen’ because someone
sees it. Something is ‘approved’ because
someone approves of it BUT that doesn’t tell us
what made them approve of it in the first place]

THE AMMENDED SECOND DEFINITION continued

“Then something gets
“Presumably.”
approved because it’s
holy: it’s not holy by
reason of getting
approved?”
“...So if you don’t mind, don’t keep
me in the dark, but tell me again
from the beginning what on earth
the holy is, whether it gets
approved of by the gods or
whatever..”

The interlude – “But Socrates, I have no
way of telling you what I mean; whatever
explanation we set down, it seems to
always go round in circles somehow…”

“It’s as if your explanations, Euthyphro,
were the work of my predecessor
Daedalus…”

THE THIRD DEFINITION
Socrates introduces the idea of categorising, but Euthyphro has difficulty giving a key
difference between holiness and other just things. Euthyphro is being thoroughly led around
by Socrates now.

“And don’t you withdraw exhausted before the
finish!...[Socrates establishes with examples (shame
is a type of fear, odd is a type of number) that
holiness is a type of justice]…Try to give me the
same explanation of the kind of division of justice
what’s holy is…”

“Well, I believe that this is the part of the just
that is pious and holy, the one concerned with
looking after the gods…”

“..we say that not everybody knows how to
look after horses, only the groom, right?”
Plus other examples – dogs and kennel
master, cows and cattle-farmer - “Surely
any case of ‘looking after’ has the same
effect…it’s for the improvement of the thing
looked after, just as you can see that horses
are benefited and improved by grooming.
“I do
Or don’t you think so?”
indeed.”

THE THIRD DEFINITION continued
“No
indeed, I
“…is holiness too…‘looking after’
wouldn’t
the gods, of benefit to the
”
gods?...Would you agree…that
whenever you do something holy
you’re improving one of the gods?”

“Let’s get to the point: what
kind of ‘looking after’ the
gods could holiness be?”

“It’s like slaves looking after their
masters.” Agrees that this is a
kind of service to the gods.

Uses examples – slaves help
doctors make people healthy, Umm…
shipwrights build ships, builders
make houses. “Whatever is that
marvellous work which the gods
accomplish using us as their
servants?”

THE FOURTH DEFINITION
Very problematic.

“So now…what is it again that you are
calling ‘holy’ and ‘holiness’? A kind of
science of sacrifice and prayer, isn’t it?”

“That’s my view.”

“Surely sacrifice is making a donation to the
gods, while prayer is requesting something from
them…and again, the correct kind of giving
would be to bestow upon them in return what
they happen to need from us?”

“Quite true, Socrates.”

“…but how are they benefited by what they
receive from us?”

“Do you really suppose, Socrates, that the gods
are benefited as a result of what they get from us?”

THE FIFTH (OR FIRST?) DEFINITION

“Well, whatever “What
could these gifts of else...but…gratification
ours to the gods be, ?
Euthyphro?”
‘So it is something the gods have
found gratifying…Then the holy is
again, it seems, what’s approved
by the gods.” SAME PROBLEMS
AS FIRST DEFINITION!!!!

“Another time,
“Then we Socrates; right now
must inquire I have an urgent
again from engagement
the somewhere, and it’s
beginning…” time for me to go.”

“Look what you’re doing…dashing me from
that great hope…that I could learn from you
what was holy…and that I could live a better
life for the rest of my days.”

IMPORTANT TO NOTE:
• The Socratic method has three steps –
– eironeia – pretending ignorance to get someone to teach you
– elenchus – questioning and dispproving ideas
– aporia – A sense of waylessness that leaves the interlocutor open to
new knowledge
• This dialogue shows how Socrates managed to alienate and
embarrass many people
• Socrates and Euthyphro DO discover something – holiness is related
to the gods – the gods do like holy things, but that’s not what makes
them holy. They are CLOSER. The pursuit of knowledge and virtue
is lifelong – not solved in one chat. The discussion wasn’t pointless.
• Socrates’ last line reminds us of the Socratic method’s multiple
purposes:
– To test ideas
– To show the interlocutor that they don’t know what they think they know
– To bring Socrates AND the interlocutor closer to true knowledge so that
they may lead virtuous lives.
– KNOWLEDGE IS VIRTUE

ESSAY QUESTION

(c) Plato was a friend and follower of Socrates
and wrote an account of the philosopher’s
experiences and ideas in the form of
dialogues.
Discuss, with reference to the dialogues
Apology, Euthyphro, and Crito:
• the character of Socrates as portrayed by Plato
• the importance placed by Socrates on the
philosophic life.
Why is Plato’s account of Socrates’
experiences and ideas still worth studying
today?

