What do you think?
Rate this book
The Last Days of Socrates
The trial and condemnation of Socrates (469-399 B.C.) on charges of heresy and corrupting young minds is a defining moment in the history of Classical Athens. In tracing these events through four dialogues, Plato also developed his own philosophy, based on Socrates' manifesto for a life guided by self-responsibility. Euthyphro finds Socrates outside the court-house, debating the nature of piety, while The Apology is his robust rebuttal of the charges of impiety and a defense of the philosopher's life. In Crito, while awaiting execution in prison, Socrates counters the arguments of friends urging him to escape. Finally, in Phaedo, he is shown calmly confident in the face of death, skilfully arguing the case for the immortality of the soul. The vindication of Socrates and the pathos of his death are admirably conveyed in Hugh Tredennick's modern translation.
199 pages, Unknown Binding
First published January 1, 401
About the author
Plato
5,917 books9,189 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 - 30 of 1,887 reviews
June 26, 2020
Plato reports Socrates' plea during his trial here. Despite a brilliant defense, Socrates cannot fight the main accusation, which is to corrupt the youth by making them think and question a form of immutability in power and beliefs. If minds change, it threatens stability; therefore, it is urgent to silence this teaching. This teaching is a valuable lesson to learn when everything is presented as an economic necessity and always for the community's benefit. Yet, the idea that thinking could undermine the rulers' stability remains relevant today.
September 21, 2007
When he was tried, convicted and ordered to death in 399 B.C.E., Socrates was already seventy years old: he had lived through the imperialistic spread of Athenian democracy and culture under Pericles, twenty-five years of first cold and then heated war with Sparta, the defeat of Athens in 404 B.C.E., the short-lived oligarchy imposed on that city by the Spartans, and finally the reestablishment of democracy in his homeland. During all of that time, the former bricklayer was known for practicing philosophy in the public spaces of Athens using his inimitable style of questioning those in authority who feigned virtue and wisdom while in reality lacking it. This technique gradually garnered him many powerful enemies who did their best to poison public opinion against him.
Socrates was often confused with the Sophists, traveling teachers who sought to satisfy the public need for higher education generated by a democracy in which any male citizen could be called upon to serve in courts or assemblies. But Socrates was ostensibly not interested in teaching per se: his aim was to uncover the lack of virtue, honesty and wisdom in those around him and to encourage them to learn, as virtue is knowledge, and once one knows what is right, truly knows it, one is no longer capable of doing wrong. He often obliquely criticized democratic systems, and indeed, the power consolidation democracy afford the majority was exactly what did him in.
While Plato has only reported Socrates’ words (and a few said by Meletus, one of his accusers), we do get a filtered idea of the sort of argument the prosecution was making: democracy had only recently been restored in Athens, and certain elements of the population, probably motivated, as Socrates claims, by years of resentment toward the philosopher, wanted to brand his sort of “teaching” (for despite his claims to the contrary, he was indeed teaching by example, at the very least) as destructive to the democratic institutions that Socrates himself often seemed to oppose (as evidenced in his Dialogues, which Plato also transcribed).
But the prosecution is largely silent, and we can more clearly analyze what Socrates does. Throughout his defense he employs a disingenuousness that likely irked his opponents: he begins by assuming a humble excuse-my-illiteracy sort of stance, and gradually abdicates all responsibility for the message he is putting across (i.e., authority figures are hypocritical boobs), by appealing to a deus ex machina device (the oracle’s decree and god’s voice in his ear). However, there is considerable nobility and courage in his refusal to kowtow to the Assembly’s expectations that he’ll beg for mercy, and his dissection of the trumped-up charges is perfectly executed.
The shift in tone after he’s been found guilty is interesting: no longer is the prosecution the brunt of his surgical, nearly sarcastic grandstanding: those voting against him catch it full on as he with great guts demands to be rewarded for “corrupting” the youth of Athens the way winners in the Olympics were. His withering prophecies to all of Athens after he’s been sentenced to death indicate a third tone shift, short-lived as it is. He finally becomes introspective with his friends as the document closes, and his inspiring advice and requests serve as telling indicators of his real personality (as opposed to his philosopher persona): someone who loved his family and neighbors so much that he was willing to risk his life to make them good people.
Socrates was often confused with the Sophists, traveling teachers who sought to satisfy the public need for higher education generated by a democracy in which any male citizen could be called upon to serve in courts or assemblies. But Socrates was ostensibly not interested in teaching per se: his aim was to uncover the lack of virtue, honesty and wisdom in those around him and to encourage them to learn, as virtue is knowledge, and once one knows what is right, truly knows it, one is no longer capable of doing wrong. He often obliquely criticized democratic systems, and indeed, the power consolidation democracy afford the majority was exactly what did him in.
While Plato has only reported Socrates’ words (and a few said by Meletus, one of his accusers), we do get a filtered idea of the sort of argument the prosecution was making: democracy had only recently been restored in Athens, and certain elements of the population, probably motivated, as Socrates claims, by years of resentment toward the philosopher, wanted to brand his sort of “teaching” (for despite his claims to the contrary, he was indeed teaching by example, at the very least) as destructive to the democratic institutions that Socrates himself often seemed to oppose (as evidenced in his Dialogues, which Plato also transcribed).
But the prosecution is largely silent, and we can more clearly analyze what Socrates does. Throughout his defense he employs a disingenuousness that likely irked his opponents: he begins by assuming a humble excuse-my-illiteracy sort of stance, and gradually abdicates all responsibility for the message he is putting across (i.e., authority figures are hypocritical boobs), by appealing to a deus ex machina device (the oracle’s decree and god’s voice in his ear). However, there is considerable nobility and courage in his refusal to kowtow to the Assembly’s expectations that he’ll beg for mercy, and his dissection of the trumped-up charges is perfectly executed.
The shift in tone after he’s been found guilty is interesting: no longer is the prosecution the brunt of his surgical, nearly sarcastic grandstanding: those voting against him catch it full on as he with great guts demands to be rewarded for “corrupting” the youth of Athens the way winners in the Olympics were. His withering prophecies to all of Athens after he’s been sentenced to death indicate a third tone shift, short-lived as it is. He finally becomes introspective with his friends as the document closes, and his inspiring advice and requests serve as telling indicators of his real personality (as opposed to his philosopher persona): someone who loved his family and neighbors so much that he was willing to risk his life to make them good people.
March 16, 2021
No man who goes to war with you or any other multitude, honestly struggling against the commission of unrighteousness and wrong in the state, will save his life.
How wise Socrates was when he uttered these words over 2000 years ago. Nothing much has changed since. The disinterested truth and justice seeker is always the enemy of the state. In every state, the persons who stimulate the mind of the populace are viewed as dangerous. If people start thinking for themselves, it is not easy for rulers to fool them. If the governing body is incompetent and is concerned only in their welfare and not of the people, and is governing the land through unjust laws, people will question, argue, and in extremity, will resort to violent actions against the government to secure their rights and establish justice. But no government wishes for this. They would very much like the populace to be kept in the dark, and anyone who wishes to throw light will be considered dangerous and will be duly persecuted. And this is what happened to Socrates. He may be a great philosopher of the day, but he was a danger to the Athenian rulers, who were an incompetent lot. And they promptly decided that to save their skin, Socrates must be out of the way. Hence the trial; and the subsequent death penalty silenced the great man forever.
The Trial and Death of Socrates, although focused on the indictment that brought Socrates before the Athenian courts, Socrates's defense, the unjust conviction, and his final days in prison, also discusses Socrates's philosophy in many subjects. This compilation consists of four dialogues: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, and Phaedo. Euthyphro set the introduction to the events that followed by opening the dialogue as to what is pious, for one of the main accusations against Socrates was his disbelief in the accepted Athenian diety. The two dialogues, Euthyphro and Apology, make it clear that the prevalent ideas on piety advocated by the Sophists and that of Socrates tread on contrary grounds. It is then not surprising that Socrates is condemned as an atheist. However, Socrates knows that this is not the true cause of his condemnation. Through his philosophical teachings, he was stimulating the young minds towards achieving virtue and goodness against money and reputation which didn't sit well with the governing bodies and majority of society who were advocates of material wealth and reputation. And so, to avoid the future danger of youth turning against the government bodies and influential people, Socrates was accused of "corrupting the youth" and was promptly found guilty. The clever and intelligent defense of his philosophical ideas and his teachings in Apology rather sped up his conviction than acquitting him. Crito and Phaedo describe certain philosophical debates Socrates had with his disciples and friends in his prison cell. In addition to communicating the philosophical views of Socrates, these two dialogues show the fortitude of Socrates. Even in the face of his death, he was true to what he believed. And in no instance, thought of changing colours to save his skin. These four dialogues paint a true picture of Socrates's character while at the same time describing his philosophical points of view.
The four dialogues are Plato's recounting of the last days of Socrates. Plato was said to be present at the trial of Socrates, but he was absent from the philosophical debates that took place in the prison cell of Socrates due to illness. It is also known that, soon after the death of Socrates, Plato left Athens and was absent for a considerable number of years, and so, a question may arise as to the accuracy of Plato's account. But, whatever the case may be, Plato's account of the last days of Socrates's life has done justice to the character, principles, and philosophy of his beloved teacher, Socrates.
More of my reviews can be found at http://piyangiejay.com/
June 29, 2015
Somebody should tell Jon Snow to read this book. Poor guy, Ygritte wouldn't stop giving him hell. "You know nothing, Jon Snow" says she, all the time.
If only Jon would read Socrates, he would have the greatest of retorts, the greatest of Socrates' teachings as his come back.
"The only true wisdom is in knowing that you know nothing."
Take that Ygritte!
PS - Here is some mindbogglingly brilliant analysis of the famous painting on Socrates's death by Jacques Louis David
http://aeon.co/video/culture/the-deat...
If only Jon would read Socrates, he would have the greatest of retorts, the greatest of Socrates' teachings as his come back.
"The only true wisdom is in knowing that you know nothing."
Take that Ygritte!
PS - Here is some mindbogglingly brilliant analysis of the famous painting on Socrates's death by Jacques Louis David
http://aeon.co/video/culture/the-deat...
July 7, 2007
The world needs a superhero.
The name of that superhero is Socrates.
What do you mean you've never read this book - what the hell are you waiting for?
The name of that superhero is Socrates.
What do you mean you've never read this book - what the hell are you waiting for?
November 29, 2015
I do not know, men of Athens, how my accusers affected you; as for me, I was almost carried away in spite of myself, so persuasively did they speak. And yet, hardly anything of what they said is true.
Socrates
It's strange to reread a text that I first read when I was young, idealistic, optimistic, and believed that the expunging of those who questioned conventional thinking was the exception, not the rule.
Plato's Trial and Death of Socrates is a slim volume (58 pages) and consists of four dialogues, the most famous of which is the Apologia, Socrates's defense against charges of corrupting the youth, failing to acknowledge the Gods recognized by Athens and introducing new divinities.
The overall text examines numerous philosophical concerns that include the nature of knowledge, virtue, piety, and the immortality of the soul. I read this work in conjunction with a course on Greek Philosophy. The lecturer, Dr. Robert Bartlett from Boston College, argues that Socrates's conviction and sentence of death demonstrate the distrust and dislike of philosophers at the time. He believes that Plato succeeded in transforming the reputation of philosophers with this text from corrupter to martyr.
It was interesting to reflect not only on the issues raised but the shifting meaning that comes with age and the context in which I read the text. I have recently become interested in the decline of democracy and see frightening parallels in how political contingencies can narrow freedom of thought.
Socrates
It's strange to reread a text that I first read when I was young, idealistic, optimistic, and believed that the expunging of those who questioned conventional thinking was the exception, not the rule.
Plato's Trial and Death of Socrates is a slim volume (58 pages) and consists of four dialogues, the most famous of which is the Apologia, Socrates's defense against charges of corrupting the youth, failing to acknowledge the Gods recognized by Athens and introducing new divinities.
The overall text examines numerous philosophical concerns that include the nature of knowledge, virtue, piety, and the immortality of the soul. I read this work in conjunction with a course on Greek Philosophy. The lecturer, Dr. Robert Bartlett from Boston College, argues that Socrates's conviction and sentence of death demonstrate the distrust and dislike of philosophers at the time. He believes that Plato succeeded in transforming the reputation of philosophers with this text from corrupter to martyr.
It was interesting to reflect not only on the issues raised but the shifting meaning that comes with age and the context in which I read the text. I have recently become interested in the decline of democracy and see frightening parallels in how political contingencies can narrow freedom of thought.
September 24, 2012
I was a bit wary going in but I was pleasantly surprised that this book wasn't as difficult to understand as I'd expected it to be.
The edition I read covered three dialogues about Socrates (Apologia, Crito and Phaedo), who was tried for supposedly corrupting the youth of Athens as well as for encouraging worship of gods not recognized by the State. I've always heard that Socrates was a powerful orator and the way he defended himself in front of the court proves that. Even when he was sentenced to death, Socrates was curiously upbeat and as philosophical as ever, discussing the state of the soul and so on.
What I got from the book was that Socrates was curious and valued virtue, humility and honesty. I can see how he pushed a few buttons, telling people how stupid and ignorant they actually were!
I still can't wrap my head around how long ago this was written. My favourite section of the book was definitely Apologia. Amazing courtroom drama. Had it not been for the drawn-out investigation of the soul in Phaedo, I would have given this 5 stars.
The edition I read covered three dialogues about Socrates (Apologia, Crito and Phaedo), who was tried for supposedly corrupting the youth of Athens as well as for encouraging worship of gods not recognized by the State. I've always heard that Socrates was a powerful orator and the way he defended himself in front of the court proves that. Even when he was sentenced to death, Socrates was curiously upbeat and as philosophical as ever, discussing the state of the soul and so on.
What I got from the book was that Socrates was curious and valued virtue, humility and honesty. I can see how he pushed a few buttons, telling people how stupid and ignorant they actually were!
I still can't wrap my head around how long ago this was written. My favourite section of the book was definitely Apologia. Amazing courtroom drama. Had it not been for the drawn-out investigation of the soul in Phaedo, I would have given this 5 stars.
May 18, 2013
( Plato's dialogues )
بادئ ذى بدء .. الكتاب من النوع الذى يتركك فى حاله يرثى لها بعد فروغك منه , فقد فقدت صديقا حميما.
المحاورات :
1- Euthyphro .. أوطيفرون
2- الدفاع
3- crito .. أقريطون
4- Phaedo .. فيدون
أحبهم إلى قلبى .. الدفاع وأقريطون , محاورة فيدون هى الأطول .
تتبع المحاوره الأخيره نظام مختلف عن المحورات الثلاث المتبقيه , ففى محاورة فيدون يقوم افلاطون بخلق شخصية سقراط فى الحوار على عكس المحاورات الثلاث الاخرى التى ينسب الكلام مباشرة الى سقراط نفسه .
لا احب عمل ريفيوهات مطوله يمل منها القارئ فسأحاول إيجاز ملاحظاتى قدر الإمكان وذلك سيكون عسيرا جدا ...
الملاحظه الأولى :
محاروة أوطيفرون تناقش فكرة التقوى والفجور والولاء ومفهوم المعصيه والقصاص , وذلك عن طريق مناقشة سقراط مع اوطيفرون الذى جئ خصيصا إلى محكمة أثينا ليتهم أباة بقتل أحد الخدم . ويتجازب الأثنان دفة الحوار وفى النهايه يقنع سقراط أوطيفرون انه محدود المعرفه وقليل الفهم لبعض المفاهيم الفلسفيه.
الملاحظه الثانية :
يتبع سقراط اسلوبا ومنهجا محددا فى الإقناع, قد أسميه "الطريقه السقراطيه " , فهو يرغمك على اجابته بالموافقه على بعض الأسئله التى يستهل بها حديثه , وذلك يقودك تلقائيا إلى موافقته فى الأمور المعقده حتى لو كنت تتبنى وجهة نظر مغايره .ببساطة إستطاع سقراط فى تلك المحاورة البديعة ان يدهشنى من إلمامة بأصول علم الجدال والتحاور .
الملاحظه الثالثه :
وجود سقراط فى المحكمه لمواجهته بالتهمه المنسوبه إلية وهى " إفساد شباب أثينا " بنصائحه ونظرياته التى يبث من خلالها سمه الى نبض قلب الدوله الإغريقيه.
الملاحظه الرابعه :
فى محاورة الدفاع , وفى جلسة المحاكمه يتولى سقراط الدفاع عن نفسه تجاه خصومه من هيئة المحلفين وبعض اولياء امور الشباب المتهم سقراط بإفساد عقلهم , ويوضح لنا سقراط جانبا من سياسة المرافعه والدفاع فى الحياه الأثينيه. فيخبرنا ان من حق المحكوم عليه - إذا ثبتت إدانته - ان يقترح حكما ينفذه طواعية, ذلك الحكم بالإضافه لحكم القضاه يوضعا امام هيئة المحلفين ليختاروا أيهما أنسب لتطبيقة واقرب إلى القصاص العادل .
الملاحظه الخامسه :
يقص علينا سقراط , ان بعض المحكوم عليهم ينتهجون سبيلا إلى إستمالة قلوب القضاه والمحلفين كالأتى , فهم يجيئون باطفالهم فى ساحة المحاكمه فيبكوا الأطفال ومن ثم تخفف العقوبه رحمة بأولئك الصغار , وهذا ما رفضه تماما سقراط واعاب من يلجأون لهذا الاسلوب المشين .
الملاحظه السادسه :
إقتباس هام جداً من المحاكمه.
إذا شب أبنائى على حب الثروة أو اى شئ دون الفضيلة, ألتمس ان تنزلوا بهم العقاب ,احب أن تؤذوهم كما آذيتكم. أو إذا ادعوا انهم شئ وكانوا لا شئ.إذن فانحوا عليهمم بالائمة كما فعلت معكم.
فإذا فعلتم هذا , أكون قد نالنى ونال أبنائى العدل على أيديكم
سينصرف كل منا إلى سبيلة, أنا إلى الموت وأنتم إلى الحياة والله وحده عليم بأيهما خير .
الملاحظه السابعه :
فى محاورة أقريطون , يحاول اقريطون اقناع سقراط بالهرب من الحكم المنسوب إليه ويذكره بأولاده وزوجته , ويشجعه على محاولة الهرب بنفسه ويعرض عليه الخطط , ولكن سقراط يقاوم الغريزه الادميه وحجته فى ذلك ان بهروبه فهو يهدم مبادئه و يأكد لهم صدق إتهامهم له. المحاوره تناقش مفهوم العداله .
الملاحظه الثامنه :
فى محاورة فيدون , لم استسغ اجزاء كثيره منها فاسلوب سقراط فى الإقناع يختلف كليا عن اسلوب افلاطون فى المحاوره تلك , وذلك واضحا جليا .
افلاطون افتقر لتلك الطريقه السقراطيه , وبسبب ذلك الحضور الكثيف من أصدقاء سقراط تشتت ذهنى كثيرا بين سمياس وفيدون واقريطون وغيرهم .
الملاحظة التاسعه :
محاورة فيدون اعدت خصيصا لتكون حفلة الوداع لذلك الفيلسوف البائس
وإجتماعه بأصدقائه دار حول مناقشة مفهوم الحياه بشكل شامل , وما بعدها , وهل الروح تفنى ام تتولد فى جسد جديد ملائم لصفاتها من خير أو شر من كرم او شح وغيرها من الصفات الحميده والزميمه.
الملاحظه العاشره :
إقتباس هام جداً من محاورة فيدون
( ثمة اعداء للانسانيه وهم من يمقتون البشر , كذلك هناك من يكرهون المنطق ومن يمقتون المُثُل , وكلاهما ناشئ من سبب بعينه وهو الجهل بالعالم , فتجىء كراهة البشر من الغلو فى الركون إلى عدم الخبره )
وهنا يريد ان يوضح ان الشخص يكتسب ذلك الكره من كثرة تعرضه لزيف وخبث بعض أصدقائه المقريبن . ما يلبث ان يتكشف له حقيقتهم فتتولد لديه قناعه ودافع قوى لبغض البشر كافه.
الملاحظة الاخيره :
حكم على سقراط بالموت بالسم .وجئ له بالسم عن طريق ساجنه الذى أذرف الدمع الغزير على الفيلسوف النبيل والمواطن الصالح .
الكتاب مرهق جدا , لا يصلح للقرءات السريعه على ما اعتقد , كمان مناسب اكثر للفئه العمريه 35 - 50 وذلك الترشيح الفئوى سيتناقص إذا ما كان القارئ على درايه سابقه بعلم الفلسفه الإغريقيه خاصة .
قراءة ممتعه ومثريه جداأتمناها لكم .
بادئ ذى بدء .. الكتاب من النوع الذى يتركك فى حاله يرثى لها بعد فروغك منه , فقد فقدت صديقا حميما.
المحاورات :
1- Euthyphro .. أوطيفرون
2- الدفاع
3- crito .. أقريطون
4- Phaedo .. فيدون
أحبهم إلى قلبى .. الدفاع وأقريطون , محاورة فيدون هى الأطول .
تتبع المحاوره الأخيره نظام مختلف عن المحورات الثلاث المتبقيه , ففى محاورة فيدون يقوم افلاطون بخلق شخصية سقراط فى الحوار على عكس المحاورات الثلاث الاخرى التى ينسب الكلام مباشرة الى سقراط نفسه .
لا احب عمل ريفيوهات مطوله يمل منها القارئ فسأحاول إيجاز ملاحظاتى قدر الإمكان وذلك سيكون عسيرا جدا ...
الملاحظه الأولى :
محاروة أوطيفرون تناقش فكرة التقوى والفجور والولاء ومفهوم المعصيه والقصاص , وذلك عن طريق مناقشة سقراط مع اوطيفرون الذى جئ خصيصا إلى محكمة أثينا ليتهم أباة بقتل أحد الخدم . ويتجازب الأثنان دفة الحوار وفى النهايه يقنع سقراط أوطيفرون انه محدود المعرفه وقليل الفهم لبعض المفاهيم الفلسفيه.
الملاحظه الثانية :
يتبع سقراط اسلوبا ومنهجا محددا فى الإقناع, قد أسميه "الطريقه السقراطيه " , فهو يرغمك على اجابته بالموافقه على بعض الأسئله التى يستهل بها حديثه , وذلك يقودك تلقائيا إلى موافقته فى الأمور المعقده حتى لو كنت تتبنى وجهة نظر مغايره .ببساطة إستطاع سقراط فى تلك المحاورة البديعة ان يدهشنى من إلمامة بأصول علم الجدال والتحاور .
الملاحظه الثالثه :
وجود سقراط فى المحكمه لمواجهته بالتهمه المنسوبه إلية وهى " إفساد شباب أثينا " بنصائحه ونظرياته التى يبث من خلالها سمه الى نبض قلب الدوله الإغريقيه.
الملاحظه الرابعه :
فى محاورة الدفاع , وفى جلسة المحاكمه يتولى سقراط الدفاع عن نفسه تجاه خصومه من هيئة المحلفين وبعض اولياء امور الشباب المتهم سقراط بإفساد عقلهم , ويوضح لنا سقراط جانبا من سياسة المرافعه والدفاع فى الحياه الأثينيه. فيخبرنا ان من حق المحكوم عليه - إذا ثبتت إدانته - ان يقترح حكما ينفذه طواعية, ذلك الحكم بالإضافه لحكم القضاه يوضعا امام هيئة المحلفين ليختاروا أيهما أنسب لتطبيقة واقرب إلى القصاص العادل .
الملاحظه الخامسه :
يقص علينا سقراط , ان بعض المحكوم عليهم ينتهجون سبيلا إلى إستمالة قلوب القضاه والمحلفين كالأتى , فهم يجيئون باطفالهم فى ساحة المحاكمه فيبكوا الأطفال ومن ثم تخفف العقوبه رحمة بأولئك الصغار , وهذا ما رفضه تماما سقراط واعاب من يلجأون لهذا الاسلوب المشين .
الملاحظه السادسه :
إقتباس هام جداً من المحاكمه.
إذا شب أبنائى على حب الثروة أو اى شئ دون الفضيلة, ألتمس ان تنزلوا بهم العقاب ,احب أن تؤذوهم كما آذيتكم. أو إذا ادعوا انهم شئ وكانوا لا شئ.إذن فانحوا عليهمم بالائمة كما فعلت معكم.
فإذا فعلتم هذا , أكون قد نالنى ونال أبنائى العدل على أيديكم
سينصرف كل منا إلى سبيلة, أنا إلى الموت وأنتم إلى الحياة والله وحده عليم بأيهما خير .
الملاحظه السابعه :
فى محاورة أقريطون , يحاول اقريطون اقناع سقراط بالهرب من الحكم المنسوب إليه ويذكره بأولاده وزوجته , ويشجعه على محاولة الهرب بنفسه ويعرض عليه الخطط , ولكن سقراط يقاوم الغريزه الادميه وحجته فى ذلك ان بهروبه فهو يهدم مبادئه و يأكد لهم صدق إتهامهم له. المحاوره تناقش مفهوم العداله .
الملاحظه الثامنه :
فى محاورة فيدون , لم استسغ اجزاء كثيره منها فاسلوب سقراط فى الإقناع يختلف كليا عن اسلوب افلاطون فى المحاوره تلك , وذلك واضحا جليا .
افلاطون افتقر لتلك الطريقه السقراطيه , وبسبب ذلك الحضور الكثيف من أصدقاء سقراط تشتت ذهنى كثيرا بين سمياس وفيدون واقريطون وغيرهم .
الملاحظة التاسعه :
محاورة فيدون اعدت خصيصا لتكون حفلة الوداع لذلك الفيلسوف البائس
وإجتماعه بأصدقائه دار حول مناقشة مفهوم الحياه بشكل شامل , وما بعدها , وهل الروح تفنى ام تتولد فى جسد جديد ملائم لصفاتها من خير أو شر من كرم او شح وغيرها من الصفات الحميده والزميمه.
الملاحظه العاشره :
إقتباس هام جداً من محاورة فيدون
( ثمة اعداء للانسانيه وهم من يمقتون البشر , كذلك هناك من يكرهون المنطق ومن يمقتون المُثُل , وكلاهما ناشئ من سبب بعينه وهو الجهل بالعالم , فتجىء كراهة البشر من الغلو فى الركون إلى عدم الخبره )
وهنا يريد ان يوضح ان الشخص يكتسب ذلك الكره من كثرة تعرضه لزيف وخبث بعض أصدقائه المقريبن . ما يلبث ان يتكشف له حقيقتهم فتتولد لديه قناعه ودافع قوى لبغض البشر كافه.
الملاحظة الاخيره :
حكم على سقراط بالموت بالسم .وجئ له بالسم عن طريق ساجنه الذى أذرف الدمع الغزير على الفيلسوف النبيل والمواطن الصالح .
الكتاب مرهق جدا , لا يصلح للقرءات السريعه على ما اعتقد , كمان مناسب اكثر للفئه العمريه 35 - 50 وذلك الترشيح الفئوى سيتناقص إذا ما كان القارئ على درايه سابقه بعلم الفلسفه الإغريقيه خاصة .
قراءة ممتعه ومثريه جداأتمناها لكم .
September 13, 2011
I wish I had read these 4 dialogues before they made us work through The Republic back in school. Plato can seem so distant and archiac so much of the time, but here there is an actual sense of human urgency: Socrates is about to die. A lot of times the dialogues feel completely neutered from any real world concern, you just see these people walking around, having their abstract little discussions as Socrates schools them all. But here you see those discussions finally grounded by a frank acknowledgement and confrontation with mortality. This is the last chance he will ever have to say anything, and everyone knows it. Plenty of subsequent works of philosophy offer more compelling, accesible arguements, but few can match the pathos and immediacy of a condemned man having a few last words with his friends before he carries out the death sentance against himself. I don't know if this is the best place to start reading Plato, but it's certianly one of the most humane.
September 1, 2021
91st book of 2021.
By Thrasyllus' ordering of Plato's work*, this collection compiles the first tetralogy: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo. Collected together and titled, fittingly, The Last Days of Socrates, these dialogues do exactly that. In Euthyphro we see Socrates talking outside the court, in Apology we hear Socrates defence inside the court, in Crito we see him in his cell and in Phaedo we see his last few hours on planet earth. Together: the philosopher's last days.
I first read Symposium which Thrasyllus places in the 3rd tetralogy but I'd say, having now read the first, that it is an excellent starting point. Its subject of love is far more relatable than some of the themes in these dialogues like justice, Intelligence, the soul, etc., and creates a lovely portrait of Socrates as a character, more so than in some of these dialogues here. I read these in fairly quick succession and at times Socrates can become slightly annoying; particularly by the time I was reading Phaedo, his typical Socratic approach to debating became a little repetitive. On top of that, I think the Phaedo is one of the weakest of the tetralogy, despite being considered one of Plato's masterpieces. His explanations of the soul are long-winded and outdated now and don't read with any lasting freshness, as the debates on love in Symposium surprisingly do. To ponder, they are intriguing, but anymore than that and they fall down. I liked the Theory of Recollection but the Theory of Opposites was mostly moot for me. However, if I were to say I do believe in the soul then I would probably suggest that it must surely be immortal, Socrates' philosophies aside.
—Plato
Euthyphro is interesting but ultimately unsatisfying as the titular character walks off "mid-debate", flustered. For me, the Apology is the highlight. We find within the familiar arguments about being intelligent because one knows they are not intelligent. Socrates says it at some point like this,
This is when he recounts his wandering around Athens looking for intelligent people to test his own intelligence against: Socrates essentially ends up believing he must be the most intelligent (and besides, an oracle said so too). The mini conclusion he comes to?
I found this fitting in a world where so many people appear to be comparing themselves to one another and constantly trying to be, perhaps, something they are not. So I underlined that last bit of the sentence twice: ''it was best for me to be as I was.''
Crito returns to the theme of justice making it similar to Euthyphro. Socrates shows his dedication to goodness/righteousness by declining the prospect of his escape for it would be "wrong". Whatever one thinks about him, he sticks to his guns, I suppose. In Phaedo I find him irritating and his argument overwrought as I said but the final pages (where he takes the poison) quite moving. All in all, very satisifying to read and thought-provoking. Next up will probably be Republic for me, or else a few other dialogues before. Meno, maybe, as it has ties with Phaedo.
—Socrates
____________________________________
*1st Tetralogy: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo
2nd Tetralogy: Cratylus, Theatetus, Sophist, Statesman
3rd Tetralogy: Parmenides, Philebus, Symposium, Phaedrus
4th Tetralogy: Alcibiades I, Alcibiades II, Hipparchus, Lovers
5th Tetralogy: Theages, Charmides, Laches, Lysis
6th Tetralogy: Euthydemus, Protagoras, Gorgias, Meno
7th Tetralogy: Hippias Major, Hippias Minor, Ion, Menexenus
8th Tetralogy: Clitophon, Republic, Timaeus, Critias
9th Tetralogy: Minos, Laws, Epinomis, Letters
By Thrasyllus' ordering of Plato's work*, this collection compiles the first tetralogy: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo. Collected together and titled, fittingly, The Last Days of Socrates, these dialogues do exactly that. In Euthyphro we see Socrates talking outside the court, in Apology we hear Socrates defence inside the court, in Crito we see him in his cell and in Phaedo we see his last few hours on planet earth. Together: the philosopher's last days.
I first read Symposium which Thrasyllus places in the 3rd tetralogy but I'd say, having now read the first, that it is an excellent starting point. Its subject of love is far more relatable than some of the themes in these dialogues like justice, Intelligence, the soul, etc., and creates a lovely portrait of Socrates as a character, more so than in some of these dialogues here. I read these in fairly quick succession and at times Socrates can become slightly annoying; particularly by the time I was reading Phaedo, his typical Socratic approach to debating became a little repetitive. On top of that, I think the Phaedo is one of the weakest of the tetralogy, despite being considered one of Plato's masterpieces. His explanations of the soul are long-winded and outdated now and don't read with any lasting freshness, as the debates on love in Symposium surprisingly do. To ponder, they are intriguing, but anymore than that and they fall down. I liked the Theory of Recollection but the Theory of Opposites was mostly moot for me. However, if I were to say I do believe in the soul then I would probably suggest that it must surely be immortal, Socrates' philosophies aside.
—Plato
Euthyphro is interesting but ultimately unsatisfying as the titular character walks off "mid-debate", flustered. For me, the Apology is the highlight. We find within the familiar arguments about being intelligent because one knows they are not intelligent. Socrates says it at some point like this,
‘However, I reflected as I walked away: ‘Well, I am certainly wiser than this man. It is only too likely that neither of us has any knowledge to boast of; but he thinks that he knows something which he does not know, whereas I am quite conscious of my ignorance. At any rate it seems that I am wiser than he is to this small extent, that I do not think that I know what I do not know.’'
This is when he recounts his wandering around Athens looking for intelligent people to test his own intelligence against: Socrates essentially ends up believing he must be the most intelligent (and besides, an oracle said so too). The mini conclusion he comes to?
‘So I made myself spokesman for the oracle, and asked myself whether I would rather be as I was—neither wise with their wisdom nor ignorant with their ignorance—or possess both qualities as they did. I replied through myself to the oracle that it was best for me to be as I was.’
I found this fitting in a world where so many people appear to be comparing themselves to one another and constantly trying to be, perhaps, something they are not. So I underlined that last bit of the sentence twice: ''it was best for me to be as I was.''
Crito returns to the theme of justice making it similar to Euthyphro. Socrates shows his dedication to goodness/righteousness by declining the prospect of his escape for it would be "wrong". Whatever one thinks about him, he sticks to his guns, I suppose. In Phaedo I find him irritating and his argument overwrought as I said but the final pages (where he takes the poison) quite moving. All in all, very satisifying to read and thought-provoking. Next up will probably be Republic for me, or else a few other dialogues before. Meno, maybe, as it has ties with Phaedo.
—Socrates
____________________________________
*1st Tetralogy: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo
2nd Tetralogy: Cratylus, Theatetus, Sophist, Statesman
3rd Tetralogy: Parmenides, Philebus, Symposium, Phaedrus
4th Tetralogy: Alcibiades I, Alcibiades II, Hipparchus, Lovers
5th Tetralogy: Theages, Charmides, Laches, Lysis
6th Tetralogy: Euthydemus, Protagoras, Gorgias, