Category: Socrates

Novelist Rossiter Worthington Raymond once said, “Life is eternal; and love is immortal; and death is only a horizon; and a horizon is nothing save the limit of our sight.” A horizon, by definition, is no more than the range of one’s knowledge or experience. With this explanation in mind, death is no longer a destination to be feared, but rather an adventure to be explored, full of uncertainties.

Long before Raymond ever put pen to paper, philosophical forefather Socrates devised a similar stance, concerning the actual relevance of fear of death for the living. Throughout the final speech of the Apology, Socrates claims that fearing the unknown is futile, especially when more realistic fears exist in one’s own nature. In Socrates’ opinion, death can only result in nothingness or the induction into another world, either scenario being preferable to a life of persecution. His argument does not rest solely on proving death an unworthy fear, but rather expands his case to claim that character flaws are far more detrimental to one’s spirit than man’s mortality. In essence, Socrates advocates practical and healthy fears for that which man can control, as opposed to resisting the inevitable death.

Socrates first argues that the most seemingly depressing state of death is not as detestable as first envisioned. Assuming that “death is a state of nothingness and utter unconsciousness,” there is no actual loss for the deceased individual (Plato 45). In a state of nothingness, one neither exists nor realizes that existence continues without him or her. Therefore, to fear this numbness is to fear a “sleep undisturbed even by dreams,” likening death to that which man experiences nightly in a state of unconsciousness with no initial reservations or qualms (Plato 45). An undisturbed sleep is known as restful and peaceful. Dreams, however, represent the glimpses of reality that the individual is forced to encounter-some dreams pleasant and some nightmarish. This possible dichotomy begs the question as to whether the dream life (and therefore reality) is actually a worthwhile venture. The invasion of nightmares may in fact cause the sleep to be restless and unfruitful. A dreamless state of sleep, although lacking in fantasy, also lacks the element of fear and reality associated with dreams themselves. Without the disruption of these episodes, the rest is therefore more calming and fulfilling for the sleeper. Like this deep sleep, the unconscious state of death may be preferable to that of life because it is a purely quiet state, devoid of corruption by the outside world. Without these dreamlike encounters, the eternity of death is “only a single night,” of uninterrupted and extended sleep (Plato 45). Socrates argues that this state of numbness and detachment is preferable to the life of persecution for the incendiary philosopher. In death, Socrates claims that man simply ceases to exist-no negative element is involved.

Oblivion is not the only option for the dead, according to Socrates. There may very well exist another realm attainable once man passes the horizon of life. In this other world, Socrates hopes to find the “true judges who are said to give judgment there” (Plato 45). In essence, he hopes to meet the profound thinkers and philosophers of times past who alone possess the right to share their “judgment” (or opinions) concerning theories and beliefs. In his passing, Socrates will find “infinite delight” in asking question of the intellectual equals and superiors from times past, thus enabling him to share his theories and benefit from theirs (Plato 45). Death is not a foe to be feared, but rather a threshold to realm where time is nothing, wherein brilliant minds can convene and discuss theories without fear of harassment or punishment by ignorant people. In dying in the mortal sense, he will live in the immortal realm. Such a “pilgrimage will be worth making” in Socrates’ eyes because he will find among his companions others like himself (Palamedes and Ajax), unjustly condemned to a similar fate during their time on earth (Plato 45). This postmortem vision mirrors the Christian perception of heaven because man is reunited with loved ones that have died, therefore revealing that a modern audience still clings to this vision. There is no strife in this utopian world because it is deemed a place of honor and achievement. In this respect, death will be a far greater blessing than a curse because a true “lover of wisdom” thrives in an environment of others with the same passion and vitality.

Because Socrates argues against the existence of man’s greatest fear, he chooses to replace it with another, healthier fear-the fear of unrighteousness. Socrates advocates that he would “rather die having spoken after [his] manner, than speak in [the prosecutors’ and condemners’] manner and live,” revealing his true admiration for a man of principles (Plato 44). Through this belief, Socrates illustrates that he values courage and honesty over cowardice and weakness. In defending himself in the manner that his prosecutors prefer, he would lose his identity as a man of integrity but would retain his life. His acceptance of death before degradation of his values reveal that Socrates considers a life without beliefs and convictions a life not worth living. Unrighteousness is more difficult to avoid than death because it “runs faster than death” (Plato 44). A weak man knows how to flee from a fight by nature, but must summon his deepest morals and allegiance to the cause to fight a losing battle. Furthermore, his final requests for his sons at the conclusion of the piece reveal Socrates’ greatest fear for mankind in general. He pleads that the officials “trouble them…if they care about riches, or anything, more than virtue” and “reprove them for…thinking that they are something when they really are nothing,” again depicting that a virtuous and humble life is the only existence worth knowing (Plato 46). Only through such an existence of humility and morality, can man ever attain true harmony with himself and society. By illustrating that man remain strong in his integrity, virtue, and humility, Socrates states that a life devoid of these characteristics is more fearful than death itself.

Beyond the level of sight, resting at the horizon, there is a destination to which every man must reach. Socrates claims that is it not the horizon, but rather the winding path that leads us to the destination that man must fear. The destination is a complete unknown and will remain as such until man inevitably reaches that plane of sight. Without actual experience, humanity can only imagine and anticipate life at that boundary. Fearing this great unknown is therefore futile, as man knows not if it is a good or bad alternative to life. Socrates claims that the path is all that man is able to control and must therefore be cautious on his journey to the horizon. Living each day morally and virtuously will make this mortal life worth living. Many paths lie before humanity-paths laden with integrity and unrighteousness. Man alone must cautiously decide the course. As Socrates said, “the hour of departure has arrived, and we go our ways-I to die, and you to live. Which is better, God only knows”.

In Don Nardo’s The Trial of Socrates, Socrates is quoted as stating, “We should not be concerned about winning fame or political honors, but rather should try to gain more intelligence, to arrive at more knowledge of truth, and to develop finer character.” His devotion to virtue and good character during his life demonstrates just how axial Socrates was. Yet in 399 BCE he was executed by Athens, the Greek city state that is known as the world’s first pure democracy. It is puzzling as to why such a profoundly axial community would put their most axial philosopher to death. But in truth, Athens and Socrates were very much at odds. Socrates held the rather elitist view that only certain people were capable of true knowledge, whereas Athenian democracy was based on the idea that every citizen was capable of governing themselves. These disparate philosophies led to near-constant criticism of Athenian politics from Socrates. Pre-Peloponnesian War Athens was a strong, tolerant democracy that could contend with critics, but the hardships they experienced between 431 and 404 BCE made them paranoid and intolerant. In fact, a former follower of Socrates was responsible for one of these hardships. After the war the philosopher further alienated himself by failing to speak out against the Thirty Tyrants, who unjustly murdered many Athenian citizens. Athens executed Socrates because, at a time when it was weak from a devastating war, he relentlessly criticized their democracy, yet failed to speak out against tyrants in the city, and preached compassion, yet associated with people who had harmed Athenian citizens, resulting in the death of an Axial thinker who helped to shape the world as it is today.