• Set in the King Archon’s Court in the second half of Socrates’ trial –
after the prosecution’s speech.
• Apologia = DEFENSE in Greek, not saying sorry.
• Because there were 501 jurors plus an audience, plus other accounts
of Socrates’ speech (e.g. Xenophon’s Apology) Plato must be giving
a reasonably accurate account of what Socrates said – “it is
sometimes thought that in this work we have the most faithful picture
of the real Socrates we possess.” (Harold Tarrant)
• This doesn’t mean, however, that it’s a word for word transcription or
that Plato would refrain from trying to show Socrates in a good light
• Probably (but not for certain!) produced within 10 years of Socrates’
death

TIP FOR M/E – Read Harold Tarrant’s intro to the dialogue! It is
useful in understanding the whole work.

HOW THE COURT SYSTEM WORKED:

• Potential jurors showed up in the morning each day and were
chosen at random to prevent bribery/bias
• However because they were only paid 3 or 4 obols per day they
tended to be elderly men, conservative and looking to the court
for entertainment. The younger men were out fighting or doing
more lucrative work.
• An archon administered cases but he wasn’t really a judge – he
just made sure people kept to set time limits
• Cases never took longer than a day
• Men prosecuted their own cases and had a set time to speak.
They could call witnesses.
• The accused defended themselves, had the same set time and
could also call witnesses.
• Speeches were timed with a klepsydra/ water clock
• Jurors voted by dropping bronze ballots into boxes – hollow
centre was for guilty, solid for innocent
• If the defendant lost, they and the prosecution each proposed a
penalty (the epitimesis). The jurors scratched lines in wax –
long for prosecution, short for defendant

• Socrates starts off mocking the style of the prosecution speakers and
then spends a LARGE chunk of the work addressing the rumours that
he believes have biased the jury against him, ignoring the real
accusers
• He puts forward ‘charges’ that these earlier accusers (rumour,
gossip) have laid against him: “There is a clever man called
Socrates who has theories about the heavens and has
investigated everything below the earth, and can make
the weaker argument defeat the stronger” – essentially, that
he is a natural philosopher and a sophist.

• BE AWARE – Socrates explains the bias against him but does leave
out some important details – think about why.

What Socrates says…
• Linked with the Sophists (blames Aristophanes’ Clouds:
“You have seen it yourselves in the play by
Aristophanes, where Socrates is lifted around,
proclaiming that he is walking on air, and uttering a
great deal of nonsense…”)
• He also blames the link between him and sophists in
people’s minds on “a kind of wisdom” he possesses
which he discovered after questioning people – “I do not
think that I know what I do not know”
• He describes how his “mission from God” (resulting
from Chaerephon’s visit to the Oracle at Delphi) caused
him to go around questioning people in an attempt to
disprove the idea that he is the wisest man, and how this
has antagonised people. He states that he questioned the
politicians, poets and skilled craftsmen and found them to
“think they knew something when they knew
nothing”. He says “the effect of these investigations
of mine, gentlemen, has been to arouse against me a
great deal of hostility”. NOTE: Socrates’ accusers
represented these groups.

SOCRATES: “Zeus! What Zeus! Are you mad? There is no Zeus.”
Aristophanes, The Clouds

• Socrates also states that his young friends have copied him and offended
people with their questioning (hence the charge of corrupting the youth),
and he is blamed for this although he did not teach them to do it.
“Furthermore the young men – those with wealthy fathers and
plenty of leisure – have of their own accord attached themselves to
me because they enjoy hearing other people cross-questioned…
and go on to try to question other persons… consequently their
victims become annoyed, not with themselves but with me;”

