What do you think?
Rate this book
Essential Thinkers - Socrates
For Socrates, as for Jesus Christ, we have few biographical details, and nearly all those we have come from his greatest admirer. But it is clear that Socrates contributed three new ideas to the development of philosophy: that goodness consists not in helping friends and harming enemies, but in not harming anybody at all; that goodness and knowledge are one and the same thing; and that for progress to be made in argument, there must be step-by-step agreement between those arguing.
The similarity to Jesus goes further. Socrates too was put to death for defying the conventions of his day; and he too sets us, by the manner of his life and his death, an example which is at the same time an inspiration and an impossible ideal.
Socrates was born in Athens in 469bce, and spent much of his life pointing out the absurdities of current beliefs. Though he played no part in political life, he antagonized both the democratic and oligarchic factions in Athens, and in 399bce was put to death on a charge of atheism and corrupting the young. By the manner of his life and death he became the inspiration for the philosopher Plato.
The similarity to Jesus goes further. Socrates too was put to death for defying the conventions of his day; and he too sets us, by the manner of his life and his death, an example which is at the same time an inspiration and an impossible ideal.
Socrates was born in Athens in 469bce, and spent much of his life pointing out the absurdities of current beliefs. Though he played no part in political life, he antagonized both the democratic and oligarchic factions in Athens, and in 399bce was put to death on a charge of atheism and corrupting the young. By the manner of his life and death he became the inspiration for the philosopher Plato.
491 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2004
25 people are currently reading
1151 people want to read
About the author
Plato
5,223 books8,626 followersPlato (Greek: Πλάτων), born Aristocles (c. 427 – 348 BC), was an ancient Greek philosopher of the Classical period who is considered a foundational thinker in Western philosophy and an innovator of the written dialogue and dialectic forms. He raised problems for what became all the major areas of both theoretical philosophy and practical philosophy, and was the founder of the Platonic Academy, a philosophical school in Athens where Plato taught the doctrines that would later become known as Platonism.
Plato's most famous contribution is the theory of forms (or ideas), which has been interpreted as advancing a solution to what is now known as the problem of universals. He was decisively influenced by the pre-Socratic thinkers Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Parmenides, although much of what is known about them is derived from Plato himself.
Along with his teacher Socrates, and Aristotle, his student, Plato is a central figure in the history of philosophy. Plato's entire body of work is believed to have survived intact for over 2,400 years—unlike that of nearly all of his contemporaries. Although their popularity has fluctuated, they have consistently been read and studied through the ages. Through Neoplatonism, he also greatly influenced both Christian and Islamic philosophy. In modern times, Alfred North Whitehead famously said: "the safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."
Plato's most famous contribution is the theory of forms (or ideas), which has been interpreted as advancing a solution to what is now known as the problem of universals. He was decisively influenced by the pre-Socratic thinkers Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Parmenides, although much of what is known about them is derived from Plato himself.
Along with his teacher Socrates, and Aristotle, his student, Plato is a central figure in the history of philosophy. Plato's entire body of work is believed to have survived intact for over 2,400 years—unlike that of nearly all of his contemporaries. Although their popularity has fluctuated, they have consistently been read and studied through the ages. Through Neoplatonism, he also greatly influenced both Christian and Islamic philosophy. In modern times, Alfred North Whitehead famously said: "the safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
April 30, 2013
This pocket guide to Socrates is a fine selection of dialogues and comedies that help paint a solid picture of a great figure in western philosophy. Socrates is earliest of the three most famous names in Greek philosophy, with Plato and then Aristotle following in turn, each as a student/listener of the philosopher preceding him (while not a philosopher you could perhaps continue that lineage when noting that Alexander the Great was a student of Aristotle). Since Socrates himself never wrote anything we turn to written accounts of his listeners and students of the day, such as Xenophon, Plato, and the comic playwright Aristophanes. This collection samples from those three writers but the majority of the book is devoted to Plato's shorter dialogues. In fact that might be the only shortcoming of this compilation of writings: they are the shorter works, not the most relevant to understanding Socrates. In my opinion, choosing Xenophon's version of "Symposium" is a poor selection if one is trying to properly represent the full kaleidoscopic picture of Socrates that a multiple-author compilation should show. Rather, Xenophon's four short books on the memorable thoughts of Socrates is a much more interesting and insightful selection. That said, this is still a good compilation.