The once open-minded Athens had been weakened into a suspicious and paranoid society by the hardships they experienced in the Peloponnesian War: the plague, severe casualties, and loss of unity. In Pericles’ funeral oration, as reconstructed by Thucydides, the statesman brags about Athens’ powerful army, successful democracy, and rich culture. While his claims have the clear motive of boosting morale through hubris, it is a widely accepted fact that the Athenian democracy was unusually free and tolerant for its time. The Peloponnesian War, which took place from 431-404 BCE, changed that entirely. The first phase of the conflict, called the Archidamian War, ended in a stalemate, but not before Athens had been ravaged by plague in 430 BCE. In Thucydides’ “The plague: human nature laid bare by a natural disaster,” he writes, “This was a kind of disease that defied explanation, and the cruelty with which it attacked everyone was too severe for human nature”. But, according to Mark Kishlansky in his book A Brief History of Western Civilization, “The Sicilian expedition ended in disaster. Athens lost over two hundred ships and fifty thousand men”. This massive loss, which had happened at the discretion of a public leader, made Athenians distrustful. In 411 BCE, when Alcibiades told them that Persia would stop supporting Sparta if they established an oligarchy, they did so. He had lied again, and democracy was restored, but “the brief oligarchy left the city bitterly divided”. These disasters left Athens distrustful, disunified, and looking for someone to blame.

Alcibiades, who led Athenian men into battle then betrayed them, and Critias, one of the most hated Thirty Tyrants, were both former followers of Socrates; many citizens of Athens considered Socrates guilty of corrupting them because of this relation. In 432 BCE Socrates met Alcibiades during a military campaign, when the two men shared a tent. Years later, Alcibiades turned traitor during the Sicily expedition, resulting in the death of thousands. Nardo wrote, “Many Athenians believed that Alcibiades had become the philosopher’s ardent follower and that Socrates, an acknowledged eccentric and critic of the state, had somehow corrupted the younger man”. Additionally, the most infamous of the Thirty Tyrants, Critias, had been a follower of Socrates before he was part of that ruthless oligarchy. This fact gave Athenians another reason to question what Socrates had taught the younger men when they were his pupils. In fact, one of the charges he was put on trial for in the first place was “corrupting the city’s youths”. Plato gives an account of Socrates’ reaction to this charge in his dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates observes, “Meletus is perhaps first cleaning us out, the corruptors of the young sprouts, as he asserts. Then, after this, it is clear that when he had taken care of the older ones, he will become the cause of the most and greatest good things for the city”. The philosopher recognized that Athens saw him as the cause for part of their suffering, and that they worried he would further harm them by teaching others to act as Alcibiades and Critias had. Therefore, Athens needed to get rid of this threat to their state.

Despite heavily criticizing Athenian democracy, Socrates failed to speak out publicly against the Thirty Tyrants during their reign of terror. In his dialogue “The Allegory of the Cave” Plato wrote, “Neither could men who are uneducated and inexperienced in truth ever adequately preside over a state, nor could those who had been permitted to linger on to the end in the pursuit of culture”. In effect, Plato believed that only the most intelligent people could properly lead the government. Due to the fact that Plato was a pupil of Socrates, it is highly likely that his teacher shared this view. Nardo confirms this inference; he wrote that what aggravated Athenians the most about Socrates was “his belief that only a select few individuals were capable of acquiring meaningful, insightful knowledge’. As a result, Socrates lambasted Athenian democracy with criticism. He could not accept their democratic idea of ordinary citizens ruling themselves. However, when the Thirty Tyrants came into power in 404 BCE, Socrates fell silent. The group of despots claimed that their motive was to cleanse Athens of criminals, but in reality they jailed and murdered citizens in order to gain wealth and maintain power. Not once did Socrates publicly speak out against them, making many Athenians suspicious of his loyalty to justice and virtue. Taken together, Socrates’ criticism of Athenian democracy and failure to condemn the wrongdoing of the Tyrants made him many enemies who were not hesitant to harm him.

Socrates devoted his life to finding virtue and knowledge, but the supposedly enlightened Athens executed him. After years of war and misfortune, they needed someone to blame, and Socrates was the obvious choice. He possessed a great mind, one that helped to explore and spread the idea that compassion and empathy are the most important qualities people can possess. This idea of ethical action is the basis of Western philosophy. But unfortunately, he used his intelligence to criticize Athens’ democracy, and failed to use it when the city was controlled by despots. Perhaps he would have lived out his days in that way, as the “gadfly” to the horse that was Athens, but the Peloponnesian War created an environment so hostile it killed its most famed philosopher. Socrates’ trial and execution stand as a testament to the horrendous effects of war. The world today would do well to learn from Socrates’ ethics, and not the circumstances that ended his life.

In the Apology and in Clouds, we are shown two very different depictions of Socrates’ beliefs on the gods of Athens. In the Apology, we see a version of Socrates that is fairly unconcerned with the discussion of the gods, and more interested in the discussion of the public good. In contrast, the Clouds shows us a picture of Socrates, ready to argue and debate the presence and nature of the gods. Demonstrating his outlook on life at vastly different life periods, we are able to compare Socrates’ beliefs in the two works to develop a better understanding of the philosopher. While his beliefs do seem to change and grow with time, it seems to me that Socrates is consistently portrayed Plato as an agnostic, having been convinced out of every possible belief system by his own logic and uncertainty.

To begin, it is helpful to note the difference in Socrates’ approach to argumentation in the two Platonic works. In many ways, Clouds seems to represent the journey of Socrates that ends in the Apology. The works together lay out the story of Socrates’ life. Throughout Clouds, we see Socrates actively investigating and exploring the natural and supernatural phenomenon occurring in the world around him. Then, in the Apology, we see Socrates brought to trial for that investigative nature, as he says himself, “Socrates does injustice and is meddlesome, by investigating things under the earth and the heavenly things” (Plato 66). Looking at the two works in context of each other, we are able to more accurately interpret the nature of Socrates’ view on the gods, and his changing approach to the topic.