• Later Socrates mentions his daimonion – the idea of a divine spirit
speaking to him – which would have seemed decidedly weird to the
average Athenian, making them wary of him. “It began in my early
childhood – a sort of voice which comes to me; and when it comes
it always dissuades me from what I am proposing to do, and never
urges me on…”

• Socrates mentions his refusal to try the Generals en bloc after Arginusae
and the unpopularity that this brought on him (people wanted to forget this
dark point in Athens’ history, and Socrates was a living reminder) “On
this occasion I was the only member of the executive who opposed
your acting in any way unconstitutionally… and although the public
speakers were all ready to denounce and arrest me, and you were
all urging them on… I thought that it was my duty to face it out on
the side of law and justice…”

WHAT SOCRATES DOESN’T SAY

• He neglects to mention his dodgy
mates:
– Alcibiades, who was suspected of
desecrating the hermai AND betrayed
Athens to Sparta, an oligarch not a
democrat
– Critias – an oligarch not a democrat, one
of the 30 Tyrants

• Many people saw Socrates’ friendship
with Critias as condoning the Tyranny
– many democrats left the city when
the Tyrants were in power, but
Socrates stayed and remained friends
with Critias. Perhaps Socrates did
influence his friends to be
undemocratic.

How Socrates Conducted His Defense…

• Did Socrates deliberately provoke the jury into convicting and then executing
him?
– Xenophon suggests he was ready to die rather than suffer the loss of
his faculties as he aged
– He certainly deliberately provokes the jurors
– On the other hand, if you look closely at what he says he does
effectively refute the charges and 221 did vote to acquit him

• Socrates defends himself against the actual charges by:
– Earlier charges –
• Asks jurors to tell each other if they have ever heard him
discussing natural philosophy
• Points out he does not charge fees like sophists - points out
how wealthy sophists like Evenus become (yet he is poor)

HOW SOCRATES DEFENDS HIMSELF AGAINST THE MAIN
CHARGES

– CHARGE: Corrupting the youth –
• Says young men hung around him by choice – he never
encouraged it
• In questioning of Meletus, shows that – Meletus has not
looked into who benefits/corrupts youth (Meletus says all
men in Athens bar Socrates are good for the youth!!!) and
has no evidence against him
• Shows that having bad people around you brings you
harm, so he would not deliberately make those around him
bad (and if he’s doing it accidentally he should be taught
what to do not charged with a crime)
• Says he only asks questions, doesn’t ever teach - “I have
never promised or imparted any teaching to anybody…”
• Points out parents/brothers of youthful friends in court to
support him – Crito, father of Critobulus, Adimantus,
Plato’s brother, etc…why would they be there if he’d
harmed their brothers/sons?
• Points out Meletus never called any of them as
witnesses!!!

– CHARGE: Believing in gods of his own invention instead of
those of the state and teaching others to do the same
• Talks regularly of following Apollo’s Oracle
• Claims to be in “service to God”
• Shows Meletus has him confused with natural
philosophers such as Anaxagoras (because Meletus
claims Socrates thinks the sun is a stone) whose
writings are easily available. If such teachings corrupt
people, why can they be bought from street vendors for
a few obols?
• Again shows he is not a paid teacher: “The witness that I
can offer...is good enough, I think – my poverty”)
• Gets Meletus to say he believes in no gods, but he is
charged with believing in supernatural things. Shows
you can’t believe in supernatural things (e.g. children of
gods) without believing in supernatural beings (e.g.
gods). THIS ISN’T THAT CONVINCING AS HE WASN’T
REALLY CHARGED WITH ATHEISM
• Tells jury he won’t try to persuade them to judge in his
favour with tricks, as that would be making them break
their oath to the gods to judge fairly, and that would be
impious

Provoking the Jury
• Refusal to use emotive arguments, bring in weeping wife and kids, etc.,
angers jury. Also he implies those who use such tactics disgrace
themselves and are “no better than women”
• Attack on Meletus (a popular man) offends jury AND probably not wise to
demonstrate the technique of elenchus in court, since this had already
made him unpopular – Socrates is particularly nasty in his questioning of
Meletus, seeking to twist his words rather than discover a moral truth
• Socrates puts forward idea that no-one does wrong willingly and
therefore no-one should be punished – they should be educated instead.
This idea invalidates the whole jury system, since it is there to punish
wrongdoers. Since some jurors relied on the pay they got from jury duty,
suggesting the jury system is all wrong would not have won him any
friends
• Complains about aspects of the court system – length of trials, jury bias,
etc
• Tells them to be quiet and not interrupt

Grrrr… This arrogant
old twit needs to go!!!

• Compares himself to Heracles – his questioning is like the demigod’s 12
Labours
• Compares himself to Achilles in choosing to do the right thing and die
rather than give up his principles and live
• Socrates says he will disobey the jury if they order him to stop
philosophising – gives jury little options
• Socrates talks about his ‘divine mission’, which could seem conceited to
jury
Bzzz…I am a gift from God!!!
• He also refers to his daimonion, which Haha! Bzzz…
Athenians thought was a bit odd
• Socrates says he is the ‘stinging fly’ to
the ‘lazy horse’ that is Athens, says that
Athenians need him to stop their
concerns for wealth and reputation
distracting them from the care of their
souls.
• Socrates suggests the Athenian
democracy is corrupt – he says he stayed
out of politics because as a honest man if
he had participated he would have ended
up dead (uses trial of Generals as an
example)

“I want you to think of my
journey as a cycle of labours…”

“I am really pleading on
your [behalf], to save you
from misusing the gift of
God by condemning
me…”

“God has assigned me to this
city, as if to a large,
thoroughbred horse which
because of its great size is
inclined to be lazy and needs the
stimulation of some stinging
fly…”

Philosophical Beliefs in the Apology
Views on death:
• Fear of death should not stop a person from doing the right thing: as a
soldier in the Peloponnesian War he faced death bravely – why stop now?
• It is foolish to fear what you don’t know – why fear death when it may be a
blessing?
• Chose to oppose the mass trial and to not arrest Leon of Salamis even
though both actions nearly got him killed “I thought that it was my duty
to face it out on the side of law and justice rather than support you,
through fear of prison or death…” and “the attention that I paid to
death was zero…”
Attitude to Law/Authority:
• Tells jury he owes a greater duty to god than to them “I owe a greater
obedience to God than to you”
• Says he will disobey them if ordered to stop philosophising (condoning
civil disobedience)
• Tells how he went against the Boule concerning the trial of the Generals
and how he went against the Thirty Tyrants by not arresting Leon of
Salamis “The Thirty Commissioners in their turn summoned me…
and instructed us to go forth and fetch Leon of Salamis from his
home for execution… Powerful as it was, that government did not
terrify me into doing a wrong action; when we came out of the
Round Chamber the other four went off to Salamis and arrested
Leon, and I went home.”

The Penalty Proposal

• Socrates is surprised how many did not vote guilty – he
would only have had to gain 30 more votes to be found
innocent (therefore 280 guilty, 221 innocent)
• NOTE –In this speech Socrates managed to anger the jury
so much that a number (80) of those who had found him
innocent voted to execute him!
• Ridiculous mathematical argument suggesting Meletus
should have to pay a fine for winning less than one-fifth of
votes – Meletus was popular, this would have annoyed
them, and it made no real sense
• His suggestions of alternative punishments seem
calculated to offend the jury –
– Proposes free meals in the Prytaneum for life, like a
victorious athlete – since he has served Athens better than
any athlete 
– Proposes 100 drachmae fine, BUT makes it clear that
money means nothing to him
– Accepts his friends’ offer of cash, proposes fine of 3,000
drachma BUT makes it clear that since it is not his $ the jury
would not really be punishing him
• Does not propose banishment, which the jury might have
accepted

NOTE – WON’T GIVE UP MISSION FROM GOD

RESPONSE TO THE DEATH PENALTY

Most important for what it says of his philosophical beliefs

• View of death:
– He’s “well on in life” so dying is no great punishment
– As a result of the way he conducted his defense, he will now
be executed BUT his daimonion never warned him against
what he was doing, and it would not allow him to come to
harm, THERFORE death can’t be a bad thing
– Death is either annihilation (no consciousness/ a dreamless
sleep) OR migration of the soul from one place to another
place, to meet wise men such as Orpheus, Hesiod and
Homer. Both would be good.
• Philosophical beliefs:
– The gods do not allow good men to be harmed by worse men
– Even in face of death, a man must try to behave virtuously

• How true was Socrates to these beliefs?
– Very – he refused to compromise his principles and pander to
the jury, even though it could have saved his life.

