Philosophers who compare Western philosophy with Indian philosophy or Buddhism are generally struck by the similarity between the former and the latter.Issues about personal identity, metaphysics, etc. are easily identified cross-culturally.(See, e.g., Jay Garfield's Empty Words [New York:Oxford University Press, 2001].)In contrast, those who compare Western and Chinese philosophy are generally struck by the differences:formal logic never developed in China; metaphor seems to be emphasized over more rigorous argument forms in China; deductive geometry became a model for philosophical method in the West but not in China; no work with concerns similar to Aristotle's Metaphysics became a paradigm of Chinese philosophy; atomism arose in the West but not in China.
It is tempting to explain at least some of these differences via the Sapir-Worf hypothesis.The Indo-European languages of Western and Indian philosophy make heavy use of the verb to be, while the Sino-Tibetan language family to which Chinese belongs has no such verb.Charles Kahn has done some justly famous work in which he argues that the pre-philosophical Greek language had a salubrious influence on the development of Greek philosophy by linking existence, truth and predication via the verb einai (see Kahn, The Verb Be in Ancient Greek [Dordrecht:Reidel, 1973]).If he is right, Chinese philosophers would have been, at the least, discouraged by their very language from developing the metaphysical insights of Plato and Aristotle.
The brilliant sinologist A.C. Graham applied Kahn's argument to Classical Chinese.Graham supported Kahn's descriptive claim by showing that it is unclear how to directly translate a metaphysical work like Anselm's Ontological Argument into Classical Chinese (see " 'Being' in Western Philosophy Compared with shi/fei and you/wu in Chinese Philosophy" in Graham, Studies in Chinese Philosophy and Philosophical Literature [Albany:State University of New York Press, 1990], pp. 322-359).However, Graham, who was more sympathetic to the anti-metaphysical strain in post-WWII British philosophy, turned Kahn's evaluative claim on its head:Chinese thinkers were fortunate, he thought, in not being seduced by the fallacies of Western metaphysical thinking.
The prima facie differences between Chinese and Western philosophy require extensive qualification, though.Hu Shih noted that the long-neglected Later Mohist writings (c. 300 BCE) include careful arguments and discuss issues in dialectics and the philosophy of language, often dealing with themes familiar to Western philosophers (see Hu, The Development of the Logical Method in Ancient China, 2nd ed. [New York:Paragon Book Reprint Corp., 1963]).The Mohists also show an interest in geometry and seem to give a quasi-geometrical presentation of their ideas (see Graham, Disputers of the Tao [Chicago:Open Court Press, 1989], pp. 137-170).True, neither the Mohists nor anyone else in China developed formal logic.But Parmenides, Socrates and Plato did philosophy without needing to wait around for Aristotle's Organon.And most philosophy since Aristotle has not been conducted in syllogisms anyway.Finally, recent work has revealed the extent to which careful rational argumentation is present in Confucian and Taoist texts, once their intellectual context and technical vocabulary is understood.(See, e.g., Xiusheng Liu and Philip J. Ivanhoe, eds., Essays on the Moral Philosophy of Mengzi [Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing, 2002], Paul Kjellberg and Philip J. Ivanhoe, eds., Essays on Skepticism, Relativism and Ethics in the Zhuangzi [Albany:State University of New York Press, 1996], and Thornton Kline and Philip J. Ivanhoe, eds., Virtue, Nature and Moral Agency in the Xunzi [Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing, 2000].)
In this collection of essays (most previously published, but often revised), Jean-Paul Reding continues the project of identifying similar issues and arguments between Western (specifically Greek) and Chinese philosophy.In addition, Reding calls for a re-evaluation of the Sapir-Worf hypothesis.He accepts that language influences the development of philosophy.However, he argues that we see by comparing Chinese and Greek thinkers that philosophers often reach very similar insights despite using very different languages.He also argues that many of the differences in emphasis we see between Chinese and Western philosophy are due to the fact that Greek philosophers are—very self-consciously—attempting to overcome the conceptual structure of their own language, which they see as an impediment to clear philosophical thinking.
Reding directly challenges Kahn and Graham in " 'To Be' in Greece and China." Against Kahn, Reding argues that einai (to be), far from encouraging fruitful metaphysical thought, was seen as a philosophically confused and confusing word by the Greeks themselves.Thus Aristotle is forced to identify misleading uses of the verb in order to combat certain sophistries:"For it is not the same thing 'not to be something' and 'not to be' absolutely; but, owing to the similarity of language, 'to be something' appears to differ only a little from 'to be,' and 'not to be something' from 'not to be'" (Sophistical Refutations 167a1-8, cited on p. 174).Kahn would, I think, acknowledge that Greek ordinary language required conceptual clarification.However, he could nonetheless maintain that einai pointed in the right general direction, even if it pointed vaguely.
More decisive is Reding's response to Graham's demonstration that Western metaphysical text cannot be directly translated into Classical Chinese:he observes that "the Greek language—as a natural, non-philosophical language—could not express these new concepts either, but had first to be changed by the philosophers" (p. 186).
Reding defends two positive theses in this essay.First, there "is a formal resemblance between the Greek and the Chinese approaches to the notion of being, in the sense that both cultures had hit upon the same paradoxes" (p. 189)."The same paradoxes" seems a bit too strong, but Reding does show Chinese thinkers wrestling with issues similar to those familiar to Western metaphysicians.For instance, Gongsun Long's "Treatise on Referring to Things" begins, "Things never fail to be referents, but referring is not a referent. É Referring does not exist.Things do exist.It is not possible to regard what does exist as what does not exist.If referring does not exist, then things cannot be called referents.That which cannot be called a referent is not a referent."(Cf. p. 181, where Reding cites another passage from the same treatise.)
Reding's second positive thesis is that, even though Classical Chinese uses a variety of expressions for what is expressed by forms of "to be" in Greek, we see a similar linkage of truth, predication and existence.When Mengzi asks a king whether a certain story is true, what he literally says is, "Is it there?" and the king's answer is, "It is there."A negative nominal construction in Chinese uses fei ("is-not"), but fei can also mean "to regard as false." Chinese philosophers could have exploited such connections for metaphysical purposes, had they wished to.
In "Greek and Chinese Categories," one of the best essays in the collection, Reding disputes Benveniste's claim that Aristotle's categories are merely a projection of his language (Benveniste, Problems in General Linguistics [Coral Gables:University of Miami Press, 1971]), and Graham's claim that Chinese thinkers would have (because of the difference of Chinese from Greek) constructed radically different categories had they been interested in the issue at all (Graham, Disputers of the Tao, pp. 414-428).Reding shows, through careful and thoughtful exegesis, that Aristotle's metaphysical categories explicitly cut across grammatical categories.Thus, "to recover" looks grammatically like it refers to something in the category of action.(In Greek it ends in –ein, the infinitive marker of many action verbs.)But it actually belongs in the category of states.Part of Aristotle's concern with these categories has to do with the effort to combat philosophical confusions and sophistries.We see a very similar concern in many Chinese texts.The Later Mohists observe, "Different kinds are not comparable. É Which is longer, a piece of wood or a night?Which do you have more of, knowledge or grain?" (p. 89).The Mohists do not generate a specific list of categories, but clearly seem interested in warning against sophistries that result from what we would call categorical distinctions:"Name and object do not necessarily go together.If this stone is white, when you break up this stone, all of it is the same as the white thing; but although this stone is big, it is not the same as the big thing" (p. 90).
In "Light and Mirror in Greece and China:Elements of Comparative Metaphorology," Reding notes the ironical situation that Plato and Aristotle regard metaphors as second-rate tools for expressing the truth, yet they frequently invent metaphors.In contrast, Chinese thinkers express no qualms about metaphors, but often use repeatedly the same metaphors.Reding ingeniously suggests that Greek thinkers are dubious about the philosophical adequacy of ordinary language, and this is precisely what legitimates the use of metaphors to point beyond what language can express.In contrast, Chinese thinkers tend to be more sanguine about the adequacy of ordinary language.But if this is so, why resort to metaphors at all?The answer lies in a fundamental difference between Chinese and Western metaphors.Western metaphors typically draw a correspondence between two ontologically distinct domains.For example, I open a "file" on my computer's "desktop."This is a brilliant way of conceptualizing a complex process, but we don't think there is any metaphysical connection between paper file folders on a wooden desk and the images on my computer screen.But try to apply this conception of metaphor to the famous debate between the Confucian Mengzi and the rival philosopher Gaozi (see Philip J. Ivanhoe and Bryan W. Van Norden, eds., Readings in Classical Chinese Philosophy [Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing, 2003], p. 140-141).Gaozi says that human nature is like water.Just as water will equally well flow east or west depending on its environment, so will humans become good or bad depending on their environment.Mengzi acknowledges that water is indifferent between east and west, but observes that it does show a preference for low over high.One can force water to go uphill, but given a natural environment it will flow down.This exchange has puzzled and disappointed many interpreters, who see in the clash of metaphors empty rhetoric. However, Chinese thinkers often assume what has been called a "correlative cosmology," according to which superficially diverse phenomena manifest the same qualitative patterns.Thus, "the Chinese metaphor does not try to establish a parallelism between two domains, but rather wants to show that there is a convergence between them:the nature of water behaves in exactly the same way as the nature of man" (p. 136, emphasis in original).Gaozi's initial water metaphor is supposed to be compelling because both water and human beings have a "nature" (xing in Chinese).However, Mengzi points out, quite correctly, that Gaozi has failed to explain how his view accounts for the natural dispositions of either water or human nature. Reding also notes in this article that in both ancient China and Greece, we see the metaphors of knowledge-is-seeing and knowing-is-mirroring.
Reding continues his discussion of metaphors in "The Origin of Logic in China," where he suggests that metaphors can be a way of highlighting the logical structure of an argument without explicitly stating an abstract, deductively valid schema.For example, in response to someone who believes that there are no spirits, but still advocates practicing the sacrificial rites to the ancestors, Mozi replies, "Study the sacrificial rites while affirming that there are no spirits, É this is like knotting nets while there are no fish" (35).Reding suggests that Mozi is using the metaphor to suggest a reductio ad absurdum with the following logical structure:(1) P if and only if Q.(2) P and not-Q.Therefore, Q and not-Q.This is intriguing, but Reding's analysis is hampered by a failure to use logical formalism with sufficient care. Mozi clearly would not want to commit himself to a truth-functional interpretation of what he had said.It simply is not true that "People knot nets if and only if they believe there are fish" (I believe at this very moment that "there are fish," but I'm writing a review, not knotting a net), nor is it true that "People study sacrificial rites if and only if they believe there are spirits" (since the whole point of the argument is that Mozi's opponent does practice the rites yet does not believe there are spirits).Mozi is arguing that there is a practical contradiction in his opponent's position, not a logical one.(Ironically, Reding seems to make this point regarding the very same argument in a different essay [p. 27].)Another study that emphasizes the use of metaphor in Chinese thought, but with a methodology different from Reding's, is Edward Slingerland's Effortless Action (New York:Oxford University Press, 2003).
In " 'Contradiction is Impossible,' " Reding argues that we see in both Greece and China thinkers proposing and arguing against the sophistry that it is impossible for two people to disagree or contradict one another.Plato wrestles with this problem in the Euthydemus, and Aristotle in the Metaphysics (Book 5, Chapter 29).The Later Mohists seem to argue against a similar sophistry:"To say that there is no winner in disputation necessarily does not fit the fact."They distinguish a case of purely verbal disagreement ("one man calls it 'whelp' and the other 'dog' ") from one in which they genuinely say different things ("one man calls it 'ox' and the other 'horse'").They conclude, "In disputation, the one calls it as it is, the other one, not.The one who fits the fact wins the debate" (cited on p. 19; my analysis of this passage differs somewhat from Reding's).
I worry, though, that Reding overestimates the exigency of this issue in China.He cites Zhuangzi's argument:
Let us suppose that you and I argue.If you beat me, and not I you, are you in the end right and I wrong?If I beat you and not you me, am I then in the end right and you wrong?Or is one of us right, and the other wrong?Or are we both right or both wrong?ÉWho shall I employ as arbiter between us?If I employ someone who takes your view to decide, how can he arbitrate between us, since he already sides with you?If I employ someone who takes my view to decide, how can he arbitrate between us, since he already sides with me?(Cited on p. 20; for the full passage see Ivanhoe and Van Norden, p. 218.)
The sentence "Or are we both right or both wrong?" may very well make oblique reference to the sophistry that interests Reding, but I read the passage as primarily a (rather powerful) skeptical argument based on the epistemological inconclusiveness of victory in debate and the impossibility of finding a neutral perspective from which to evaluate arguments.
I am also concerned that Reding underemphasizes the extent to which the sophistry is tied in Greece to particular metaphysical issues inherited from Parmenides.The Greeks connect falsehood with saying what is-not, and are puzzled how this could even be possible.But whether one agrees with all the details or not, this article is a thought-provoking discussion of comparative paradox-ology.
In "Words for Atoms—Atoms for Words," Reding discusses the fact that atomism developed in Greece but not in China.He suggests that both Greek and Chinese thinkers would agree with the principle ex nihilo nihil.(How disappointing they would have found the vacuum fluctuations of quantum mechanics!)This principle only generates a problem for Greek philosophers, though, because of the language they use.As Anaxagoras complains, "The Greeks are wrong to recognise coming into being and perishing; for nothing comes into being nor perishes, but is rather compounded or dissolved from things that are.So they would be right to call coming into being composition and perishing dissolution" (350 KRS, cited on p. 107).The ordinary language of change makes it seem paradoxical, thereby stimulating the development of a philosophical theory like atomism, which explains how apparent change is possible, when ultimately nothing comes into being or passes away.
In contrast, Reding surveys Chinese words for change and shows that all of them assume transformation of what already exists:hua (to metamorphosize), sheng (to be born from something), si (to die and become inanimate), cun (to persist), wang (to suffer dissolution), sun (to increase), yi (to decrease), bian (to alter), yi (to exchange).The Later Mohists, presenting what they take to be the ordinary language senses of these words, define almost all of them in terms of yi (to exchange).Thus, a metamorphosis occurs when "the distinguishing marks of one thing [are] exchanged for the distinguishing marks of another" (p. 120); e.g. when a caterpillar becomes a butterfly).In short, Reding suggests that the Chinese language embodies the principle ex nihilo nihil, whereas the Greek language violates it, motivating the Greek philosophers to construct theories to "fix" their language:"What is philosophical in one culture may be already lexicalized in another, and what is lexicalized in one culture may turn up as a philosophical theory in another" (p. 125).
Reding's "Philosophy and Geometry in Early China" is not too surprising to those of us already familiar with the Later Mohist writings, but it may shock those with stereotypical preconceptions about Chinese philosophy.It is a truism that deductive geometry became one of the major paradigms for philosophical methodology in the West (even though it may not be as simple historically as deductive geometry developing first and then influencing philosophy).It is tempting to identify this as a categorical difference between Western and Chinese philosophy (especially if one is only familiar with Confucianism and Taoism).However, the Later Mohists showed a definite interest in geometry, giving definitions of terms such as "point" ("the unit without dimension which precedes all others") and "circle" ("having the same lengths from one centre").Ethical terms are handled similarly:"Harm is what one dislikes getting"; "Benefit is what one is pleased to get"; "To be righteous is to benefit." Reding's conclusion is properly cautious, though:"it seems as if the Later Mohists never made the decisive step from definition to [geometrical] demonstration" (p. 64).
Overall, this is a provocative and often insightful book.Anyone interested in Chinese-Greek comparative philosophy should give it at least a quick read.I wish, though, that Reding had stressed more the historical importance of Parmenides and Plato as individual thinkers.(Forgive me if I sound too sympathetic to Thomas Carlyle's heroic view of history.)The Greek language may have encouraged philosophers to find paradoxes in questions about being and becoming.But it was the particular genius of Parmenides that, for good or ill, made those questions the center of philosophical discussion.Furthermore, the argumentative style that Parmenides employed greatly influenced philosophical methodology.As Reding notes, we see "sophistical" arguers in both ancient China and Greece, which led to a distrust of what seemed to be overly subtle reasoning.But Plato brilliantly carried on the Parmenidean style of argumentation and metaphysics, wedding them to an ethics, and giving them form through the eloquence of his dialogues.This helped, I think, to keep alive the belief that subtle argumentation was more than just eristic sophistry.Reding has an interesting tale to tell, but there would be no tale without Parmenides and Plato.
This article is about the classical Greek philosopher. For other uses of Socrates, see Socrates (disambiguation). For the Attic orator, see Isocrates.
Socrates (;Greek: Σωκράτης[sɔːkrátɛːs], Sōkrátēs; c. 470 – 399 BC) was a classical Greek (Athenian) philosopher credited as one of the founders of Western philosophy, and as being the first moral philosopher, of the western ethical tradition of thought. An enigmatic figure, he made no writings, and is known chiefly through the accounts of classical writers writing after his lifetime, particularly his students Plato and Xenophon. Other sources include the contemporaneous Antisthenes, Aristippus, and Aeschines of Sphettos. Aristophanes, a playwright, is the only source to have written during his lifetime.
Plato's dialogues are among the most comprehensive accounts of Socrates to survive from antiquity, though it is unclear the degree to which Socrates himself is "hidden behind his 'best disciple'. Through his portrayal in Plato's dialogues, Socrates has become renowned for his contribution to the field of ethics, and it is this Platonic Socrates who lends his name to the concepts of Socratic irony and the Socratic method, or elenchus.
The elenchus remains a commonly used tool in a wide range of discussions, and is a type of pedagogy in which a series of questions is asked not only to draw individual answers, but also to encourage fundamental insight into the issue at hand. Plato's Socrates also made important and lasting contributions to the field of epistemology, and his ideologies and approach have proven a strong foundation for much Western philosophy that has followed.
Main article: Socratic problem
As Socrates did not write down any of his teachings, information about him and his philosophies depends upon secondary sources. Furthermore, close comparison between the contents of these sources reveals contradictions, thus creating concerns about the possibility of knowing in-depth the real Socrates. This issue is known as the Socratic problem, or the Socratic question.
To understand Socrates and his thought, one must turn primarily to the works of Plato, whose dialogues are thought the most informative source about Socrates' life and philosophy, and also Xenophon. These writings are the Sokratikoi logoi, or Socratic dialogues, which consist of reports of conversations apparently involving Socrates.
As for discovering the real-life Socrates, the difficulty is that ancient sources are mostly philosophical or dramatic texts, apart from Xenophon. There are no straightforward histories, contemporary with Socrates, that dealt with his own time and place. A corollary of this is that sources that do mention Socrates do not necessarily claim to be historically accurate, and are often partisan. For instance, those who prosecuted and convicted Socrates have left no testament. Historians therefore face the challenge of reconciling the various evidence from the extant texts in order to attempt an accurate and consistent account of Socrates' life and work. The result of such an effort is not necessarily realistic, even if consistent.
Two factors emerge from all sources pertaining to the character of Socrates: that he was ugly, and had a brilliant intellect. He lived entirely within ancient Athens, he made no writings, and died of execution by hemlock.
Socrates as a figure
The character of Socrates as exhibited in Apology, Crito, Phaedo and Symposium concurs with other sources to an extent to which it seems possible to rely on the Platonic Socrates, as demonstrated in the dialogues, as a representation of the actual Socrates as he lived in history. At the same time, however, many scholars believe that in some works, Plato, being a literary artist, pushed his avowedly brightened-up version of "Socrates" far beyond anything the historical Socrates was likely to have done or said. Also, Xenophon, being an historian, is a more reliable witness to the historical Socrates. It is a matter of much debate over which Socrates it is whom Plato is describing at any given point—the historical figure, or Plato's fictionalization. As British philosopher Martin Cohen has put it, "Plato, the idealist, offers an idol, a master figure, for philosophy. A Saint, a prophet of 'the Sun-God', a teacher condemned for his teachings as a heretic."
It is also clear from other writings and historical artefacts, that Socrates was not simply a character, nor an invention, of Plato. The testimony of Xenophon and Aristotle, alongside some of Aristophanes' work (especially The Clouds), is useful in fleshing out a perception of Socrates beyond Plato's work.
According to one source, the name Σωκράτης (Sokrátis), has the meaning "whole, unwounded, safe" (the part of the name corresponding to σως (sos)) and "power" (the part of the name corresponding to κρατος (kratos)).
Socrates as a philosopher
The problem with discerning Socrates' philosophical views stems from the perception of contradictions in statements made by the Socrates in the different dialogues of Plato; and in later dialogues Plato used the character Socrates to give voice to views that were his own. These contradictions produce doubt as to the actual philosophical doctrines of Socrates, within his milieu and as recorded by other individuals. Aristotle, in his Magna Moralia, refers to Socrates in words which make it patent that the doctrine virtue is knowledge was held by Socrates. Within the Metaphysics, he states Socrates was occupied with the search for moral virtues, being the 'first to search for universal definitions for them '.
The problem of understanding Socrates as a philosopher is shown in the following: In Xenophon's Symposium, Socrates is reported as saying he devotes himself only to what he regards as the most important art or occupation, that of discussing philosophy. However, in The Clouds, Aristophanes portrays Socrates as accepting payment for teaching and running a sophist school with Chaerephon. Also, in Plato's Apology and Symposium, as well as in Xenophon's accounts, Socrates explicitly denies accepting payment for teaching. More specifically, in the Apology, Socrates cites his poverty as proof that he is not a teacher.
Two fragments are extant of the writings by Timon of Phlius pertaining to Socrates, although Timon is known to have written to ridicule and lampoon philosophy.
Details about the life of Socrates are derived from both contemporary sources, and later ancient period sources. Of the contemporary sources, the greater extent of information is taken from the dialogues of Plato and Xenophon (both devotees of Socrates), and the testaments of Antisthenes, Aristippus, and Aeschines of Sphettos, and the lesser from the plays of Aristophanes. Later ancient period sources include Apollodorus of Athens (alive during the second century BC),Cicero (alive 106-43 BCE), and Diogenes Laertius (alive probably in the earlier half of the third century CE).
The sources are thought to have in part or wholly made use of the factual information of the life of Socrates available to each of them, to give their own interpretation of the nature of his teaching, giving rise to differing versions in each case. For example, in Aristophanes' play The Clouds, Socrates is made into a clown of sorts, particularly inclined toward sophistry, who teaches his students how to bamboozle their way out of debt. However, since most of Aristophanes' works function as parodies, it is presumed that his characterization in this play was also not literal. In Phaedo, which is the only attested source describing the death of Socrates, Plato is thought to have selected and omitted details to provide material for his argument for the existence of the liberation of the soul from the body, an argument he possessed from learning of the ideas of Pythagoras (born sometime after 606 - died sometime after 510 B.C.E.).
The year of birth of Socrates stated is an assumed date, or estimate, given the fact of the dating of anything in ancient history in part being sometimes reliant on argument stemming from the inexact period floruit of individuals.Diogenes Laertius stated Socrates birth date was the sixth day of Thargelion, the day when the Athenians purify the city. Contemporaneous sources state, he was born not very much later than sometime after the year 471, his date of birth is within the period of years ranging 470 to 469 BC, or within a range 469 to 468 (corresponding to the fourth year of the 77th Olympiad).
Socrates was born in Alopeke, and belonged to the tribe Antiochis. His father was Sophroniscus, a sculptor, or stonemason. His mother was a midwife named Phaenarete. Socrates married Xanthippe, who is especially remembered for having an undesirable temperament. She bore for him three sons,Lamprocles, Sophroniscus and Menexenus.
Socrates first worked as a stonemason, and there was a tradition in antiquity, not credited by modern scholarship, that Socrates crafted the statues of the Three Graces, which stood near the Acropolis until the 2nd century AD.
Xenophon reports that because youths were not allowed to enter the Agora, they used to gather in workshops surrounding it. Socrates frequented these shops in order to converse with the merchants. Most notable among them was Simon the Shoemaker.
For a time, Socrates fulfilled the role of hoplite, participating in the Peloponnesian war—a conflict which stretched intermittently over a period spanning 431 to 404 B.C. Several of Plato's dialogues refer to Socrates' military service.
In the monologue of the Apology, Socrates states he was active for Athens in the battles of Amphipolis, Delium, and Potidaea. In the Symposium, Alcibiades describes Socrates' valour in the battles of Potidaea and Delium, recounting how Socrates saved his life in the former battle (219e-221b). Socrates' exceptional service at Delium is also mentioned in the Laches by the General after whom the dialogue is named (181b). In the Apology, Socrates compares his military service to his courtroom troubles, and says anyone on the jury who thinks he ought to retreat from philosophy must also think soldiers should retreat when it seems likely that they will be killed in battle.
Epistates at the trial of the six commanders
Main article: Trial of the generals
During 406, he participated as a member of the Boule. His tribe the Antiochis held the Prytany on the day it was debated what fate should befall the generals of the Battle of Arginusae, who abandoned the slain and the survivors of foundered ships to pursue the defeated Spartan navy.
According to Xenophon, Socrates was the Epistates for the debate, but Delebecque and Hatzfeld think this is an embellishment, because Xenophon composed the information after Socrates' death.
The generals were seen by some to have failed to uphold the most basic of duties, and the people decided upon capital punishment. However, when the prytany responded by refusing to vote on the issue, the people reacted with threats of death directed at the prytany itself. They relented, at which point Socrates alone as epistates blocked the vote, which had been proposed by Callixeinus. The reason he gave was that "in no case would he act except in accordance with the law".
The outcome of the trial was ultimately judged to be a miscarriage of justice, or illegal, but, actually, Socrates' decision had no support from written statutory law, instead being reliant on favouring a continuation of less strict and less formal nomos law.
Arrest of Leon
Plato's Apology, parts 32c to 32d, describes how Socrates and four others were summoned to the Tholos, and told by representatives of the oligarchy of the Thirty (the oligarchy began ruling in 404 B.C.) to go to Salamis, and from there, to return to them with Leon the Salaminian. He was to be brought back to be subsequently executed. However, Socrates returned home and did not go to Salamis as he was expected to.
Trial and death
Causes of the trial
Socrates lived during the time of the transition from the height of the Athenian hegemony to its decline with the defeat by Sparta and its allies in the Peloponnesian War. At a time when Athens sought to stabilize and recover from its defeat, the Athenian public may have been entertaining doubts about democracy as an efficient form of government. Socrates appears to have been a critic of democracy, and some scholars interpret his trial as an expression of political infighting.
Claiming loyalty to his city, Socrates clashed with the current course of Athenian politics and society. He praised Sparta, archrival to Athens, directly and indirectly in various dialogues. One of Socrates' purported offenses to the city was his position as a social and moral critic. Rather than upholding a status quo and accepting the development of what he perceived as immorality within his region, Socrates questioned the collective notion of "might makes right" that he felt was common in Greece during this period. Plato refers to Socrates as the "gadfly" of the state (as the gadfly stings the horse into action, so Socrates stung various Athenians), insofar as he irritated some people with considerations of justice and the pursuit of goodness. His attempts to improve the Athenians' sense of justice may have been the cause of his execution.
According to Plato's Apology, Socrates' life as the "gadfly" of Athens began when his friend Chaerephon asked the oracle at Delphi if anyone were wiser than Socrates; the Oracle responded that no-one was wiser. Socrates believed the Oracle's response was not correct, because he believed he possessed no wisdom whatsoever. He proceeded to test the riddle by approaching men considered wise by the people of Athens—statesmen, poets, and artisans—in order to refute the Oracle's pronouncement. Questioning them, however, Socrates concluded: while each man thought he knew a great deal and was wise, in fact they knew very little and were not wise at all. Socrates realized the Oracle was correct; while so-called wise men thought themselves wise and yet were not, he himself knew he was not wise at all, which, paradoxically, made him the wiser one since he was the only person aware of his own ignorance. Socrates' paradoxical wisdom made the prominent Athenians he publicly questioned look foolish, turning them against him and leading to accusations of wrongdoing. Socrates defended his role as a gadfly until the end: at his trial, when Socrates was asked to propose his own punishment, he suggested a wage paid by the government and free dinners for the rest of his life instead, to finance the time he spent as Athens' benefactor.
Robin Waterfield suggests that Socrates was a voluntary scapegoat; his death was the purifying remedy for Athens' misfortunes. In this view, the token of appreciation for Asclepius (the Greek god for curing illness) would represent a cure for Athens' ailments.
Main article: Trial of Socrates
One day during the year 399 BC Socrates went on trial  and was subsequently found guilty of both corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens and of impiety (asebeia - "not believing in the gods of the state"), and as a punishment sentenced to death, caused by the drinking of a mixture containing poison hemlock.
Death of Socrates
Socrates' death is described at the end of Plato's Phaedo, although Plato was not himself present at the execution. As to the veracity of Plato's account it seems possible he made choice of a number of certain factors perhaps omitting others in the description of the death, as the Phaedo description does not describe progress of the action of the poison (Gill 1973) in concurrence with modern descriptions. Phaedo states, after drinking the poison, he was instructed to walk around until his legs felt numb. After he lay down, the man who administered the poison pinched his foot; Socrates could no longer feel his legs. The numbness slowly crept up his body until it reached his heart.
Socrates chose to cover his face during the execution (118 a6 Phaedo).
Phaedo (61c-69e ) states Socrates stated All of philosophy is training for death.
His last words
Socrates last words are thought to be ironic (C. Gill 1973), or sincere (J. Crooks 1998). Socrates speaks his last words to Crito (depending on the translation):
"Crito, we owe a rooster to Asclepius. Please, don't forget to pay the debt." 
"Crito, we owe a cock to Asclepius, Pay it and do not neglect it." 
"Crito, we owe a cock to Asclepius, make this offering to him and do not forget” 
Socrates turned down Crito's pleas to attempt an escape from prison. Xenophon and Plato agree that Socrates had an opportunity to escape, as his followers were able to bribe the prison guards. There have been several suggestions offered as reasons why he chose to stay:
- He believed such a flight would indicate a fear of death, which he believed no true philosopher has.
- If he fled Athens his teaching would fare no better in another country, as he would continue questioning all he met and undoubtedly incur their displeasure.
- Having knowingly agreed to live under the city's laws, he implicitly subjected himself to the possibility of being accused of crimes by its citizens and judged guilty by its jury. To do otherwise would have caused him to break his "social contract" with the state, and so harm the state, an unprincipled act.
- If he escaped at the instigation of his friends, then his friends would become liable in law.
The full reasoning behind his refusal to flee is the main subject of the Crito. In as much as Socrates drank hemlock willingly without complaint (having decided against fleeing), R.G. Frey (1978) has suggested in truth, Socrates chose to commit suicide.