On the one hand, a belief in the atheism of Socrates seems to make sense on a surface level. Particularly in Aristophanes’ the Clouds, most deity-style references to the clouds seem like they very well could be simple references to different elements in nature. While the clouds are analogically referred to as gods, the Clouds explains natural elements of the weather in terms of their scientific purposing. Strepsaides asks scientific questions, like “What is the the thunderbolt?” (Aristophanes 132), and Socrates answers with equally scientific answers. “Whenever a dry wind is raised aloft and gets shut up into these clouds, it puffs them up inside like a bladder; then by necessity it bursts them…” (Aristophanes 132-133). Or, in another case, Strepsaides asks, “Who makes rain?” and is rhetorically answered with, “Have you ever seen rain without clouds?” All throughout the text, Socrates uses a scientific approach to address questions. If we look at Socrates in light of this scientific approach, atheism seems a logical outcome. In a today’s world, scientific answers to previously deityrelated questions often lead those individual to reconsider their belief in gods. With Socrates’ bold claims about the nonexistence of Zeus, and general skeptical view of the Greek gods, it seems easy to arrive at that conclusion. Thus, in the Clouds, atheism seems like a logical conclusion.

On the other hand, the Apology shows a Socrates is relatively indecisive when addressing the question of deities. Understandably, as any incorrect claims on the nature of gods could mean a significantly swifter death for him. When claims are brought against him, Socrates seems to slightly change the subject in order to avoid directly addressing his beliefs on the gods. In one instance, he wraps himself up in a tangent on knowledge and his own lack thereof (Plato 70). In another instance, he pushes Meletus into a question and answer time on the subject of what it means to “corrupt the youth” (Plato 74). Nowhere in the Apology does he directly address his own personal belief or lack of belief in a god, explaining which god or gods he may believe. Combining the ambiguity of the Apology with the argumentation of the Clouds, it seems feasible that Socrates could be an atheist.

However, I find a much stronger argument for Socrates being an agnostic, uncertain of his beliefs on the gods, but certainly not denying their existence. In the discussion of the gods in Apology and Clouds, Socrates consistently holds to a view that is not inclined towards the gods of Athens. In one of his arguments for the cloud-like gods of Clouds, Socrates notes that these god figures “become all things that they wish” (Aristophanes 130). While disguised in analogy, the Socrates is hinting at the idea that the gods, if they exist, cannot be easily pinned down to one position. In another context, we find Socrates directly stating “Zeus doesn’t not even exist” (Aristophanes 131). Instead of holding to a belief in the Athenian gods, he seems to have his own abstract position on the subject. While he frequently jabs at the gods of Athens, he does not provide a concrete alternative belief. We find him stating that “no greater good has arisen for you in the city than my service to the god” (Plato 81). In another context, Plato argues that “I teach them to believe that there are gods of some sort— and so I myself do believe that there are gods and am not completely atheistic and do not do injustice in this way” (Plato 76) Frequently, Socrates refers to these vague notions of unknown gods, leading us to conclude that his belief in the gods of Athens is highly unlikely.

In light of this perspective, it is understandable to believe that Socrates was not a firm believer in the gods of Athens. However, he is equally repulsed by the concept of atheism. This is particularly obvious in the Apology where Socrates discusses knowledge. He states “…probably neither of us knows anything noble and good, but…I am likely to be a little bit wiser than he in this very thing: that whatever I do not know, I do not even suppose I know” (Plato 70). Socrates firmly believes his greatest wisdom is knowing that he knows nothing. If Socrates held such an assumption, he could not consider himself an atheist in any sense of the word. In order to embrace atheism, one must embrace, or pretend to embrace knowledge of all things, so as to rule out any possibility of gods existing outside of our knowledge. Socrates, believing he knew nothing, would certainly be reluctant to embrace a belief pattern along these lines. He would argue that he knew far too little to make an educated decision to be an atheist.

Having ruled out deism and atheism, Socrates is left with the rational decision to remain agnostic. With his firm belief that he knew nothing, an agnostic view seems highly probable. Rather than actively defend the existence or non-existence of gods, Socrates instead appears to dodge around laying out a firm belief on the topic. Particularly in the Apology, as Socrates is accused of corrupting the youth with atheism or beliefs in other gods, he consistently dodges the question, almost uncertain of his stance (Plato 77-78). Certainly, much of that uncertainty of stance traces back to his realization that he knows nothing (Plato 70).

Having established Socrates’ relative agnosticism on the subject of religion, other elements of Socrates’ belief on religion come to light. In wrestling with the possibility of other deities, Socrates makes an interesting turn towards natural science to explain the existence of gods. In the Clouds, Socrates addresses this issue prominently. Directly after declaring the non-existence of Zeus, Socrates goes on to discuss the possibility of an ethereal vortex serving as the force behind the weather and other natural elements (Aristophanes 131). In contrast with a culture that emphasized the Athenian gods controlling the weather, Socrates has a new-fangled idea that weather changes could be inspired and driven by nature forces. He discusses this by pointing out the rain only comes when clouds are overhead (Aristophanes 131). Socrates punches his argument even further by observing that lightning is equally natural in its origin (Aristophanes 132).

Interestingly, this interest in natural science continues even towards the end of Socrates’ life in the Apology. We find him rhetorically asking Meletus “Do I not even believe, then, that the sun and moon are gods, as other humans do?” (Plato 76). Meletus contradicts this by pointing out that Socrates believes the sun to be stone and the moon to be earth (Plato 76). Even so, the argument seems to stand. Socrates does not appear to find contradiction between the sun being stone and the sun being a deity. Even so, the concept of nature being the gods does not seem to fully persuade Socrates.

On a similar vein, the Apology shows us a Socrates who is investigating a new form of deity in his belief system—diamonia (Plato 73). Purposefully left uninterpreted from its original language, the word’s definition is relatively ambiguous, possibly referring to “divinities” (Plato 73). Despite their vagueness, they are central to the argumentation and dialogue of the the Apology. Rather than believe in the gods of Athens, Socrates seems moderately convinced that there could be other divinities, which he shares with his students. This exploration in religion is one of the many reasons that Socrates is forced to come to trial (Plato 76). Even with such an accusation before him, Socrates still remains uncertain of his belief in these diamonia. Rather than directly make claims concerning the deities, he states “if I believe in diamonia…” and “you say that I believe and teach diamonia…”, but he refuses to give a firm stance on these mysterious deities (Plato 77).

At some level, Socrates’ uncertainty about deism and atheism seems tied to his skepticism of the justice of religion. In the Apology, this is most evidence as he questions whether religious discussion can lead to justice. “Socrates does injustice by not believing in gods, but believing in gods,” Socrates quotes from his accusers (Plato 77). “And yet this is the conduct of one who jokes,” Socrates adds in his own commentary on the subject (Plato 77). In Socrates’ mind, religion appears to have corrupted and confused his accusers’ definitions of justice. Because of the confusion that religion puts on justice, Socrates is largely uninterested in establishing his own religious view, displaying this view in the Apology, adamantly stating, “What gods indeed will you swear by! For first of all, we don’t credit gods” (Aristophanes 125).

Even so, as Socrates seems largely unconvinced by many arguments for the presence and activity of gods in the world, he still seems to slowly lose interest in arguing against those arguments. In the Clouds, we see a version of Socrates that is interested in picking a fight and deeply discussing the nature of the gods’ activities in the world around them (Plato 13). He is relatively quick to make blanket statements, like the non-existence of Zeus (Plato 131), and is generally willing to insert his opinion on any given subject. The Socrates of the Apology, however, almost seems like an entirely different person on that front. “In making my defense speech,” he says, “I would simply be accusing myself of not believing in gods” (Plato 89). The Socrates of the Clouds would have been quick to fire out additional responses in order to attack his accusers’ argumentation. Instead, the Socrates of the Apology gives up the argumentation as futile, perhaps a sign of his growing wisdom.

At a broader level, Socrates does not even seem interested in arguing based on some forceful thesis. While Socrates seems to frequently have made bold arguments in the Clouds, the Apology shows Socrates using a more questioning style of conversation. Clearly evidenced in his discussion with Meletus, Socrates artfully makes an entire argument out of questions during his time with his accusers (Plato 73-74). By the Apology, Socrates has mastered his understanding of his own Socratic method and uses it with incredible effectiveness.

To draw our religious discussion to a close, it is notable that regardless of Socrates’ growth and change in style, Socrates still seems to be largely undecided in his views on the existence of gods. While a reasonable argument could be made for the atheistic nature of Socrates life and teachings, a far more plausible argument can be made for an agnostic Socrates, who is entirely unsure of the existence of God. He has explored many different viewpoints and possibilities concerning the nature of gods and god-like forces in the world, but remains uncertain and presents no final conclusions in these particular works. Instead, we are left with a brilliant philosopher who is attempting to navigate the difficult topic of his city’s religious beliefs, eventually coming to the conclusion that he cannot be certain of anything with certainty.

Socrates is a greek philosopher and he once said that ‘An unexamined life is not worth living’. It means that we must examine our lives and we must choose a good life for ourselves through self-awareness thus it’s worth living. He also said that ‘Knowledge is a virtue’. It means that to know something is to do something and knowing what is good is to do what is good. We must be aware to do the right or good thing. It also comprehends that no one does bad things intentionally.

Socrates’ philosophies greatly boost my reflection and views in life because they made me realize that I should know myself more and more in silence, and focused ways. Back then, I tried to ask myself, ‘What is my purpose in my life?’ and ‘Why am I here on Earth?’. These are the questions that we ourselves can only answer. This time, I try to examine myself and how I’m capable of doing anything. Through this, I became aware of who I am, and my purpose here on Earth. I discover my bad and good sides, my passion and hobby in life, what I’m good at, and things that can make me happy, contented, and makes me complete. I also find out that I’m timid and shy to strangers but I’m clingy to someone I know dearly. It also teaches me how to think knowledgeably and be formative.

As Socrates would say, ‘Knowledge is a virtue’. To know something is to do something. From what I have said, I discovered my bad and good sides. I am good when it comes to helping other people, especially my loved ones and I know that helping is a good thing. I am bad when someone tries to harm and disrespect my loved ones and also when someone hates me. It is not intentional that I’m taking sides with my loved ones and I know that I’m fighting for my right. I also believe in the saying, ‘Do unto others, as you would like them to do unto you’.

These philosophies by Socrates greatly boost my reflection, views on life, and experiences. It changed my thoughts and I must learn about myself as much as possible and make a change through self-awareness. It also made me learn that we must know something in order to do something that is good.

By examining ourselves, I am sure that good things will follow and we will be taking the good path and the right way. We can find ourselves meaningfully and we can make the right decisions in our life thus we are aware of ourselves that cannot make ourselves regret it. To recall, Unexamined life is not worth living, examined life is meaningful and worth living. We should also conduct ourselves the right way in order to unharmed others. As Socrates says that ‘Knowledge is a virtue’, we must think carefully before doing anything. We must understand the knowledge we learn through life and we must reflect on it.

Throughout the Socratic dialogue ‘Protagoras’, the sophist Protagoras argues that being virtuous can be taught. Protagoras argues that excellence can be taught, as it is an example of citizenship. He claims that “I am a sophist and I educate people”, most particularly how to teach students to be excellent speakers. On the other hand, Protagoras’ antagonist, Socrates, claims that virtue cannot be taught, leading both philosophers to argue whether or not virtue is either wisdom or knowledge. Socrates asks Protagoras if excellence is a single quality (of which justice, moderation, wisdom, and other virtues are part), or if it is actually many qualities. However, both parties’ arguments became inconclusive throughout their conversation, instead, both resorted to weak arguments, which was common for sophists to use (defending the indefensible). Therefore, leading to me to believe that Protagoras was wrong to think that excellence can be taught. To prove this, I shall first discuss Protagoras’ teaching method of making his students excellent speakers. Meanwhile, we shall also look at Socrates’ response to Protagoras’ supposed ‘teaching method’. After this, I shall then analyze Protagoras’ response, containing two arguments, I will then explain how these two arguments are weak especially when their main purpose is to counteract Socrates’ previous weak argument. In addition to this, I will also highlight how Protagoras shifted his argument from previously stating that everyone plays a part in political participation to everyone having the ‘capacity’ for political participation. Furthermore, I will then highlight the unity of virtues issue between both Socrates and Protagoras. Specifically analyzing Socrates’ question to Protagoras: ‘Can we be virtuous by having a virtue or by having all of them?’. Consequently, this essay will then conclude that Protagoras was wrong to say that excellence can be taught, as I agree with Socrates’ argument that excellence is a virtue by wisdom and cannot be taught. As well as Protagoras’ weak arguments in to attempt to prove that excellence can be taught.