• Set inside Socrates’ prison cell
• Socrates is in prison waiting for his execution, which has been
delayed because of the annual mission to Delos which celebrated
Theseus’ slaying of the Minotaur. The Athenians had previously
been forced to send 7 youths and 7 maidens to Crete each year to be
eaten by it. While the ship was away, no executions could take place
as it would pollute the city.
• “The Crito is a short but highly controversial work…The basic
question is quite simple: can one reconcile the relations between the
individual and the state recommended here with what we hear
elsewhere from Plato’s Socrates?” Harold Tarrant

• May have been written quite a while after Socrates’ death. Makes
reference to charges laid against Socrates in Polycrates’ lost Accusation
of Socrates which was probably written in the mid 380s BC (a decade
after Socrates’ death)
• Some people even think it was by Plato’s nephew, not Plato himself!
• Has some weird stuff – e.g. no eironeia
• The Laws are introduced as a character – a strange move. Why do
this?
– For most Greeks to see something as unjust, it had to harm
somebody. You can’t harm an abstract concept.
– For Socrates to argue he has an obligation to the Laws and would
be harming them by disobeying them, he has to personify them.
– Socrates’ enemies would argue that if he was innocent, he actually
harmed Athens by allowing them to execute him. Plato had to show
it would do greater harm to escape than to stay and die.
– Because Socrates shows the Laws are like his parents and therefore
he must respect them, it also helps refute the idea that he
undermined the authority of parents over their children in The
Clouds.

For Scholarship – read Tarrant’s intro and consider what the problems
are with saying he must stay and be executed because the Laws are
like his parents – there’s a few holes in this…

The Argument
• Crito has come to try to persuade Socrates to escape. It’s
clear he’s tried before – the jailer is used to him and his
regular bribes, Socrates makes comments that they have
been through this discussion before
• The work shows something of Socrates’ character – Crito
can’t sleep and is deeply depressed at the execution to
come. His affection for his friend is very clear. Socrates is
sleeping soundly and is not at all upset when Crito tells him
the boat is coming back from Delos. Death doesn’t bother
him.
• Crito tries again to get Socrates to escape, saying:
– If he doesn’t his friends will get a bad rep for being too stingy to help
him escape
– It won’t cost much for the escape and there are foreign philosophers
(including Simmias of Thebes) happy to help with $
– Lots of people (esp Crito’s friends in Thessaly) would welcome him
– Socrates would be doing his enemies a favour by dying
– If he dies his children will be orphans – it’s Socrates’ duty to stay
and raise them
– His friends will look like cowards if he doesn’t escape

The Argument With Crito

• Socrates won’t change his mind out of fear, but only if Crito can
persuade him it is just to escape
• Socrates establishes through examples (the physical trainer and the
body) that people are better off when they listen to experts and that
listening to public opinion does them harm. Crito should not listen to
public opinion about morality as their bad advice could lead to unjust
acts and harm his soul, and life with a ruined soul is not worth living.
BUT - who is an expert on the soul?
• Socrates now argues that committing an injustice/doing wrong is
harmful to the soul. A person can’t do wrong even if they have been
wronged – two wrongs don’t make a right (“one ought not to return an
injustice or an injury to any person, whatever the provocation”)

Very different from normal Greek ‘eye for an eye’ ideas on justice

• So that Socrates can argue that escaping would be harming/doing an
injustice to the Laws, he personifies them

The Argument With The Laws

• Socrates has the Laws interrogate him using the following
arguments:
– If no one obeyed the Laws they and the polis would be destroyed
(anarchy) “Can you deny that by this act…you intend, so far as
you have the power, to destroy us, the Laws, and the whole State
as well?”

– The Laws have raised him and are like his parents and masters
(because they allowed his parents to marry and compelled them
to educate him), and parents should be obeyed without question.
“Was it not through us that your father married your mother and
brought you into this world?...can you deny…that you were our
child and slave…?”