The book itself was physically put together quite well. It's a hardback with a crisp dust jacket, a built-in fabric bookmark, golden-colored page edging, and of the size and paper type that are used in smaller study bibles. On more than one occasion someone mistakenly thought that I was reading a bible, and we had a laugh when it was realized it was Socrates instead. There is perhaps a little irony to this considering the numerous similarities between Jesus and Socrates who preceded him by several centuries, from the parables to specific moral points to political views to social impact and even their executions, but that's another can of worms not worth opening at the moment.
This book starts out strong, hitting the reader with three short Socratic dialogues written by Plato that are each devoted to a specific moral quality (temperance, friendship, and courage) and explored in Socrates' signature style of cross-examination. Socrates has a style to his discussions that is witty, insightful, complex, and mildly subversive. There is an unquenchable cheerfulness and vigor about him, akin to Carlos Castaneda's mythic Don Juan character, which accompanied him well into his old age. He is never pinned down or defensive in his discussions and only ever feigns ignorance for the sake of softening the otherwise sharp didactic edges of the arguers. You find him often playing dumb and his friends or listeners who know his style are usually sitting around grinning and fully content with his mildly comic routine.
Socrates endears his listeners and his debating opponents not only by his mood but also by the interactive and respectful manner in which he conducts these discussions. Debates as we've come to know them are often tense and show each side simultaneously battling to prove their point and keep the other person's point of view from truly sinking in. It's a see-saw of discursive offense and defense that is really more a fight than a mutual exploration of an idea. Modern debates too are as much an exercise in pride & stubbornness as they are in reasoning. Each party tries to present themselves as knowing something in particular and being fully competent at defending and proving that point. To admit to "not knowing" something is seen as weakness since each debater must know or believe what they argue. But a major difference in Socrates style is he makes a point to show the audience that he doesn't know something and wishes to explore it.
By admitting he doesn't know something, Socrates is inviting the other person instead to explain the idea as they know it (or rather as they think they know). Then Socrates works his magic, gently, respectfully, and in a mildly comic manner he latches onto individual details of his opponent's interpretation, disproves those details and forces them to re-shape their idea throughout the dialogue. Because the discursive swords have been sheathed (or are at least blunted by the manner of discussion), his opponent feels free to modify their thoughts throughout the discussion without worrying so much about saving face. The "debate" quickly becomes focused on exploring the idea rather than two people's opinions doing battle with each other. The modified interpretation always continues to the point when they realize they truly do not know after all. Along the way the opponent may become frustrated, despairing or argumentative, but Socrates always charms and softens them again, encouraging them to continue the exploration. When his opponent truly reaches the point of "not knowing" and has reached it without emotional reaction or self-pity, then Socrates ventures a more in-depth interpretation of his own.
At this point in the discussion Socrates is doing the leading, however he doesn't try to take advantage of the opponent and audience who are now in a highly suggestible state, so he takes each step forward incrementally and patiently, checking in with the other person to see if they agree or would add anything to it. Because the debater is in the state that they are in - no longer on edge and no longer having a point of view they are adamantly defending - the reigns are never taken back from Socrates and the responses are fairly short and of the type which a student would give to a teacher showing them how to do/know something. The reader should temper their expectations at this point in the dialogues and not think they are going to be lead home to some clear and profound ending as they may be accustomed to from reading the gospels; several more twists and turns will pop up in the remaining discussion. Socrates may venture a definition of the point being discussed, but usually the first definition or two he ventures are ones that appear to hold water but as they are beginning to be accepted he will show why they in fact sink, and then ventures another idea. Perhaps another definition or two is explored in this manner, and gradually the reader and the listeners let go of the expectation that the truth to the idea is something Socrates knows or will reveal. So here we're left along with his opponent, having been stripped of what we believed we knew, unable to rebound from it into that of a supposed teacher offering us the real interpretation, yet our minds have had a good workout in thoughtful reasoning and shown the danger in accepting an idea as belief (and that most beliefs we've arrived at are truly not the rocks we think we're standing on). We have been shown the wisdom in remaining in a state of "not knowing" and perhaps that remaining adaptable, keen and mentally flexible are to be cherished over arriving at a solid belief. Socrates fully elaborates on the wisdom of "not knowing" in Plato's version of "the Apology" (included).
Plato's version of "Symposium" follows, and is a classic on its own. In this dialogue Socrates attends a dinner party with his friends and all of them decide to give a speech or discourse on love. Some speeches are comic, some use myth, and some venture profound ideas. [my review]. The Apology, Crito and Phaedo follow and these three interweave Socratic dialogues with the events surrounding Socrates trial, imprisonment and execution. He explores the ideas of virtue, honor, and the immortality of the soul in these discussions, and in my opinion the latter is the high point of this book. This final discourse of Socrates, Phaedo, is a discourse that is approachable in spite of its complexity. It's a true introduction to metaphysics and I imagine it would be best before venturing into Aristotle, Kant, or Heidegger to start with this.