Protagoras claims that he is ‘the wisest man alive’ and argues that he can make all of his students excellent speakers in both private and public settings. He goes on to say that he is able to do this by teaching his students ‘good judgment’. However, his antagonist, Socrates, argues that teaching students good citizenship is the same as teaching political wisdom, which is something that cannot be taught, as Socrates maintains his stance that virtue cannot be taught. Socrates gives two reasons why good citizenship cannot be taught: there are no recognized experts in politics within Athens, and good citizens don’t teach their sons to be good. Even though Socrates is using weak arguments here to strengthen his argument, both reasons do hold value. For example, during this time in Athens, the sons of the supposed ‘good’ citizens were morally corrupt, engaging in gambling, fornication, etc. In addition to this, even though Protagoras sought to teach excellence to Athenian young men, as a sophist, he was accused of disrupting the morality and religion of young men. Conservatives of the time saw sophists as corrupting the young with individualistic notions, paving the way for philosophical relativism. In my next argument, I shall look closely at Protagoras’ response, containing two arguments, I will then explain how these two arguments are weak in reinforcing the idea that excellence can be taught.

After looking at Socrates` response to Protagoras’ claim that good citizenship can be taught, we shall now look at Protagoras’ response in an attempt to strengthen his argument, but in reality, he takes away the value of his argument even further, by changing his original stance on excellence being taught. Previously, Protagoras claimed that everyone can political participation. Whereas now he shifts his argument to say that everyone has the ‘capacity’ for political participation. By Protagoras using the word ‘capacity’, he is now arguing that everyone has the potential to be virtuous, but he previously stated that he is ‘the wisest man alive’ and can teach anyone to be virtuous. He then goes on to support his new claim that everyone has the ‘capacity to be virtuous’, by presenting two arguments to reinforce it: the myth of Prometheus and an account of daily practice in Athens. Here, Protagoras is attempting to assert the idea that if one can witness political discussion within a community, it then shows that they have the capacity for good citizenship (virtue). As without political discussion, in Protagoras’ opinion, how can we have a city? Moreover, Protagoras then introduces a third argument to strengthen his claim by stating that everyone is a teacher of excellence, to the best of his ability. Instantly, this argument conjures up a huge weakness. It leads to one begging the question: ‘How can one teach excellence if they themselves don’t acquire pure excellence?’. Even Athens society during this period argued against the sophist’s influence. They did not agree with Protagoras`s notion of excellence, as they felt the sophists’ method of winning an argument was flawed. For example, Protagoras believed that there are two contradicting arguments about everything, thus creating a neutral rhetorical claim. Defending the indefensible by using weaker arguments and winning debates, which many conservatives felt was not excellence, and instead was corrupting the youth of Athens.

In my next argument, I shall discuss in further detail why excellence cannot be taught, most specifically looking at Socrates’ claim that no one can acquire perfect virtue. I will also be analyzing the unity of virtues issue, looking at Protagoras’ reasoning of what excellence really is. As previously stated, Protagoras now claims that everyone is a teacher of excellence, to the best of his ability. But this causes major contradictions, as to teach excellence, the teacher must surely possess the virtue of excellence. But to possess the virtue of excellence, in Protagoras’ opinion, one must also possess the aspects of excellence (soundness of mind, wisdom, holiness, courage) to have pure excellence. However, this can cause major issues for one aiming to be virtuous, as it now begs the question: ‘Can we be virtuous by having virtue or do we need to possess all virtues?’. Socrates puts this question to Protagoras, and Protagoras comes up with a meaningful analogy that helps explain his viewpoint. For example, he argues that the different parts of the face (eyes, ears, mouth, nose, etc.) all unify together to create a face. Without them, we wouldn’t have a face. On the other hand, even though Protagoras gives a good example here to reinforce his point, it still does not mean that excellence can be taught. Simonides’ poem supports Socratic views regarding the acquisition and retention of virtue. Overall, it argues that it is difficult to acquire perfect virtue. Therefore, it brings us back to Protagoras’ previous claim that everybody is a teacher of excellence. One cannot teach excellence if they do not possess the virtue of excellence, which is, in Socrates’ view, very hard to achieve.

In conclusion, I maintain my stance that Protagoras was wrong in thinking that excellence can be taught, as Protagoras made a series of weak arguments that actually contradicted his claim that excellence can be taught. Most specifically, him arguing that everybody is a teacher of excellence, but how can one teach excellence if everyone only has the ‘capacity’ for political participation, thus in order to teach excellence should the teacher, themselves, acquire pure excellence. I came to this conclusion by starting with my first argument, in which I presented Socrates’ two arguments against Protagoras’ claim that the virtue of good citizenship can be taught by himself. An example of this can be seen in Socrates’ argument that good citizens do not teach their sons to be virtuous. Here, I explained the corrupt lives of the Athenian youth at that period which reinforced Socrates’ response to Protagoras. Next, in my second argument, I analyzed Protagoras’ response, containing two arguments. By doing this, I was able to highlight and explain how Protagoras had shifted his argument that he is ‘the wisest man alive’ to teach excellence to only having the ‘capacity’ to teach excellence. Finally, I then highlighted the unity of virtues issue between both Socrates and Protagoras. Specifically analyzing Socrates’ question to Protagoras whether we can be virtuous by having the virtues or by having them all, adding meaning to Socrates’ disagreement with Protagoras, I explained Simonides’ poem and how it supports Socrates’ claim.

Bibliography

1. Beresford, Adam (2008). ‘Nobody’s Perfect: A New Text and Interpretation of Simonides Poetry. Classical Philology.
2. Burnet, J., Plato., Protagoras. Opera, Vol. III (Oxford University Press, 1922).
3. Silvermintz, Daniel (2016). Protagoras. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
4. Taylor, C.C.W. and Mi-Kyoung Lee. ‘The Sophists’. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

Plato’s ‘The Apology’ is a dialogue that provides Plato’s version of a speech given by Socrates to defend himself against the charges of corrupting the youth and impiety, charges that Socrates ultimately was convicted of and sentenced to death. This dialogue contains one of the most frequently cited lines in the entire history of Western thought. When speaking to the jury to explain why he can’t simply stop what he is doing, why he can’t stop annoying people by constantly questioning them about what they believe, and why Socrates says that he can’t stop examining his own life because the unexamined life is not worth living. That statement provides tremendous insight into Socrates’ understanding of what it means to live a good life. What Socrates is telling us is that the person who merely wakes up in the morning, goes to work, does his job, comes home, watches television, goes to bed, and then repeats this process, day in and day out for his entire life, never really reflecting on what he ought to be doing or what he values and why that life is not worth living. But for Socrates, participating in this type of rational reflection about what you value and why that is, doing philosophy, is not enough by itself to live a good life. What is also needed is that an individual becomes a master of himself, using his reason to rein in his passions, as well as doing what he can to help promote the stability of his community. And these topics are explored directly in Plato’s dialogue ‘The Republic’. While most people think of this as a political dialogue that focuses on the nature of justice, it is perhaps better understood as a dialogue focusing on virtue and the role of philosophy, community, and the state in helping to create the conditions that make living well possible.