– Children do NOT have equal rights with their parents or their
government. Violence against a parent or one’s country is an
UNHOLY act. “…violence against a mother or a father is an
unholy act, and it is a far greater sin against your country.”

– He has agreed to obey the Laws by staying in Athens,
when he could have left. He has even chosen to
have children there. He has entered into an implicit
agreement to obey them. “You had seventy years in
which you could have left the country, if you were not
satisfied with us…”

– He could have tried to change the Laws (through the
Assembly) but chose to avoid politics. It would be
hypocritical to suddenly object to them now.

– It would be hypocritical for Socrates to escape now,
when he did not propose banishment at his trial since
he claimed dying would be better than exile.

• The Laws also offer more practical reasons:
– If Socrates escapes he will look like the criminal his enemies
said he was
– If his friends help him escape they’ll be punished
– No good city (e.g. Thebes) will want him
– No one will take him seriously if he tries to talk to them about
justice and morality if he’s an escaped criminal
– Even people in a dodgy city like Thessaly will make fun of him
– If he takes his children with him they’ll be foreigners in some
unfriendly city
– If he leaves them in Athens his friends will raise them - it’ll be the
same as if he was dead
– If he is executed as an innocent man he will be fine in the
underworld. If he leaves this world dishonorably (by running
away/harming the Laws) he will be punished by the Laws of
Hades when he eventually dies.

CONTRADICTION OR NOT…?

• In the Crito, Socrates appears to argue
that it is never okay to disobey the Laws or
the State/government

• BUT in the Apology he gave examples of
times when he had disobeyed authorities –
trial of generals and failing to arrest Leon
of Salamis. He also said he would
disobey the jury if they ordered him to stop
philosophising.

Is this really a contradiction?

Not really.

A. He was only obliged to obey governments in which he
could have a say. The Thirty Tyrants were a tyrrany –
they did not give citizens a say in making the Laws
B. In most cases when he previously disobeyed the
government it was to uphold the Laws:
– In the trial of the generals he was upholding the law – a mass
trial was illegal
– The Thirty Tyrants who ordered him to arrest Leon of Salamis
were not a legal government. Leon’s arrest and execution was
an illegal act.
C. The Laws of the gods come before the Laws of men. If
the jury had ordered him to stop philosophising, their
orders would have gone against Apollo’s orders and
he would obey the God first – in other words, human
laws/ judgments must be obeyed unless they conflict
with divine laws/ judgments. In the Crito, Apollo didn’t
tell him to escape so he had no excuse for breaking
Athens’ Laws then.

Introduction:
– We only read the Phaedo (57a–69e; 116a–118a)
because the middle of the work is very Platonic, not
Socratic
– It is one of Plato’s later works
– Main aim = show the soul is immortal
– Still a “compelling drama” of Socrates’ death (Tarrant)
– Named after the narrator/ a minor character – why?
Because Phaedo escaped prostitution and slavery –
Socrates’ soul will similarly be freed from being
enslaved by its bodily needs
– Setting – Phaedo is in a remote township, telling
Ecechrates of Socrates’ last day
– It is in a way a second ‘apologia’ – it defends Socrates
against allegations from men such as Polycrates he
harmed Athens by allowing the city to execute him,
just because he wanted to die

Setting the scene…
– Phaedo tells Echecrates why Socrates’ execution was delayed – tells the story of
Theseus and the Minotaur and the sacred Mission to Delos each year
– Explains that he did not feel sorry for Socrates because “he met his death so
fearlessly and nobly.”
– When Phaedo arrived on the day of the execution he found Xanthippe and her
youngest son with Socrtaes. She burst into tears and Socrates sent he home,
crying hysterically.
– Socrates had just had the chains taken off his leg and commented on how pain
and pleasure are connected to each other – he felt pleasure at the chains being
taken off because the pain stopped. Pain leads to pleasure which leads to pain.
A Platonic idea?
– Cebes (a philosopher) tells Socrates that Evenus (a sophist)
was asking about his poetry. Socrates says he has been
writing poems of Aesop’s fables because a dream told him to
pursue the arts. He thought this was philosophy but is
now hedging his bets in case it meant the creative arts –
music, poetry, etc
– Socrates makes a joke that Evenus should aim to follow him
(into death!!) as quickly as he can.