The book ends with two comic ventures in Aristophanes The Clouds and Xenophon's Symposium. The former was an Athenian comic playwright who picked on Socrates in this work, depicting him in a half-serious fashion as a wily charlatan. No one really knows whether Aristophanes truly viewed Socrates in a negative way or if he was merely poking fun, regardless it had an impact on the common Athenian and eased many into making Socrates their scapegoat. It is odd to develop a truly informed opinion based on hearsay, gossip or comedic distortions, but that same mentally lazy pattern is still with us today, so it shouldn't be a surprise that they did it then too. Xenophon's dialogue recounts more comic discussions at a dinner party, such as Socrates logically arguing how his ugliness is in fact more handsome. It's not the most interesting work of Xenophon's, and again I think it's a bad choice to include here, but some points are funny and perhaps the point was to finish off this book with a more comic reprieve that is much needed after the heavier metaphysical discussions and the melancholy mood of the trial and execution which Plato's dialogues follow.
The selections in this book do a good job of bringing basic familiarity with Socrates, but more with whetting one's appetite for Plato. The selection from Xenophon could be better and starting with the Platonic dialogue "Protagoras" might be a better starting point than the three short dialogues that begin the book, but at least the classic shorter Platonic works on Socrates have been included. Overall a good mix that blends philosophy, metaphysics, history, tragedy, and comedy into a wonderful read on a man who had arguably the biggest influence on the development of western civilization.
The book itself was physically put together quite well. It's a hardback with a crisp dust jacket, a built-in fabric bookmark, golden-colored page edging, and of the size and paper type that are used in smaller study bibles. On more than one occasion someone mistakenly thought that I was reading a bible, and we had a laugh when it was realized it was Socrates instead. There is perhaps a little irony to this considering the numerous similarities between Jesus and Socrates who preceded him by several centuries, from the parables to specific moral points to political views to social impact and even their executions, but that's another can of worms not worth opening at the moment.
This book starts out strong, hitting the reader with three short Socratic dialogues written by Plato that are each devoted to a specific moral quality (temperance, friendship, and courage) and explored in Socrates' signature style of cross-examination. Socrates has a style to his discussions that is witty, insightful, complex, and mildly subversive. There is an unquenchable cheerfulness and vigor about him, akin to Carlos Castaneda's mythic Don Juan character, which accompanied him well into his old age. He is never pinned down or defensive in his discussions and only ever feigns ignorance for the sake of softening the otherwise sharp didactic edges of the arguers. You find him often playing dumb and his friends or listeners who know his style are usually sitting around grinning and fully content with his mildly comic routine.
Socrates endears his listeners and his debating opponents not only by his mood but also by the interactive and respectful manner in which he conducts these discussions. Debates as we've come to know them are often tense and show each side simultaneously battling to prove their point and keep the other person's point of view from truly sinking in. It's a see-saw of discursive offense and defense that is really more a fight than a mutual exploration of an idea. Modern debates too are as much an exercise in pride & stubbornness as they are in reasoning. Each party tries to present themselves as knowing something in particular and being fully competent at defending and proving that point. To admit to "not knowing" something is seen as weakness since each debater must know or believe what they argue. But a major difference in Socrates style is he makes a point to show the audience that he doesn't know something and wishes to explore it.
By admitting he doesn't know something, Socrates is inviting the other person instead to explain the idea as they know it (or rather as they think they know). Then Socrates works his magic, gently, respectfully, and in a mildly comic manner he latches onto individual details of his opponent's interpretation, disproves those details and forces them to re-shape their idea throughout the dialogue. Because the discursive swords have been sheathed (or are at least blunted by the manner of discussion), his opponent feels free to modify their thoughts throughout the discussion without worrying so much about saving face. The "debate" quickly becomes focused on exploring the idea rather than two people's opinions doing battle with each other. The modified interpretation always continues to the point when they realize they truly do not know after all. Along the way the opponent may become frustrated, despairing or argumentative, but Socrates always charms and softens them again, encouraging them to continue the exploration. When his opponent truly reaches the point of "not knowing" and has reached it without emotional reaction or self-pity, then Socrates ventures a more in-depth interpretation of his own.
