Open Socrates: The Case for a Philosophical Life

by Agnes Callard

A New York Times Book Review Editors' Choice



"[C]harming, intelligent…Open Socrates encourages us to recognize how little we know, and to start thinking." —Jennifer Szalai, New York Times



An iconoclastic philosopher revives Socrates for our time, showing how we can answer—and, in the first place, ask—life’s most important questions.


Socrates has been hiding in plain sight. We call him the father of Western philosophy, but what exactly are his philosophical views? He is famous for his humility, but readers often find him arrogant and condescending. We parrot his claim that “the unexamined life is not worth living,” yet take no steps to live examined ones. We know that he was tried, convicted, and executed for “corrupting the youth,” but freely assign Socratic dialogues to today’s youths, to introduce them to philosophy. We’ve lost sight of what made him so dangerous. In Open Socrates, acclaimed philosopher Agnes Callard recovers the radical move at the center of Socrates’ thought, and shows why it is still the way to a good life.


Callard draws our attention to Socrates’ startling discovery that we don’t know how to ask ourselves the most important questions—about how we should live, and how we might change. Before a person even has a chance to reflect, their bodily desires or the forces of social conformity have already answered on their behalf. To ask the most important questions, we need help. Callard argues that the true ambition of the famous “Socratic method” is to reveal what one human being can be to another. You can use another person in many ways—for survival, for pleasure, for comfort—but you are engaging them to the fullest when you call on them to help answer your questions and challenge your answers.


Callard shows that Socrates’ method allows us to make progress in thinking about how to manage romantic love, how to confront one’s own death, and how to approach politics. In the process, she gives us nothing less than a new ethics to live by.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, History, Self Help, Audiobook, Sociology, Biography

405 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 14, 2025

About the author

Agnes Callard is associate professor of philosophy at the University of Chicago. Her primary areas of specialization are ancient philosophy and ethics. She is also noted for her popular writings and work on public philosophy.

Reviews

[Greg Fournier]

This was one of my first forays into philosophy proper, and it did not disappoint. I often found myself reading a passage, pausing, looking off into the distance, and contemplating whether or not I concurred with the author’s assessment—the marker of a truly thought-provoking book. There may be many points of disagreement between the author and her readers, but the experience of engaging with these ideas is very worthwhile.

[Amy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely floored by this book. I knew I was interested in philosophy, but I was always letting the next fifteen minutes of my life take precedence. This was a more challenging read for me (I have been reading fantasy/fiction mostly), but it was so worth it. Highly recommend. I’ve been quoting it to friends and family. It’s helped open up discussions that I’ve never had access to beforehand. Super excited to be living a more philosophical life and sharing it with the people close to me.

[Henry 磊磊 · Rating 3 out of 5]

gurl, when did you get so tedious!! I loved aspiration when no one knew who she was but this one is thick with long quotes from other sources and delves into totally superfluous sections like using the Iliad. why?? maybe the new Yorker profile got to her head?

my philosophy professor shared a review that his wrote and RIP: https://www.washingtonpost.com/books/...

[Adam · Rating 5 out of 5]

Agnes Callard makes you read and understand a bunch of Socrates. And that’s a very good thing.

At a high level, probably the best (re)introduction to philosophy and philosophical thinking I’ve come across in a very long time.

More specifically, her project of introducing a new ethical framework from the dialogues of Socrates, in the format of a popular philosophy book made for an extremely ambitious project that I think was a resounding success!

[Katherine · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is all about how we can only get closer to knowledge through the process of open, inquisitive conversation with others who are willing to refute us and be refuted in turn. Agnes Callard ends the book by acknowledging a paradox she hadn’t yet got round to solving - how to write a book aiming to express ideas that can only be shared in dialogue & live conversation? Somehow, nevertheless, Callard has written one of the most enlivening, inspiring, & transformative books I’ve read in a very very long time.

Full review on my Substack: https://open.substack.com/pub/katheri...

[Nick Klagge]

The premise of the book was really interesting, but I felt Callard ultimately failed to deliver. Her setup is that the great ethical traditions of consequentialism and deontology both trace roots back to Socrates, but don't engage much with the way Socrates reportedly lived his life (she focuses almost entirely on Plato's version of Socrates). She intends to lay out a framework for living a good life based more directly on Socrates.

The framework she lays out also seems promising. She grounds it in what she calls "untimely questions," namely, questions about how we should live our lives that are difficult to truly engage with because they relate to foundational decisions we have already made about how to live (for example, what career to pursue, or whether to have a family) and thus are very hard to consider in a disinterested way. Callard focuses on the dialog-based nature of Socrates' practice of philosophy, and argues that this is a fundamental choice of his: that we can only truly "think" by engaging with a second person and dividing the roles of "seek truth" and "avoid falsehood." Callard provocatively argues that what we normally consider "thinking" (i.e., in our own heads) is not really thinking at all, at least as regards untimely questions, because we are too hindered by our own interests.

In the last part of the book, Callard lays out what she sees as applications of this approach to the subjects of politics, love, and death (things that are often the basis of untimely questions, and which Socrates claimed to have expertise in). This was the part of the book that fell off for me. I found her takes on these topics to be pretty uninspiring, which in turn led me to question how much value there really was in the framework she laid out. Very notably, while she gives a number of examples from her own life, Callard does not touch at all on "the" big subject, detailed in a long New Yorker article from 2023, about her decision to leave her husband for another man but to continue living with both of them (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...). This major life choice seems to be the clearest possible example of an application of her approach, and I wish she had discussed it in the book. I don't blame anyone for not wanting to share details of their personal lives, but Callard seemed perfectly happy to talk with the New Yorker reporter about it.

I also think this book would have benefited a lot from engagement with disciplines outside academic philosophy. For example, Callard devotes long sections of the book to discussing the apparent paradoxes relating to changing one's beliefs, and whether it's possible to assert statements such as "I believe X but it isn't true." To me, such apparent paradoxes are easily resolved using the framework of Bayesian reasoning, which expresses beliefs in terms of degrees of credence (expressed as probabilities), and allows new evidence to move our degree of credence in a proposition in one direction or the other. More generally, the modern "rationalist" culture associated with the effective altruism movement (people like Will MacAskill, Julia Galef, institutions like GiveWell or the 80,000 hours podcast) do try to take a critical eye to "untimely questions" and do things like discuss their mistakes very publicly, often centered on a Bayesian approach to reasoning and belief. While that culture certainly has its own weaknesses, I think it would be very interesting to see a more classical philosopher like Callard engage with those ideas and discuss them in relation to Socrates.

[Robert Stevenson · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first part of this book comes across as a study of ethics looking at Kantian, Utilitarianism, Aristole Virtue approaches and savage commands of the body and your kin with philosophical underpinnings then it turns into an interesting philosophical reflection on Socrates and in particular using the Socratic method to understand love, meaning of life and death.

I enjoyed the book as I was reading Timothy Snyder's book "On Freedom" at the same time, but also when contrasting the two, I felt Tim's was more useful and Agnes book was more theoretical, for example Agnes dismisses polarization as Socrates flattery competitions over symbolism. And her coverage of equality as a need for peer recognition of status was limiting as was her analysis of freedom.

Sydner’s book breaks down freedom into sovereignty, factuality, social mobility, solidarity and unpredictability. I think the idea of the Socratic method using unpredictability for explaining paradoxes with inquiry could of have been explored but was not.

But her insight into untimely questions and the pro’s and cons of the Socratic method - Moore, Menon and Gadgly-midwife paradoxes is intriguing. I also like her FONA and FOMO death discussions.

I think the part that overlaps is understanding how the socratic method requires two people.

[Clayton A. Wiley · Rating 5 out of 5]

A challenging, but well written book that crisply delineates the nature and importance of the Socratic method. After reading this analysis you will totally revamp your style of argument and discussion. Most individuals approach verbal interchanges with friends, colleagues and nemeses with the goal of "winning" an argument. In this sense, winning is tantamount to an audience declaring someone the winner of a debate. But Callard rightly points out this is likely the opposite of the purpose of an open philosophical discussion where the objective of interchange between two individuals is to clarify the issue, to discover an answer and to bring your colleague around to understanding the problem from your perspective (and vice versa). When one truly comprehends this purpose of philosophical discussion, you will never argue the same way in the future.
In this era of intense political polarization, recognizing this goal of discussion is essential to lowering the temperature of arguments, and making progress, if not to a consensus at least a respect for each other. An added bonus are the final chapters discussing Justice, Equality, Love and Death.

Keep in mind that for most of us reading philosophy isn't easy and requires committing the time and effort, which in this case will be rewarded many times over.

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting book, I learned a lot about Socrates. I mostly like Callard’s writing style, although periodically I didn’t understand what she was getting at. She uses a few of her own strange phrases, such as “untimely questions” and “savage commands” and while she does define what she means by them, I still felt unsettled by them — I think maybe she could have used better terms, although I’m not sure what would have been better. But overall I enjoyed the book, it certainly provoked thinking, and what could be better in a philosophical book?

I also liked that she made frequent reference to Tolstoy’s writing to illustrate points in the book.

A few years ago I tried reading another Callard book, called Aspiration, but I had to abandon it, it was a struggle to get through it. This book is far more readable for a layperson.

[Curt Bobbitt · Rating 4 out of 5]

Callard describes Socrates's approach to inquiry as conversation by defining components such as "unseemly questions" and "savage commands." She refers to and quotes Plato's Socratic dialogs to show how the approach develops. Her examples from philosophers and her life since Socrates's life show how the approach applies.

[Maddie Lee · Rating 4 out of 5]

i learned a lot about socrates and was definitely very thought provoking. i esp liked the analysis of his beliefs on politics love and death. however sometimes felt a little unclear what her underlying message was: informational overview on his life/beliefs vs instructional guide for how to live.

[John Seago · Rating 5 out of 5]

A delightful read for philosophy students of all levels. Callard presents a compelling argument for how we should interpret the Socratic dialogues. However, the most powerful aspect of this book is her argument that her readers should adopt a distinctly Socratic ethic and philosophy to shape our own intellectual and interpersonal lives.

[Rachel Grey · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was... okay, maybe edging into "liked it" because I generally like Agnes Callard. I like the way she interviews, I liked Aspiration: The Agency of Becoming. This was not quite as good.

In fact, I almost DNFed it because so many of her examples didn't land with me at all; one of the hallmarks of Socrates' thinking, and maybe Callard's too, is the insistence that people are (and must be) self-consistent as though there is only one functioning agent within us, and, similarly, the insistence that something must be the same amount of good or bad over time. To illustrate: actually, if two of my well-regarded friends give me different financial planning advice, I do conclude that they are often talking about different kinds of money in some way (one might be most focused on high gains for investments, while another is focused on secure investments and yet another is interested in maximizing income). In fact, those differences are where it gets interesting. And to go at another example, yes, of course a doughnut can be judged as an overall "good" by an agent who is very hungry, and later judged differently when that person has much higher blood sugar -- and may be considered a different agent.

At any rate, I slogged through those parts, set down the book and picked it up again. It got better near the end, when actually discussing Socrates himself (what if he wasn't -- only -- a jerk? What if what we read now as irony really was intense vulnerability and openness?). Lastly, the book finishes with the best discussion of FONA vs FOMO that I've ever read, which was valuable in and of itself. I've now identified one of my own fears more as the Fear Of Not Arriving style, and that's worth a star for this book.

I'll continue to track this author, but won't buy her next book reflexively either.

[Cory Brock · Rating 3 out of 5]

Overall, an enjoyable book that looks to breakdown and explain Socrates's method of inquiry and construct a basis for ethics over it. Callard does an excellent job explaining things in an easy-to-understand way. I never felt lost or bogged down while reading this; it clips along at a fairly even pace and was fairly informative.

The premise, at least from what I gathered, is taking what Callard calls "untimely questions", questions we are already in the act of answering (e.g. How does one live a good life?), and attempting to work towards an answer and understanding of the answer. This, as is hit upon throughout the book, requires another person. Someone to inquire and refute, while the other attempts to persuade; in theory you are both working towards an answer to your inquiry and come out the better for it at the end. This is essentially the Socratic method. Callard provides examples of how this can be applied to different aspects of life, and also gives new perspectives (new to me, at least) on how it is the basis for equality and also love.

I'd recommend this to anyone interested in philosophy but still an overall novice (like myself). It's still a bit dry to read at times considering the subject matter, but it's easy to digest and can serve as a good introduction.

[Gijs Limonard · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ouch!, this could have been an excellent opportunity to make Socrates known and understood by the general public but the author fails miserably; Callard slovenly ploughs through the works (by Aristophanes, Xenophon and most notably Plato) describing the man, his life and philosophy but nowhere produces a useful synthesis or original insight; in addition the audible format narrated by the author is chalkboard-screechingly unbearable; for a more general introduction to the lives of the big three of classical Greece, be sure to read The Gang of Three: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle.

[Mark · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found this challenging to get into or to engage with. There were elements that were interesting but a slog to get to them. It seems many of the arguments or points could have been said more succinctly, but the author seemed to enjoy seeing herself write it down. Another reviewer used the word tedious. I’d agree but add smugly to describe the tedium.

I suspect a well done review could pull out the salient points and save others the effort. I don’t have the energy or interest to read through it again to prepare such a review.

[Andre · Rating 2 out of 5]

So many words not much content.

I knew it wasn’t going well when she characterized the Stoics as being motivated by “the group.” Huh? They are a virtue ethics.

[Jim Beatty · Rating 5 out of 5]

I measure my life in coffee spoons. ts Elliott

[Nico Romano · Rating 1 out of 5]

Struggled to get through this book. A few interesting chapters but really this is written for adept philosophy students and not for the common enthusiast. Language and arguments are difficult to read and follow

[Maher Razouk · Rating 5 out of 5]

يستطيع المرء أن يتجنب أزمة تولستوي (سؤاله عن معنى حياته) بوضع قدم واحدة تلو الأخرى، والاهتمام إما بأي شيء يعتبره أعظم خطر ـ سواء كان جسدياً أو أخلاقياً ـ ينبغي تجنبه، أو بدلاً من ذلك، أعظم مصدر للمتعة أو الترفيه الذي ينبغي السعي إليه. وسواء نظرنا إلى الحياة، بتشاؤم، باعتبارها أزمة مستمرة تتخللها فترات من الراحة، أو بتفاؤل أكبر، باعتبارها مصدراً مستمراً للمتعة تتخلله بعض الأزمات، فسوف نجدها مليئة بالأسباب التي تدفعنا إلى تأجيل البحث الفلسفي. وإذا ما أجلنا الأمر إلى ما يكفي من الوقت، فإن الموت سوف ينقذنا من الاضطرار إلى التصالح مع عدم معنى الحياة.
.
Agnes Callard
Open Socrates
Translated By #Maher_Razouk

[David Goldman · Rating 4 out of 5]

“What I don’t advise is that we remain as we are.” — Laches
The above quote from Socrates, the final one in Agnes Callard’s remarkable new study of the Socratic way, could well serve as a working title for her project. Callard presents Socrates not as an ancient thinker, but as a presenting a practice of ethics that demands constant growth—growth achieved through open disputations—toward a fuller understanding of the world. Thus, the “openness” referenced in the book’s title takes on many meanings. The book opens Socrates to a new generation, encourages openness to having your core beliefs refuted, and insists on openness to continual discovery—a process done in pairs, not alone.
The Socratic way (my term, not Callard’s) begins with the admonition that we don’t know what we don’t know. Callard argues we go through life thinking we know the answers to life’s most challenging questions. When confronted with what she calls “untimely questions”—questions like, what is my purpose? Has my life been worthwhile?—we give overconfident answers. But these questions are “untimely” because they come too late; we are already living our lives, we’ve already married by the time we ask them. Thus, we offer quick answers that don’t survive scrutiny (just ask Socrates’ interlocutors). We then waver, making up even more excuses, or we fall into despair (the “Tolstoy” problem).
Yet Socrates presents another way—"between the acknowledgment of one's own ignorance, and the ideally knowledgeable life." Instead, Socrates offered an “ethics of inquiry: the way to be good when you don't know how to be good is by learning. You should do everything in such a way as to be learning what the right thing is to do in. This means getting other people to show you when you are wrong. Instead of implementing a principle… you should inquire.” That’s why “there is no greater benefit [one] could receive from another person than being shown why he was wrong, and that the only way to treat another human being with respect is to either answer their questions or question their answers.”
If this implies a social aspect to the Socratic way, Callard would agree. Strike that image of the “armchair philosophizing” or solitary, introspective thinker. Those tropes came later, based on Kantian or utilitarian ethics, which led people to believe they could just figure it out alone. Instead, the Socratic way is dynamic and social. Our thinking cannot be clarified in isolation; it must occur in dialogue. Socrates suggests that we construct thoughts with other people. This means we have to accept that the annoying “gadfly” Socrates must coexist with the “midwife” Socrates—the one who helps give birth to knowledge, even without possessing knowledge themself. This social aspect of the Socratic method is often overlooked, but for Callard, it is an indispensable part of Socrates’ philosophy, both in method and substance. It is also her answer to the most challenging questions around love and death, which she presents in the final third of the book.
Throughout, Callard uses opposites to show the unique contribution Socrates made to ethics. For example, common sense distinguishes between what justice demands and what is personally advantageous: although it is valuable to do what is just and it is valuable to do what benefits oneself, everyday intuition says that these two do not always overlap.
Kantian thought, for instance, solves for the savage question of kinship—we have a common obligation to everyone in the kinship. Kantians command you to constrain your actions to those that are consistent with respect for humanity in your own person and in others. Utilitarians prioritize the production of good outcomes for everyone (“calculating”), while proponents of virtue ethics simply tell you to be a decent, kind, fair, brave person. If there is an apparent conflict between what we want and what is good for society, each system does not solve those problems internally; it simply claims there is a lack of knowledge, pointing to the flawed reasoning of the other systems. Socrates charges that all of these views create a false ceiling; what they are calling knowledge is not yet knowledge. There is a higher knowledge possible: if you actually knew what to do, you would do it. We get there through inquiry and argument. This is not a means to an end, but the end in itself.
One of my favorite sections is her Socratic take on the William James versus Clifford dispute, outlined in James’s brilliant essay “Will to Believe.” James makes a distinction between a skepticism about truth and its attainment, and what he calls "dogmatism": "that truth exists, and that our minds can find it." Concerning dogmatism, James states that it has two forms; that there is an "absolutist way" and an "empiricist way" of believing in truth. James states: "The absolutists in this matter say that we not only can attain to knowing truth, but we can know when we have attained to knowing it, while the empiricists think that although we may attain it, we cannot infallibly know when." James then goes on to state that "the empiricist tendency has largely prevailed in science, while in philosophy the absolutist tendency has had everything its own way." "The greatest empiricists among us are only empiricists on reflection: when left to their instincts, they dogmatize like infallible popes.” Instead, James sees seeking truth and certainty as different objects. “We must know the truth; and we must avoid error—these are our first and great commandments as would-be knowers; but they are not two ways of stating an identical commandment, they are two separable laws.” James is most useful when the outcome requires belief. Something like: I wonder if she likes me. If we don’t believe it, we won’t act in a way that makes it true.
Socrates solves this division. In dialogue, two people each take a role, working together to find the truth. One person thinking to themself has to choose between James and Clifford, but two people working together can do both. It is not an adversarial division of labor, but a productive one. This section on the James/Clifford dispute shows Callard’s strengths and weaknesses. She draws in the ideas in a way that is accessible and creative, but her Socratic solution—“philosophize together”—seems a bit thin, and it’s one she employs throughout.

This section on the James/Clifford dispute highlights both Callard’s strengths and weaknesses. She presents ideas clearly and creatively, but her Socratic solution to "philosophize together" feels thin and is used throughout the book to solve any tough issue.
Callard’s reputation as a public philosopher is well-earned. Her chatty, energetic writing style is a more disciplined, fleshed-out version of her speaking style, which has made her one of the most accessible scholarly thinkers of our day. Open Socrates serves as a fantastic introduction to Socrates for novices and a fresh take for those familiar with his work. Unfortunately, I found the first third the weakest. Like any good philosophy, Callard starts with grounding principles, but I felt these could have been summarized in a single chapter. I hope readers don’t get discouraged, because Open Socrates gains momentum as it addresses the paradoxes inherent in Socratic thought. The book’s final third, when she deals with justice, equality, love, and death, is especially compelling. The last two sections, in particular, left me weeping at times—in the best possible way. (The section on her recently passed philosopher friend Steve shows the power of Socrates/Callard’s thought in action, both intellectually rich and deeply emotional.) By the end, my first impulse was to pick up any of Plato’s books I have around and keep reading—and to find someone to read with! And my sense is that’s exactly what Callard would want.

[Zac Muncy · Rating 5 out of 5]

fantastic deep dive into Socratic philosophy

Agnes Callard's "Open Socrates" is nothing short of revelatory—a work that reanimates ancient philosophical methodology for our modern age with stunning clarity and depth. As someone who has long been fascinated by philosophical discourse, I found this book to be both intellectually stimulating and profoundly practical.

Callard masterfully unpacks the essence of Socratic dialogue, demonstrating how genuine questioning can open pathways to wisdom that direct instruction cannot. Her writing strikes that rare balance between scholarly rigor and accessible prose, making complex philosophical concepts feel immediate and relevant to everyday interactions.

What sets this book apart is Callard's ability to show how Socratic methodology isn't just an academic curiosity but a transformative approach to understanding ourselves and others. Her examples illustrate how open questioning can dissolve apparent contradictions and reveal deeper truths hiding beneath our initial assumptions.

The chapters flow with a natural progression that mirrors the Socratic method itself—each building upon the last while simultaneously questioning its foundations. Callard doesn't simply tell us about Socratic dialogue; she engages us in it through her writing.

For anyone interested in philosophy, teaching, or simply improving how they converse with others, "Open Socrates" is an essential read that will permanently alter how you approach questions and answers in your life. This is philosophy at its most vibrant and useful—a true five-star achievement that deserves a place on every thoughtful person's bookshelf.

[Andrew Morstein · Rating 3 out of 5]

Perhaps my undoing was that the brilliance of the *idea* of this book captured me and led me to buy it. Also, because cover art is a cool medium and *this* cover art ROCKS, I was admittedly a sucker from the get go…

I knew, and still know, very little about philosophy, so in a way, I imagined this would be an excellent foray into the field of Socratic philosophy as a base or framework from which to draw. I was cheering on Callard from the beginning, because again… BRILLIANT concept!

The problem? It could be written in 150 pages instead of 375+. I find it not only appropriate but helpful in many nonfiction works to reinforce ideas throughout a book for the sake of cohesion and understanding, but she really beats the point over the head until it is unrecognizable and confusing.

I legitimately have to wonder how this was allowed to be edited as-is; the prose can be interesting, the concepts are also intriguing, and yet, I barely understand what she’s talking about because her language spins itself in circles until it dizzies itself out of the point she’s trying to make. Conversely, some concepts she will touch on briefly and then you’re just stuck not understanding a major philosophical question.

Wanted to love it. Mostly left me with more questions. But hey, that’s her goal. Unfortunately for the author, my question mostly remains: why is it so dense if the points she keeps reinforcing are actually simple concepts? It is someone who likes the sound of their own voice a bit too much.

[Nat]

I really enjoyed this. It's kind of a problem for philosophy that it peaks with Plato/Socrates, and we're still chasing that high thousands of years later.

I'm going to steal Melody's description of this book after I described it to her:

"I've got a fever...and the only prescription is more philosophy".

Where the fever is contentious politics, problems with love, and facing death.

[Clayton Chase · Rating 2 out of 5]

Read 34% before losing interest

[Alex Kurtz · Rating 5 out of 5]

A few takeaways from this very interesting book:

1. Most philosophers who read the Platonic dialogues focus on Plato, not Socrates (A.N. Whitehead: “All of Western philosophy is but a footnote to Plato”). Callard focuses on Socrates, not Plato.

2. Most philosophers who read the Platonic dialogues assume that Socrates is being ironic or somehow withholding his true beliefs (see Leo Strauss, Persecution and the Art of Writing). Callard assumes that Socrates means what he says.

3. Focusing on Socrates (not Plato) and his words (not his hidden meanings) leads Callard to interesting new conclusions. She views the pursuit of knowledge as open inquiry with others, not just correctly theorizing about ideals or Forms. And she views this practice as a fourth distinct alternative to the classic philosophical schools of deontology, utilitarianism, and virtue ethics (whereas, at least in my mind, Plato’s philosophy could be roughly grouped with Aristotle’s virtue ethics).

4. Callard also traces utilitarianism back to Epicurianism and the “savage commands” of the body, and she traces deontology back to Stoicism and the “savage commands” of the collective. I’m not quite sure I buy this genealogy, but it sets her up well to present Socratic inquiry as a “third way” (although she doesn’t fully explain how Aristotelian virtue ethics fits in—is it also subject to the “savage commands” of body and kin, or is it insufficient for some other reason?).

After she explains her view of Socratic philosophy, she applies it to three domains: politics, love, and death. This section feels somewhat scattershot at times, but each one contains kernels of insight.

1. On politics, Callard encourages us to “Socratize” conversations by inquiring openly rather than turning every question into a political football (“Socratizing” is the opposite of “politicizing”). But this suffers from the same problem as virtue ethics. Just as Aristotle’s virtue ethics approach requires people to be “habituated”, or raised right, to be good citizens, Socrates’s approach requires people to be open-minded and neutral in a way that goes against the grain of human nature. As Callard herself points out, questions of justice have been colored by the animal instincts of honor, pride, and revenge rather than sober rationality ever since the events of the Iliad (and no doubt long before). For that reason, Socrates’s and Aristotle’s approaches to life and philosophy are probably most useful on an individual level—and the “polis-level” questions of justice and politics might be better addressed by the more universalizing frameworks of deontology (say, classical liberalism) or utilitarianism.

2. On love, Callard claims that Socratic inquiry is the truest form of both romantic and non-romantic love (eros and philia). It stands to reason that both romantic and non-romantic relationships can benefit from philosophizing, but does philosophizing always benefit from an undercurrent of friendship or erotic love? I feel pretty certain that this is not the case, but Callard seems to imply it (without spelling it out, or explaining why it would be true).

3. On death, Callard offers an extremely moving tribute to her philosopher-friend Steve (Stephen White of Northwestern, I believe). He recently died at a young age, shortly after they had had a publicly recorded, online discussion about the philosophy of death. Callard uses this coincidence primarily as a vehicle for her to discuss Socrates’s thoughts on how philosophy can (or cannot) prepare a person for death. But I found it independently affecting in the same way that I was moved when I found out that Richard Posner had dementia: like Posner’s fertile intellect, Callard and Steve’s relationship was a beautiful thing that revolved almost entirely around the life of the mind—and now it was gone forever.

Finally, the acknowledgements section at the end of the book aptly sums up Callard’s approach to this subject, and to life (for her, those are the same thing): it is playful, contrarian, and Socratic.

[Greg Talbot · Rating 5 out of 5]

Can we all take a moment to appreciate brilliance of a movie about two teenagers whose curiousity, school assignment and time travel helped them journey onand bring back the great inquistior of classical Athens. That would be the excellent adventure of Bill and Ted.

Fortunately, it's a journey we can all take in some ways, since the Socratic investigation remains a way for us to seperate out the known and unknown. The famous negatively quotes "all i know is that I know nothing" is a that place from humility and self-doubt to which all branches of investigation can go forth. As we investigate in Callard's "Open Socrates: The Case for a Philosophicla life", the Socratic approach, when taken in good faith, is not about trollish refutation. The socratic approach can help us toward the virtuous good. We look into the untimely questions - the questions that investigate our unexamiend answers. We dive into the savege commands - the impulses of the body and the social calls to our tribes. Through a process of joint inquiry, Socrates plays this role as a midwife to knowledge. Perhaps an annoying gadfly at times, but most aspirationaly a mirror toward ourselves in pursuit of the good.

One of the more fascianting parts of this book, and one I hope to explore furhter are the dialogues. The notion that moderns understand the world more, or are more knowledgable is quickly dispelled. The conversations Socrates have are the same ones that many of us would have. What role does philosophy have outside a classroom exercise - aren't we all just trying to live our lives. How do we know if we are moving toward the good anyway, how can i measure self-improvement. And what of all this reppraochment anyway, does all this joint inquiry ever have us arrive anywhere?

Some of the personal details Callard sprinkles in, such as her early experiences trying to use the Socratic method, or her role as a parent, gives us insights into how Socrates's inquires are more than a historical search. Callard also does a great job of framing this search for Socratic ethics against the larger western philsophical approaches - utilitarian/consequenatialism, Kantian, and Aristoliean virtue. As she explores the questions of death, power, and sex through Socrates refutations, the lens of ethics as personal decision-making feels small. The scope of two people working through a problem, to push toward the good, feels like the transformative work of relationship building. With friends, lovers, coworkers, or even the more absract relationships of citizens, we can find the known through active service to each other. It it's best form, there is a loving correctivenss, that we can arrive at , through the dance with another.

In my reading, I found myself constantly surprised - and also exhilarated. At times when our culture pushes individuation and knowledge as the ultimate good , there seems to be a humanistic offering from Socratic inquiry that is overlooked. In our times, we have better measurements, but less informed judgements. More connections but less meaning. More alone time but less freedom. Our cultural myopia may be rooted in a lack of wisdom. It's possible that's just the human animal - ever doomed to biology and selfishness. And yet there may be another way, once we can humbly submit ourselves to the investigative questions, and know ourselves for the first time.

[Travis · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a tough book for me to give a solid star rating. On the one hand, I found the three chapters about the paradoxes of the Socratic method absolutely fascinating. On the other hand, I wound up skipping some of the earlier chapters entirely and skimming some sections in the later chapters. I feel much better informed about what the Socratic method actually is and what is meant by "refutation." I like to think my conversations with friends are Socratic inquiries rather than typical arguing, and I totally see how we "think" with other people better than ruminating in our own heads.

The three paradoxes

Gadfly-Midwife Paradox
Moore's Paradox of Self-knowledge
Meno’s Paradox

were the three most valuable chapters. Previously the main thing I knew about Socrates was from Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure: the only thing we know is that we know nothing. That statement isn't incorrect, but it's obviously much more nuanced. I was also familiar with the notion of "Socratic dialogue" but learning how it allows one person to guide another person to finding an answer without directly stating the answer to them was intriguing.

But too often the book gets too academic, which is probably a hallmark for weighty philosophy books. My main exposure to philosophy is directly reading Stoicism (see Meditations or Letters from a Stoic) or Taoism (see Tao Te Ching), both of which I immediately understood intuitively. Socrates (and relatedly Plato and Aristotle) seem much harder to grasp so easily. Whether that's because of the language or the concepts, I can't tell. Some of the passages quotes in this book were easy to decipher while others felt as impenetrable as poetry is for me. As I mentioned earlier, I skipped all of chapters three and four because I was not invested in the topics Callard presented. The chapter on love was also very weak. The chapters on politics did not deliver on their stated intention but managed to be somewhat interesting in what they did present.

Most of the book keeps returning to Tolstoy's A Confession as a sort of framing device for searching for philosophical answers. This got a little tiresome by the end, but I can also see the value in sticking to an example to examine it from all sides.

In the end, I got just enough out of this book to appreciate my time reading it. I am much better informed about the Socratic method. Hopefully I can apply that knowledge in my own conversations and philosophical questioning.

[Marc · Rating 3 out of 5]

I heard a snippet of an interview with Callard on public radio and borrowed this book from the library.

Maybe I should start off by saying, she didn't really need to make the "case" to me for a philosophical life, by which I simply mean one of inquiry (I'm naturally curious and my default is to question my own motives). Essentially, she presents a new ethics ("Neo-Socratic") which intends to deal with our reactions to bodily and kinship demands through an open/evolving system of inquiry. I'm far from a philosophy expert, but what I think is really novel about this idea is the reliance on others to help each other think. The other dominant ethical systems she contrasts as "closed" and singular (in terms of thinking on your own). But here she painstakingly lays out why we can't answer our own "untimely questions" by ourselves (an "untimely question" is one whose answer you are already living---answering it would be somewhat akin to "cutting off the branch [you're] standing on"). If I understood this correctly, we don't really have the distance and objectivity to look at such questions on our own. And we're talking about big questions concerning the nature of love, the meaning of life, what it means to be "good," etc.

While the book tackles a lot of common reactions/criticisms of Socrates (e.g., he's a gadfly, he already "knows" the answers he's seeking, he's being ironic, etc.), I think it seriously underplays the kind of thinking Plato presented us with. The combination of dedication to truth, humility, willingness to be wrong, and path of questioning Socrates chooses are very much not natural human inclinations for most of us. And should any one of us happen to grow such a unique set of characteristics, he/she would seemingly need another such person (lest, like Socrates, he merely drive a lot of people away).

Is it a thought-provoking book? Absolutely. It did feel a bit drawn out and almost worked against itself towards the end in that I felt like I often feel when reading Socratic exchanges: Oh, these questions have already been answered for me...

"Socrates denies that it is possible to act against one’s better judgment, and he denies that anyone ever deserves to be harmed. There is only one problem, which is ignorance, and there is only one solution, which is to learn."

[Cynthia Egbert · Rating 4 out of 5]

I started this one as an audiobook but had to purchase a copy to hold in my hand and to annotate because I had to pull the car over more than once to record some of the thoughts from this work. I am now making my slowly through the hard copy and will likely need to write another review when I am finished. I loved the way she made me think and helped to make Socrates into someone who was trying to make the world a better place. His methods may not have always been ideal, but he did have his heart in the right place. He had his eye on what matters most I think and was grumpy in trying to make others see it, but at least he tried. Here are a few of the thoughts that I appreciated the most.

“We are unable to think of the most important things on our own and and we habitually shield ourselves from from this terrifying fact. All of us, even professional philosophers, walk around with a conceit of knowledge separating us from other people. Our feeling of basic mental competence, of having the answers on which the living of our lives depends, keeps us from connecting with others in the ways that benefits us the most. Ignorance of ignorance leads us to believe that we are to figure these important questions out for ourselves. Socrates dismantled that barrier.”

“To Socratize a question (love, politics, life) is to see it moving upward towards a goal. To anti-Socratize a question is to pull it down to a common material thing or concept.”

“Socrates unified domains as distinct as love, death, and politics not by analyzing them in terms of some underlying common denominator but rather by seeing them as converging upward towards a single aspiration. Inquiry into untimely questions. Instead of arguing that these domains all have a common source or cause or are built up out of common materials Socrates argues that what they have in common is a goal. To frame the point in an Aristotelian terminology, anti-Socratizing unifies by way of a common material cause whereas Socratizing unifies by way of a common final cause.”