Discussion of Death 57a-69e
Simmias (another philosopher) says Evenus will not be eager to die. Socrates says
he should be, but he should not do himself violence. Cebes and Simmias use
elenchus on Socrates – Cebes asks how Socrates can say a philosopher should
want to die but that suicide is wrong. Socrates turns this around by asking Cebes
questions.
Tell me then, Socrates,
what are the grounds for
saying suicide is not
legitimate?

…I believe this much is true:
that we men are in the care
of these gods, one of their
possessions. Don’t you
think so?

Yes, I
do.
…if one of your possessions
were to destroy
itself…wouldn’t you be
angry with it and punish it?

Certainly

So if you look at it in this
way…we must not put an end to
ourselves until God sends some
necessary circumstance…

If our service here is directed
by the gods, who are the
very best of directors, it is
inexplicable that the very
wisest of men should not be
grieved at quitting it…a
stupid man might get the
idea that it would be to his
advantage to escape from
his master…

You know, Cebes is always tracking
down arguments, and he is not at all
willing to accept every statement at
first hearing…

Why should a really wise man want to desert
masters who are better than himself…? You make
light of leaving not just us, but the gods too…

You mean, I suppose, that I must
make a court-style defence
against this charge.

Exactly.

If I did not expect to enter the
company, first, of other wise and
good gods, and secondly of men
now dead who are better than those
who are in this world now…it would
be unjust for me not to grieve at
death…
Crito interrupts, saying that the executioner has been asking
Socrates not to talk too much/get exited as it will affect the
poison. Socrates tells Crito to ignore the man. If he has to
administer the poison twice or three times, who cares?

Now for you, my jury…those who really apply themselves
in the right way to philosophy are directly and of their
own accord preparing themselves for dying and death.

…you have made me laugh, though I
was not at all in the mood for
it…most people would think…it was
a very good hit at the philosophers
to say that they are half dead
already…

…they are not at all aware in what sense
true philosophers are half dead…is [death]
simply the release of the soul from the
body? [Simmias agrees] Do you think it’s a
philosopher’s business to concern himself
with what people call pleasures? [food,
I think the
drink sex]...what about the other ways in
true
which we devote our attention to our
philosopher
bodies? Do you think that a philosopher
despises
attaches any importance to them? [gives
them.
examples – clothes, shoes, etc]

So it is clear first of all in the case of physical
pleasures that the true philosopher frees his soul
from association with the body…Now take the
acquisition of wisdom: is the body a hindrance or
not…? [Gives examples of sight/hearing being
inaccurate. Only through reasoning/argument
does the soul get a clear view of truth/reality]
Surely the soul can reason best when it is free of
all distractions such as hearing or sight or pain or
pleasure of any kind…the philosopher’s soul is
most disdainful of the body, shunning it and
seeking to isolate itself.
It seems so.

[Establishes with argument that there are things such
as justice and goodness that can’t be seen with the
eyes. The person who will best understand these
things is someone who just thinks about them, while]
“cutting himself off as much as possible from his
eyes and ears and virtually all the rest of his body, as
an impediment which, if present, prevents the soul
from attaining to the truth…”

[Bodies distract philosophers with illness, desire, fears, etc.
Their desires/needs cause greed which causes wars.]…if we
are ever to have pure knowledge of anything, we must get
rid of the body…the wisdom which we desire…will be
attainable only when we are dead…

[The philosopher must ‘purify’ his soul by
ignoring his body as much as possible. If a
man has done this] would it not be ridiculous
for him to be distressed when death comes
to him?

It would, of course.

Then it is a fact, Simmias, that true
philosophers make dying their
profession…[Only philosophers can be brave
as others are just brave out of fear (e.g. of a
bad reputation). Only philosophers are truly
self-controlled as others only control
themselves through fear of losing other
pleasures (e.g. a fit body)].