At the beginning of book two, Glaucon, one of Socrates’ interlocutors in the dialogue, poses a challenge to Socrates. Glaucon tells the fable of the Ring of Gyges, which, like the One Ring in ‘The Lord of the Rings’, has the power to make its wearer invisible. He notes that the person who wears the ring, through various types of deception, would be able to get anything he wanted: power, money, or even a good reputation. The moral of this story seems to be that it’s not important to be just, but rather merely to appear to be just. And so his challenge to Socrates is: why must an individual be just to live a good life, isn’t it simply necessary for that person to appear to be just? In the remaining eight and a half books of ‘The Republic’, Socrates attempts to address this challenge.

His solution is to see justice not just as a political condition, but also as a state of a person’s soul. Understood politically, justice requires each person in the city to mind his own business, doing the particular job that has been allocated to him to the best of his abilities. Socrates claims that operating in this manner will allow the city to thrive, which is in everyone’s best interest. When the boys object that one implication of this position is that particular individuals or classes of individuals will not be happy with this arrangement, Socrates responded that he is not concerned with the happiness of particular individuals or classes of individuals, but rather with the happiness of the city as a whole. Here we see that for Socrates a well-ordered society trumps individual freedom. In addition to understanding justice politically, Socrates also sees it as a state of an individual’s soul. He compares the soul to a two-horse chariot. One of these horses, which he associates with a person’s appetites or desires, Socrates says, is stubborn, and must be controlled. The other horse, which he associates with spiritedness, is noble and can be used by reason, which he associates with the charioteer, to help control the stubborn horse. But if a person doesn’t learn how reason can make use of spiritedness to rein in desire, then that person will be just as misdirected as the chariot controlled by the stubborn horse. When understood in this way, it seems obvious to Socrates why being just, in addition to participating in a philosophical investigation, is necessary to live a good life. The just person not only does his part to maintain the stability of the society and the community but is also in control of himself and is not ruled by his desires.

Is Socrates’ position reasonable? While we moderns might find it odd that his conception of the good life would be tied so closely to what appears to be a significant restriction of individual freedom, Socrates might respond that freedom outside of a well-ordered community or well-ordered soul is simply lawlessness, and lawlessness is inconsistent with any conception of human well-being and what it means to live a good life. Anyone who might want to refute Socrates’ position at the very least would need to show how an emphasis on individual freedom does not lead to this kind of lawlessness. And so what we see in the Socratic dialogues is a conception of human well-being and the good life that emphasizes both the importance of rational reflection and an individual doing his part to contribute to the stability of the community as a whole.

The focus of the investigation presented queries; to what extent was Socrates’s death justified due to his involvement in the radical democracy of Ancient Greece? Thus, “Socrates against Athens,” written by Colaiaco and analytically interpreted by Smith and “Socrates,” written and edited by a series of editors and historians are two precise selects, to benefit the value and precision of the investigation. Insight, proof and examination have been professionally delivered with objective reasoning through detailed and differentiating perspectives of the investigation. Therefore, both sources serve great value and purpose to the investigation as it will help determine the extent of justification of Socrates’s death.

INVESTIGATION

Socrates till this day, without a doubt has been one of the most influential and idolized western philosophers of our time. He is credited with laying the fundamentals of modern Western philosophy as well as creating Socratic irony and the Socratic method (elenchus. ) Socrates is also renowned for being the mentor of his most famous student Plato and Xenophon (a great philosopher and thinker in his own rights.) Plato would mentor Aristotle who then continued Socrates’s legacy by tutoring Alexander the Great (l. 356-323 BCE, ) utilizing the methods and philosophy that had been passed down by Plato. Socrates can debatably be seen as extraordinary through his involvement and contribution by sharing his philosophy in Athens, yet there lies a great force of controversy during his trial that would ultimately determine his death. Socrates was charged for refusing to recognise the gods acknowledged by the state , creating his own deities, and corrupting the youth. Because of these two massive forces against and in favour of Socrates, both perspectives must be investigated to ultimately determine if Socrates death was justified.

The first section of investigation will look into Socrates involvement in the radical democracy of Athens and how he was charged for a series of offences. The Trial of Socrates (399 BC,) was held to determine the Socrates’s guilt of two charges: impiety against the pantheon of Athens, and corruption of the youth of the city-state. The three accusers were Meletus, a poet who initiated the prosecution against Socrates, Anytus, a powerful middle-class politician and Lycon, an orator . Socrates during his defense entered into an exchange with Meletus and succeeded in making him appear rather dim-witted. Socrates trapped Meletus into saying ‘I say that you do not believe in any gods at all,’ which exposed Meletus’s nonsensical accusation of Socrates of creating his own deities . This drops the charges against Socrates of committing impiety and of creating his own deities because during the trial, Socrates’s only positive defence was that he was a pious man . At the same time, Meletus, Anytus and Lycon failed to provide any motives of Socrates into corrupting the youth . The truth behind the Trial of Socrates was based on a retaliation by the accusers through charging Socrates with fake accusations. The reason Meletus initially brought up the accusations were due to his religious fanaticism and anger over Socrates’s association with the Thirty Tyrants . Meletus was also upset with the low opinion of Socrates for poets. Lycon too, was upset of Socrates’s low opinion of orators. Socrates accused poets and orators of flattery and said that they move only women, children, and slaves. Anytus played a leading role into overthrowing the Thirty Tyrants, thus his support for the absurd accusations made by Meletus were supported as he sought to rid all Thirty Tyrant members and associates. Socrates also had a relationship with the son of Anytus. It is not known whether the relationship was sexual, but Socrates had indeed slept with some of his younger students. Anytus disapproved of his son’s relationship with Socrates and was most displeased, when Socrates urged his son to not continue in the servile occupation that his father had provided. These were the grudges that were held behind the scene during the trial . Socrates had been a very influential figure and wise philosopher, but his low opinion of an orator and poet to which he believed only moved women, children, and slaves denies a part of himself as a philosopher. Socrates is supposedly a philosopher with the moral of the Western ethical traditions of thought, but his sexist comments and unprofessionalism through having a multitude of relationships with his students contradict his teachings and role as an influential philosopher. Thus, Socrates involvement in the radical democracy of Athens, had led him to his own death due to his hypocritical believes as a philosopher which would ultimately have people accuse him of the fake charges.

The second section of the investigation will look further in Socrates positive involvement in the radical democracy of ancient Greece. The radical democracy of Athens had citizens payed by the state to participate in public affairs . Regardless of social status and wealth, all men were to be equal and participated in these affairs to create a democracy. Socrates alone, would begin and influence many to amplify philosophy and thinking. Socrates believed that philosophy should achieve practical results for the greater well-being of society. He attempted to establish an ethical system based on human reason rather than theological doctrine and pointed out that human choice was motivated by the desire for happiness. He believed that ultimate wisdom came from knowing oneself, so the more a person knew, the greater his or her ability to reason and make choices that will bring true happiness . Socrates had a level of leadership and influential presence through his words and brilliant linguistics, as well as insightful philosophy that seized great wisdom and understanding of the world. He would mentor Plato, Xenophon and many other great philosophers to practice the wisdom that he had shared. Aristotle who was mentored by Plato, would later write one of his most famous books “Rhetoric .” Socrates, besides proving to be a very philosophical and positively influential figure, had helped many other philosophers continue on their own journey that would further contribute to the early stages of Western philosophy. One of Socrates’s greatest contribution in the radical democracy of Athens was creating the Socratic Method, a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking questions over and over again to stimulate critical thinking, reasoning, and logic . This method of asking questions humbles the student so that they are willing to learn after they are unable to answer any more questions . Socrates sought to expose contradictions in the students’ thoughts and ideas to then guide them to a solid and tenable conclusion through exploring every situation possible . Within the Socratic Method was another form of philosophical intellectualism called Socratic Irony. This thought explains of a person pretending to be ignorant, who is then willing to learn from others. Through listening, the person utilizing the Socratic Irony would ask adroit questions which then exposes the weaknesses in the other person’s argument . As astonishing as Socrates was, he never believed his pupils were his students, but rather a friend. Socrates himself was a humble man and knew he could learn from others smarter than himself. He would often explore to find an individual smarter than him a particular area and utilize his Socratic Method to learn even more.

In conclusion, although Socrates had committed a few contradictory actions that denied himself as a philosopher, such as sleeping with his students and harbouring a low opinion of specific professions and gender, it is important to recognise that Socrates sexism was considered ordinary at his time. The definition of equality had changed throughout time and a few opposing actions committed by Socrates such as believing that poetry is only for children, women and slaves, this does not defy him as a great philosopher. Socrates had methodically created his influential teaching techniques and was a humble learner who viewed other philosophers and pupils as a friend an often as someone smarter than himself. He had influenced many other philosophers and crafted the foundations of modern Western philosophy, therefore to no extent, was Socrates’s death justified due to his involvement in the radical democracy of Ancient Greece.

REFERENCES

1. University of Notre Dame. Socrates against Athens: Philosophy on Trial // Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews // University of Notre Dame. 12 Feb. 2002, https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/socrates-against-athens-philosophy-on-trial/.
2. History.com Editors. “Socrates.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 9 Nov. 2009, https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-history/socrates.

Why does Socrates think Euthyphro must know piety?

Socrates accentuates the importance of understanding piety for Euthyphro because he is in a controversial situation, and he must see the difference between the piety, good, and justice. According to Socrates, to receive the right to prosecute the father “for murder on behalf of a servant”, Euthyphro first needs to have a clear knowledge of this concept (Plato 15d). If a person knows what piety and impiety are, he or she can be discussed as right and pious before the gods. Still, there is a question of justice and morality of actions to be discussed as right before the men (Allen 24).

What sort of answer is Socrates looking for?

Euthyphro’s first definition of piety is that “the pious is to do what I am doing now, to prosecute the wrongdoer” (Plato 5e). However, Socrates tries to oppose this idea because he needs to demonstrate that not all actions can be discussed as pious. Socrates helps Euthyphro understand that the definition of piety is rather complex, but he also expects to hear the morally right definition or a model, according to which it is possible to divide actions into pious and impious (Farness 89). In this context, Euthyphro’s definition lacks details and criteria to state the personal, as well as objective, the vision of piety more clearly.

What is Euthyphro’s second definition of piety, and what is Socrates’ primary objection to it?

Euthyphro’s second proposed definition of piety is that “what is dear to the gods is pious”, and he is sure that this definition is appropriate (Plato 7a). However, Socrates does not agree with this position, and he presents the objection to the second definition while stating that different gods prefer and hate various things, and actions regarded by gods as preferable or pious are considered oppositely by other gods (Hardwig 260). Therefore, things that can be viewed as dear for particular gods cannot be discussed as equally dear for other gods (Evans 2). As a result, it is difficult to state what actions are pious and dear because of differences in visions.

What point does Socrates make about carrying and being carried, seeing and being seen, and loving and being loved?

Socrates proposes simple rules for discussing things that can be seen and carried as well as loved. Anything can be seen only because it is being seen by others, and anything can be carried only because it is being carried out by people (Murphy and Weber 188). Thus, according to Socrates, there is always a need for someone who can affect anything to change it. The same is true for loving and being loved because Socrates states that “it is something loved because it is being loved by them”; therefore, something is loved. After all, it has features to be loved by people or gods (Plato 10c).

Why does Socrates think that the god-beloved is not the same as the pious and the pious is not the same as the god-beloved?

Socrates claims that the god-loved cannot be discussed the same as the pious because different gods can love people for different actions that can be impious (Murphy and Weber 188). Also, the pious is not the same as the god-loved because of different standards in gods (Plato 10d). Therefore, being just loved by gods does not mean that a person is pious; furthermore, being pious cannot mean being god-loved, as it is important to learn what gods can prefer or love (Hardwig 260). Different gods can love and punish for the same things; as a result, the idea of piety becomes unclear.

Works Cited

Allen, Reginald. Plato’s Euthyphro and the Earlier Theory of Forms: A Re-interpretation of the Republic. New York: Routledge, 2012. Print.

Evans, Matthew. “Lessons from Euthyphro 10–11.” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 42.1 (2012): 1-12. Print.

Farness, Jay. Missing Socrates: Problems of Plato’s Writing. New York: Penn State Press, 2010. Print.

Hardwig, John. “Socrates’ Conception of Piety.” Teaching Philosophy 30.3 (2007): 259-268. Print.

Murphy, Tim and Ralph Weber. “Confucianizing Socrates and Socratizing Confucius: On Comparing Analects 13:18 and the Euthyphro.” Philosophy East and West 60.2 (2010): 187-206. Print.

Plato. The Final Days of Socrates: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito and Phaedo. New York: Cosimo, Inc., 2011. Print.

Socrates’ proposition that the “unexamined life is not worth living (Plato The Apology 38a) has intrigued me for a long time. In order to develop a sufficient understanding of what this proposition means, it is necessary to recognize the specifics of the philosopher’s approach to philosophy and how it relates to practical life (Cotterill). The aim of this paper is to defend the position that moral or ‘examined life’ is worth living.

Debate

According to Socrates, the examined life is one that is characterized by a commitment to a philosophical inquiry (Plato The Apology 38a). In other words, it is an endless pursuit of virtue, which is not possible without regularly engaging in introspection (Plato The Republic 24c; “Socrates: The Good Life”). My assertion in the debate is that the only life worth living is the examined one. It can be argued that virtuous or ‘good life’ starts with the Ancient Greek dictum ‘know thyself,’ which requests the dismantling of the most cherished beliefs and ideas in order to separate counter-productive and false ones from those that are valuable and true (“Socrates: The Good Life”). Such a life is full of self-examination and inquiry that are often followed by either refutation or confirmation of popular convictions and ideas.

Critical analysis of one’s assumptions and beliefs is essential in the information age, which is associated with a barrage of various ideas and propositions. Without engaging in regular rumination and examination of one’s values and attitudes, it is impossible to determine which of them are of significant value and gravity and which are useless enough to thwart one’s pursuance of virtue. My argument for the good life is partially based on my personal experience of regular, protracted introspection that has helped me to better navigate the modern world and change my assumptions about the nature of the consumption-driven economy. Proponents of the unexamined life maintain that Socrates’ choice to opt for the examined life and take a poisonous drink is “at odds with moral systems that consider life’s value as contingent on the fulfillment of other norms and values” (Preda). However, by taking this line of reasoning, it is possible to justify the existence of communist and other murderous regimes that do not operate on an individual basis, and instead, place the highest value on a well-being of a collective. Interestingly enough, even within a capitalist framework, there is plenty of space for productive rumination on its virtues. A documentary titled “The 11^th Hour” points to numerous ills of living the unexamined life—global warming, mass species extinction, and deforestation among others (Conners and Conners). Plato’s allegory of the cave can be used to compare “the effect of education and the lack of it on our nature” (Plato The Republic 514a). Those who strive to recognize reality for what it is can understand the deleterious effects of human impact on the environment and change the course of the future by reducing the harm caused by unexamined actions.

Conclusion

The only life worth living is the virtuous or examined one. It is well within human capacity to transcend instincts shaping some behaviors and make deliberate and conscious choices. By regularly engaging in introspection it is possible to learn how to act in accordance with logic and reason instead of surrendering to the urgings of basic desires. An individual that spends their time in pursuit of virtue can rightfully claim that their life is examined one and worth living.

Works Cited

Conners, Nadia, and Lelia Conners, directors. The 11^th Hours. Warner Independent Pictures, 2007.

Cotterill, Thomas. “What Socrates Meant by the Examined Life.”Thomas Cotterill. Web.

Plato. The Apology. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2013.

—. The Republic. Translated by Benjamin Jowett, Routledge, 2008.

Preda, Adrian. “Is the Unexamined Life Worth Living.” Plos. Web.

“Socrates: The Good Life.” Faculty, Web.

Philosophy is often called the mother of sciences. Therefore, philosophic studies provide a gripping field for investigation. This paper aims to dwell upon one of the world’s most notable philosophers Socrates and reflect upon his biography and major ideas of his doctrine, including maieutics.

Biography

It is known that Socrates was born in Athens in 470 B.C. His father was a stonemason, whereas his mother was a doula. His teacher was Anaxagoras from Clazomenae, who was one of the most famous mentors (Colaiaco 15). Socrates did not travel much and hardly ever left Athens. He participated in battles in 432 B.C. and 422 B.C and is stated to have been a brave fighter (Colaiaco 17-18). In 399 B.C. he was accused of disrespect to gods as he believed in one god. Besides, he was charged with the corruption of the young as he taught his philosophy to them (Colaiaco 21). Thirty days after the verdict, he took a cup of water-hemlock in the presence of his students Colaiaco 25).

Studies

Socrates’ dialogues aimed to search for true knowledge, as well as an important step to the realization of its absence and comprehension of own ignorance. According to a legend, Socrates was called the wisest of the wisest. This might be connected with his statement about the lack of human knowledge: “All that we know is that we know nothing.” Using the method of irony, Socrates put on the mask of a simpleton and asked somebody to teach and explain something to him. There was a serious purpose behind the game. The interlocutor was supposed to discover his/her ignorance (Shoemaker 56).

Socrates addressed the issue of the person, the matters of the person’s essence and nature. He stated that it was possible to study the laws of nature and the movement of stars. However, he questioned why it was necessary to go so far. Following Delphian Oracle, Socrates said: “Know thyself” (Voltaire 138). It means that it is necessary to go deeper into the near, and then, through the cognition of simple things it was possible to reach the understanding of sophisticated verities. According to Socrates, the person is initially the soul. In his understanding, “the soul” is the mind, which is the ability to think, and the conscience, which is the moral principle. If the essence of the person is the soul, it means that this is not the body that needs special care but the soul. Therefore, any mentor’s most crucial purpose is to teach the person to nurture the soul. Virtues make the soul perfect. Socrates related virtues to cognition which was considered as a necessary condition to do good actions. Socrates believed that without the understanding of the essence of the good, it was not possible to know how to act for its sake. The virtue and the soul do not contradict each other. The mind is vital to discover the good, the wonderful and the just. (Taylor 78)

Apart from that, Socrates revealed the notion of happiness and possibilities of its achievement. The source of happiness is not located in the body or something external. It is situated in the soul. Therefore, the happiness does not result from the enjoyment of things from the external material world. It is tightly connected to the feeling of internal fulfilling (Voltaire 37). Hence, the person is happy when his soul is kind and well-ordered. According to Socrates, the soul is the owner of the body. This ownership is the freedom which Socrates called self-control. The person should try to gain the control over himself/herself based on the virtues: “The wisdom is to master oneself, whereas the ignorance leads to the defeat from oneself” (Taylor 152). Socrates never wrote down his thoughts.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is necessary to note that this paper has considered Socrates’ life and doctrine. It has outlined the most significant events from the philosopher’s biography. Besides, it has dwelled upon the most notable ideas of his studies.

Works Cited

Colaiaco, James. Socrates Against Athens: Phylosophy on Trial. Routledge, 2013.

Shoemaker, Jonathan Mitchell. Socrates and the True Political Craft in the Gorgias. Routledge, 2015.

Taylor, Alfred Edward. Socrates. Read Books Ltd, 2013.

Voltaire. Socrates. Sheba Blake Publishing, 2015.