Main article: Socratic method
Perhaps his most important contribution to Western thought is his dialectic method of inquiry, known as the Socratic method or method of "elenchus", which he largely applied to the examination of key moral concepts such as the Good and Justice. It was first described by Plato in the Socratic Dialogues. To solve a problem, it would be broken down into a series of questions, the answers to which gradually distill the answer a person would seek. The development and practice of this method is one of Socrates' most enduring contributions, and is a key factor in earning his mantle as the father of political philosophy, ethics or moral philosophy, and as a figurehead of all the central themes in Western philosophy. The Socratic method has often been considered as a defining element of American legal education.
To illustrate the use of the Socratic method, a series of questions are posed to help a person or group to determine their underlying beliefs and the extent of their knowledge. The Socratic method is a negative method of hypothesis elimination, in that better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating those that lead to contradictions. It was designed to force one to examine one's own beliefs and the validity of such beliefs.
An alternative interpretation of the dialectic is that it is a method for direct perception of the Form of the Good. Philosopher Karl Popper describes the dialectic as "the art of intellectual intuition, of visualising the divine originals, the Forms or Ideas, of unveiling the Great Mystery behind the common man's everyday world of appearances." In a similar vein, French philosopher Pierre Hadot suggests that the dialogues are a type of spiritual exercise. Hadot writes that "in Plato's view, every dialectical exercise, precisely because it is an exercise of pure thought, subject to the demands of the Logos, turns the soul away from the sensible world, and allows it to convert itself towards the Good."
The beliefs of Socrates, as distinct from those of Plato, are difficult to discern. Little in the way of concrete evidence exists to demarcate the two. The lengthy presentation of ideas given in most of the dialogues may be the ideas of Socrates himself, but which have been subsequently deformed or changed by Plato, and some scholars think Plato so adapted the Socratic style as to make the literary character and the philosopher himself impossible to distinguish. Others argue that he did have his own theories and beliefs. There is a degree of controversy inherent in the identifying of what these might have been, owing to the difficulty of separating Socrates from Plato and the difficulty of interpreting even the dramatic writings concerning Socrates. Consequently, distinguishing the philosophical beliefs of Socrates from those of Plato and Xenophon has not proven easy, so it must be remembered that what is attributed to Socrates might actually be more the specific concerns of these two thinkers instead.
The matter is complicated because the historical Socrates seems to have been notorious for asking questions but not answering, claiming to lack wisdom concerning the subjects about which he questioned others.
If anything in general can be said about the philosophical beliefs of Socrates, it is that he was morally, intellectually, and politically at odds with many of his fellow Athenians. When he is on trial for heresy and corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens, he uses his method of elenchos to demonstrate to the jurors that their moral values are wrong-headed. He tells them they are concerned with their families, careers, and political responsibilities when they ought to be worried about the "welfare of their souls". Socrates' assertion that the gods had singled him out as a divine emissary seemed to provoke irritation, if not outright ridicule. Socrates also questioned the Sophistic doctrine that arete (virtue) can be taught. He liked to observe that successful fathers (such as the prominent military general Pericles) did not produce sons of their own quality. Socrates argued that moral excellence was more a matter of divine bequest than parental nurture. This belief may have contributed to his lack of anxiety about the future of his own sons.
Also, according to A. A. Long, "There should be no doubt that, despite his claim to know only that he knew nothing, Socrates had strong beliefs about the divine", and, citing Xenophon's Memorabilia, 1.4, 4.3,:
According to Xenophon, he was a teleologist who held that god arranges everything for the best.
Socrates frequently says his ideas are not his own, but his teachers'. He mentions several influences: Prodicus the rhetor and Anaxagoras the philosopher. Perhaps surprisingly, Socrates claims to have been deeply influenced by two women besides his mother: he says that Diotima (cf. Plato's Symposium), a witch and priestess from Mantinea, taught him all he knows about eros, or love; and that Aspasia, the mistress of Pericles, taught him the art of rhetoric.John Burnet argued that his principal teacher was the Anaxagorean Archelaus but his ideas were as Plato described them; Eric A. Havelock, on the other hand, did not accept the view that Socrates' view was identical with that of Archelaus, in large part due to the reason of such anomalies and contradictions that have surfaced and "post-dated his death."
Many of the beliefs traditionally attributed to the historical Socrates have been characterized as "paradoxical" because they seem to conflict with common sense. The following are among the so-called Socratic paradoxes:
- No one desires evil.
- No one errs or does wrong willingly or knowingly.
- Virtue—all virtue—is knowledge.
- Virtue is sufficient for happiness.
The term, "Socratic paradox" can also refer to a self-referential paradox, originating in Socrates' utterance, "what I do not know I do not think I know", often paraphrased as "I know that I know nothing."
The statement "I know that I know nothing" is often attributed to Socrates, based on a statement in Plato's Apology. The conventional interpretation of this is that Socrates' wisdom was limited to an awareness of his own ignorance. Socrates considered virtuousness to require or consist of phronēsis, "thought, sense, judgement, practical wisdom, [and] prudence." Therefore, he believed that wrongdoing and behaviour that was not virtuous resulted from ignorance, and that those who did wrong knew no better.
The one thing Socrates claimed to have knowledge of was "the art of love" (ta erôtikê). This assertion seems to be associated with the word erôtan, which means to ask questions. Therefore, Socrates is claiming to know about the art of love, insofar as he knows how to ask questions.
The only time he actually claimed to be wise was within Apology, in which he says he is wise "in the limited sense of having human wisdom". It is debatable whether Socrates believed humans (as opposed to gods like Apollo) could actually become wise. On the one hand, he drew a clear line between human ignorance and ideal knowledge; on the other, Plato's Symposium (Diotima's Speech) and Republic (Allegory of the Cave) describe a method for ascending to wisdom.
In Plato's Theaetetus (150a), Socrates compares his treatment of the young people who come to him for philosophical advice to the way midwives treat their patients, and the way matrimonial matchmakers act. He says that he himself is a true matchmaker (προμνηστικός promnestikós) in that he matches the young man to the best philosopher for his particular mind. However, he carefully distinguishes himself from a panderer (προᾰγωγός proagogos) or procurer. This distinction is echoed in Xenophon's Symposium (3.20), when Socrates jokes about his certainty of being able to make a fortune, if he chose to practice the art of pandering. For his part as a philosophical interlocutor, he leads his respondent to a clearer conception of wisdom, although he claims he is not himself a teacher (Apology). His role, he claims, is more properly to be understood as analogous to a midwife (μαῖα maia).
In the Theaetetus, Socrates explains that he is himself barren of theories, but knows how to bring the theories of others to birth and determine whether they are worthy or mere "wind eggs" (ἀνεμιαῖον anemiaion). Perhaps significantly, he points out that midwives are barren due to age, and women who have never given birth are unable to become midwives; they would have no experience or knowledge of birth and would be unable to separate the worthy infants from those that should be left on the hillside to be exposed. To judge this, the midwife must have experience and knowledge of what she is judging.
Socrates believed the best way for people to live was to focus on the pursuit of virtue rather than the pursuit, for instance, of material wealth. He always invited others to try to concentrate more on friendships and a sense of true community, for Socrates felt this was the best way for people to grow together as a populace. His actions lived up to this standard: in the end, Socrates accepted his death sentence when most thought he would simply leave Athens, as he felt he could not run away from or go against the will of his community; as mentioned above, his reputation for valor on the battlefield was without reproach.
The idea that there are certain virtues formed a common thread in Socrates' teachings. These virtues represented the most important qualities for a person to have, foremost of which were the philosophical or intellectual virtues. Socrates stressed that "the unexamined life is not worth living [and] ethical virtue is the only thing that matters."
It is argued that Socrates believed "ideals belong in a world only the wise man can understand", making the philosopher the only type of person suitable to govern others. In Plato's dialogue the Republic, Socrates openly objected to the democracy that ran Athens during his adult life. It was not only Athenian democracy: Socrates found short of ideal any government that did not conform to his presentation of a perfect regime led by philosophers, and Athenian government was far from that. It is, however, possible that the Socrates of Plato's Republic is colored by Plato's own views. During the last years of Socrates' life, Athens was in continual flux due to political upheaval. Democracy was at last overthrown by a junta known as the Thirty Tyrants, led by Plato's relative, Critias, who had once been a student and friend of Socrates. The Tyrants ruled for about a year before the Athenian democracy was reinstated, at which point it declared an amnesty for all recent events.
Socrates' opposition to democracy is often denied, and the question is one of the biggest philosophical debates when trying to determine exactly what Socrates believed. The strongest argument of those who claim Socrates did not actually believe in the idea of philosopher kings is that the view is expressed no earlier than Plato's Republic, which is widely considered one of Plato's "Middle" dialogues and not representative of the historical Socrates' views. Furthermore, according to Plato's Apology of Socrates, an "early" dialogue, Socrates refused to pursue conventional politics; he often stated he could not look into other's matters or tell people how to live their lives when he did not yet understand how to live his own. He believed he was a philosopher engaged in the pursuit of Truth, and did not claim to know it fully. Socrates' acceptance of his death sentence after his conviction can also be seen to support this view. It is often claimed much of the anti-democratic leanings are from Plato, who was never able to overcome his disgust at what was done to his teacher. In any case, it is clear Socrates thought the rule of the Thirty Tyrants was also objectionable; when called before them to assist in the arrest of a fellow Athenian, Socrates refused and narrowly escaped death before the Tyrants were overthrown. He did, however, fulfill his duty to serve as Prytanis when a trial of a group of Generals who presided over a disastrous naval campaign were judged; even then, he maintained an uncompromising attitude, being one of those who refused to proceed in a manner not supported by the laws, despite intense pressure. Judging by his actions, he considered the rule of the Thirty Tyrants less legitimate than the Democratic Senate that sentenced him to death.
Socrates' apparent respect for democracy is one of the themes emphasized in the 2008 play Socrates on Trial by Andrew David Irvine. Irvine argues that it was because of his loyalty to Athenian democracy that Socrates was willing to accept the verdict of his fellow citizens. As Irvine puts it, "During a time of war and great social and intellectual upheaval, Socrates felt compelled to express his views openly, regardless of the consequences. As a result, he is remembered today, not only for his sharp wit and high ethical standards, but also for his loyalty to the view that in a democracy the best way for a man to serve himself, his friends, and his city—even during times of war—is by being loyal to, and by speaking publicly about, the truth."
In the Dialogues of Plato, though Socrates sometimes seems to support a mystical side, discussing reincarnation and the mystery religions, this is generally attributed to Plato. Regardless, this view of Socrates cannot be dismissed out of hand, as we cannot be sure of the differences between the views of Plato and Socrates; in addition, there seem to be some corollaries in the works of Xenophon. In the culmination of the philosophic path as discussed in Plato's Symposium, one comes to the Sea of Beauty or to the sight of "the beautiful itself" (211C); only then can one become wise. (In the Symposium, Socrates credits his speech on the philosophic path to his teacher, the priestess Diotima, who is not even sure if Socrates is capable of reaching the highest mysteries.) In the Meno, he refers to the Eleusinian Mysteries, telling Meno he would understand Socrates' answers better if only he could stay for the initiations next week. Further confusions result from the nature of these sources, insofar as the Platonic Dialogues are arguably the work of an artist-philosopher, whose meaning does not volunteer itself to the passive reader nor again the lifelong scholar. According to Olympiodorus the Younger in his Life of Plato, Plato himself "received instruction from the writers of tragedy" before taking up the study of philosophy. His works are, indeed, dialogues; Plato's choice of this, the medium of Sophocles, Euripides, and the fictions of theatre, may reflect the ever-interpretable nature of his writings, as he has been called a "dramatist of reason". What is more, the first word of nearly all Plato's works is a significant term for that respective dialogue, and is used with its many connotations in mind. Finally, the Phaedrus and the Symposium each allude to Socrates' coy delivery of philosophic truths in conversation; the Socrates of the Phaedrus goes so far as to demand such dissembling and mystery in all writing. The covertness we often find in Plato, appearing here and there couched in some enigmatic use of symbol and/or irony, may be at odds with the mysticism Plato's Socrates expounds in some other dialogues. These indirect methods may fail to satisfy some readers.
Perhaps the most interesting facet of this is Socrates' reliance on what the Greeks called his "daimōnic sign", an averting (ἀποτρεπτικός apotreptikos) inner voice Socrates heard only when he was about to make a mistake. It was this sign that prevented Socrates from entering into politics. In the Phaedrus, we are told Socrates considered this to be a form of "divine madness", the sort of insanity that is a gift from the gods and gives us poetry, mysticism, love, and even philosophy itself. Alternately, the sign is often taken to be what we would call "intuition"; however, Socrates' characterization of the phenomenon as daimōnic may suggest that its origin is divine, mysterious, and independent of his own thoughts. Today, such a voice would be classified under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as a command hallucination.
Socrates practiced and advocated divination. Xenophon was thought skilled at foretelling from sacrifices, and attributed many of his knowledges to Socrates within his writing "The Cavalry Commander".
He was prominently lampooned in Aristophanes' comedyThe Clouds, produced when Socrates was in his mid-forties; he said at his trial (according to Plato) that the laughter of the theater was a harder task to answer than the arguments of his accusers. Søren Kierkegaard believed this play was a more accurate representation of Socrates than those of his students. In the play, Socrates is ridiculed for his dirtiness, which is associated with the Laconizing fad; also in plays by Callias, Eupolis, and Telecleides. Other comic poets who lampooned Socrates include Mnesimachus and Ameipsias. In all of these, Socrates and the Sophists were criticized for "the moral dangers inherent in contemporary thought and literature".
Plato, Xenophon, and Aristotle are the main sources for the historical Socrates; however, Xenophon and Plato were students of Socrates, and they may idealize him; however, they wrote the only extended descriptions of Socrates that have come down to us in their complete form. Aristotle refers frequently, but in passing, to Socrates in his writings. Almost all of Plato's works center on Socrates. However, Plato's later works appear to be more his own philosophy put into the mouth of his mentor.
The Socratic dialogues
Main article: Socratic dialogue
The Socratic Dialogues are a series of dialogues written by Plato and Xenophon in the form of discussions between Socrates and other persons of his time, or as discussions between Socrates' followers over his concepts. Plato's Phaedo is an example of this latter category. Although his Apology is a monologue delivered by Socrates, it is usually grouped with the Dialogues.
The Apology professes to be a record of the actual speech Socrates delivered in his own defense at the trial. In the Athenian jury system, an "apology" is composed of three parts: a speech, followed by a counter-assessment, then some final words. "Apology" is an anglicized transliteration, not a translation, of the Greek apologia, meaning "defense"; in this sense it is not apologetic according to our contemporary use of the term.
Plato generally does not place his own ideas in the mouth of a specific speaker; he lets ideas emerge via the Socratic Method, under the guidance of Socrates. Most of the dialogues present Socrates applying this method to some extent, but nowhere as completely as in the Euthyphro. In this dialogue, Socrates and Euthyphro go through several iterations of refining the answer to Socrates' question, "...What is the pious, and what the impious?"
In Plato's Dialogues, learning appears as a process of remembering. The soul, before its incarnation in the body, was in the realm of Ideas (very similar to the Platonic "Forms"). There, it saw things the way they truly are, rather than the pale shadows or copies we experience on earth. By a process of questioning, the soul can be brought to remember the ideas in their pure form, thus bringing wisdom.
Especially for Plato's writings referring to Socrates, it is not always clear which ideas brought forward by Socrates (or his friends) actually belonged to Socrates and which of these may have been new additions or elaborations by Plato—this is known as the Socratic Problem. Generally, the early works of Plato are considered to be close to the spirit of Socrates, whereas the later works—including Phaedo and Republic—are considered to be possibly products of Plato's elaborations.
See also: Cyrenaics
Immediately, the students of Socrates set to work both on exercising their perceptions of his teachings in politics and also on developing many new philosophical schools of thought. Some of Athens' controversial and anti-democratic tyrants were contemporary or posthumous students of Socrates including Alcibiades and Critias. Critias' cousin Plato would go on to found the Academy in 385 BC, which gained so much renown that "Academy" became the standard word for educational institutions in later European languages such as English, French, and Italian. Plato's protégé, another important figure of the Classical era, Aristotle went on to tutor Alexander the Great and also to found his own school in 335 BC—the Lyceum—whose name also now means an educational institution.
While "Socrates dealt with moral matters and took no notice at all of nature in general", in his Dialogues, Plato would emphasize mathematics with metaphysical overtones mirroring that of Pythagoras – the former who would dominate Western thought well into the Renaissance. Aristotle himself was as much of a philosopher as he was a scientist with extensive work in the fields of biology and physics.
Socratic thought which challenged conventions, especially in stressing a simplistic way of living, became divorced from Plato's more detached and philosophical pursuits. This idea was inherited by one of Socrates' older students, Antisthenes, who became the originator of another philosophy in the years after Socrates' death: Cynicism.
The idea of asceticism being hand in hand with an ethical life or one with piety, ignored by Plato and Aristotle and somewhat dealt with by the Cynics, formed the core of another philosophy in 281 BC—Stoicism when Zeno of Citium would discover Socrates' works and then learn from Crates, a Cynic philosopher.
Later historical influence
While some of the later contributions of Socrates to Hellenistic Era culture and philosophy as well as the Roman Era have been lost to time, his teachings began a resurgence in both medieval Europe and the Islamic Middle East alongside those of Aristotle and Stoicism. Socrates is mentioned in the dialogue Kuzari by Jewish philosopher and rabbi Yehuda Halevi in which a Jew instructs the Khazar king about Judaism.Al-Kindi, a well-known Arabic philosopher, introduced and tried to reconcile Socrates and Hellenistic philosophy to an Islamic audience, referring to him by the name 'Suqrat'.
Socrates' stature in Western philosophy returned in full force with the Renaissance and the Age of Reason in Europe when political theory began to resurface under those like Locke and Hobbes.Voltaire even went so far as to write a satirical play about the Trial of Socrates. There were a number of paintings about his life including Socrates Tears Alcibiades from the Embrace of Sensual Pleasure by Jean-Baptiste Regnault and The Death of Socrates by Jacques-Louis David in the later 18th century.
To this day, different versions of the socratic method are still used in classroom and law school discourse to expose underlying issues in both subject and the speaker. He has been recognized with accolades ranging from frequent mentions in pop culture (such as the movie Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure and a Greek rock band called Socrates Drank the Conium) to numerous busts in academic institutions in recognition of his contribution to education.
Over the past century, numerous plays about Socrates have also focused on Socrates' life and influence. One of the most recent has been Socrates on Trial, a play based on Aristophanes' Clouds and Plato's Apology, Crito, and Phaedo, all adapted for modern performance.