[Mystery religions are right
when they say that] he who
enters the next world
uninitiated and unenlightened
shall lie in the mire, but he
who arrives there purified
and enlightened shall dwell
among the gods…these
devotees are those who have
lived the philosophical life…

Socrates’ Last Moments 116a-118a

This dialogue tells us a lot about Socrates’ character and how he
was regarded by his followers.
– Crito asks Socrates how he wants to be buried and Socrates makes
a joke that Crito can do what he likes if he can catch Socrates.
Socrates clearly does not believe that the body, once the soul has left
it, has anything to do with the person.
– Socrates tells his friends to ease
Crito’s grief by reminding him it will not
be Socrates he is burying, just his
body. He will have gone “to a world of
happiness that belongs to the
blessed”.
– Socrates went away to bath and his
friends, including Phaedo, said “we felt
just as though we were losing a father
and should be orphans for the rest of
our lives…”
.

– After his bath, Socrates saw his sons and “the women of his household”,
said goodbye then sent them home.
– The executioner/prison guard came in and said it was time to take the
poison but he knew Socrates would not abuse him as some other had
because “I have come to know during this time that you are the noblest
and gentlest and bravest of all the men that have ever come here…”, and
then burst into tears
– Socrates told Crito to bring in the poison – Crito objected, saying
Socrates could wait until quite late at night to take the poison if he
wanted
– Socrates said he would not wait as it would only make him “ridiculous in
[his] own eyes” for clinging on to life

– Socrates took the poison and then cheerfully asked if it was permitted
for him to pour a libation. The executioner said no. Instead, Socrates
prayed to the gods to make his journey to the next world prosperous
and drained the cup.
– After Socrates drank the poison, first Crito burst into tears, then
Phaedo. Apollodorus was already weeping. Socrates told them off,
saying he had sent the women home to avoid such a scene.
– Socrates walked about, then when his legs felt heavy lay on his back.
Gradually he lost feeling in his body.
– When the paralysis got to his
waist Socrates said: “Crito, we
ought to offer a cock to
Asclepius. See to it, and don’t
forget.”
– He said no more. Crito closed
his mouth and he was gone.
Phaedo: “This, Echecrates,
was the end of our comrade,
who was, we may fairly say, of
all those we knew in our time
the bravest and also the wisest
and the most just.”
–

SUMMARY OF VIEWS IN THE PHAEDO

Views on death:
– Suicide is wrong – gods will be angry if their possessions destroy
themselves.
– Simmias and Cebes say that surely if God is our master while we live,
we should want to remain alive, and not accept death, since who wants
to leave a good master? Socrates says that he expects to have good
masters (the underworld Gods) in the afterlife as well and to have
conversations with many good men.
– Socrates says a philosopher spends his whole life preparing for death
and should not fear it when it comes. He says a philosopher is
concerned with the soul, not the body, and since death is just the
separation of the soul and the body the philosopher should welcome it.
– It is a good thing to be rid of the body because A) its needs distract the
philosopher from seeking knowledge and B) the body’s senses are
unreliable (sight, hearing, etc.) – only the soul can perceive truth, but
the body pollutes and blinds it.
– Only those who have achieved some enlightenment reach his ideal
afterlife – Socrates compares the philosophical life to initiation into a
mystery cult. In mystery cults only the initiated reached Elysium –
Socrates suggests only philosophers reach it.

Religious beliefs
– The soul is immortal
– There are benevolent gods in the afterlife who reward those who have
lived well and sought virtue with eternal happiness (very Christian!)

Philosophical beliefs – how true was Socrates to them?
– Pleasure and pain are closely connected – two extremes of the same
thing (a very Platonic idea)
– Philosopher should show courage and self-control
– Philosopher should seek wisdom so that he can act in a virtuous way
– Philosopher should seek to free his soul from the distractions of the
body
– Was Socrates true to these beliefs in the way he lived his life? Give
examples to support your conclusion.
– Socrates was true to his beliefs. Socrates showed courage and self-
control when he did not weep or lament his death, but rather embraced
it. He refused to delay taking the hemlock until the last minute (as his
friends wanted him to), and spent his last day seeking wisdom through
philosophical enquiry (being questioned by Simmias and Cebes over
the nature of death) rather than feasting and drinking as others might.
His last words were a joke suggesting that death is a cure for life (he
asked Crito to sacrifice a cock to Asclepius, god of healing, a sacrifice
usually offered as thanks for being cured of some illness).

Socrates Overview

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Socrates Overview

More from sudsnz

Socrates Overview