At this point in the discussion Socrates is doing the leading, however he doesn't try to take advantage of the opponent and audience who are now in a highly suggestible state, so he takes each step forward incrementally and patiently, checking in with the other person to see if they agree or would add anything to it. Because the debater is in the state that they are in - no longer on edge and no longer having a point of view they are adamantly defending - the reigns are never taken back from Socrates and the responses are fairly short and of the type which a student would give to a teacher showing them how to do/know something. The reader should temper their expectations at this point in the dialogues and not think they are going to be lead home to some clear and profound ending as they may be accustomed to from reading the gospels; several more twists and turns will pop up in the remaining discussion. Socrates may venture a definition of the point being discussed, but usually the first definition or two he ventures are ones that appear to hold water but as they are beginning to be accepted he will show why they in fact sink, and then ventures another idea. Perhaps another definition or two is explored in this manner, and gradually the reader and the listeners let go of the expectation that the truth to the idea is something Socrates knows or will reveal. So here we're left along with his opponent, having been stripped of what we believed we knew, unable to rebound from it into that of a supposed teacher offering us the real interpretation, yet our minds have had a good workout in thoughtful reasoning and shown the danger in accepting an idea as belief (and that most beliefs we've arrived at are truly not the rocks we think we're standing on). We have been shown the wisdom in remaining in a state of "not knowing" and perhaps that remaining adaptable, keen and mentally flexible are to be cherished over arriving at a solid belief. Socrates fully elaborates on the wisdom of "not knowing" in Plato's version of "the Apology" (included).
Plato's version of "Symposium" follows, and is a classic on its own. In this dialogue Socrates attends a dinner party with his friends and all of them decide to give a speech or discourse on love. Some speeches are comic, some use myth, and some venture profound ideas. [my review]. The Apology, Crito and Phaedo follow and these three interweave Socratic dialogues with the events surrounding Socrates trial, imprisonment and execution. He explores the ideas of virtue, honor, and the immortality of the soul in these discussions, and in my opinion the latter is the high point of this book. This final discourse of Socrates, Phaedo, is a discourse that is approachable in spite of its complexity. It's a true introduction to metaphysics and I imagine it would be best before venturing into Aristotle, Kant, or Heidegger to start with this.
The book ends with two comic ventures in Aristophanes The Clouds and Xenophon's Symposium. The former was an Athenian comic playwright who picked on Socrates in this work, depicting him in a half-serious fashion as a wily charlatan. No one really knows whether Aristophanes truly viewed Socrates in a negative way or if he was merely poking fun, regardless it had an impact on the common Athenian and eased many into making Socrates their scapegoat. It is odd to develop a truly informed opinion based on hearsay, gossip or comedic distortions, but that same mentally lazy pattern is still with us today, so it shouldn't be a surprise that they did it then too. Xenophon's dialogue recounts more comic discussions at a dinner party, such as Socrates logically arguing how his ugliness is in fact more handsome. It's not the most interesting work of Xenophon's, and again I think it's a bad choice to include here, but some points are funny and perhaps the point was to finish off this book with a more comic reprieve that is much needed after the heavier metaphysical discussions and the melancholy mood of the trial and execution which Plato's dialogues follow.
The selections in this book do a good job of bringing basic familiarity with Socrates, but more with whetting one's appetite for Plato. The selection from Xenophon could be better and starting with the Platonic dialogue "Protagoras" might be a better starting point than the three short dialogues that begin the book, but at least the classic shorter Platonic works on Socrates have been included. Overall a good mix that blends philosophy, metaphysics, history, tragedy, and comedy into a wonderful read on a man who had arguably the biggest influence on the development of western civilization.
Read
December 13, 2015It was SOOOOO long-winded and boring. I'm just not really into this kind've stuff anymore. I'll read the Cliffnotes, thank you. I had to put it down, I couldn't finish it.
But it WAS interesting reading the little hints of Socrates' character... his love and passions. When speaking you a rather beautiful and robust youthful boy, Socrates said "...I caught sight of the inwards of his garment and took the flame. Then I could longer contain myself." Socrates just had to engage with him.
Quite scandalous.
But it WAS interesting reading the little hints of Socrates' character... his love and passions. When speaking you a rather beautiful and robust youthful boy, Socrates said "...I caught sight of the inwards of his garment and took the flame. Then I could longer contain myself." Socrates just had to engage with him.
Quite scandalous.
June 4, 2013
Still not much a Socrates fan. I had to read his works in high school, I had to study him in a philosophy course in college, in history, but I thought if I read it on my own my opinion and takeaway might change. It did not change much, but probably because there are no actual writings from Socrates himself; instead, his lessons were carried down by his pupil Plato in such a way that sounded part philosophy, part hero worship.
October 14, 2014
its 'why on earth did ive to concern much on Socrates.afterall he's just a human being.'
1 star
1 star
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews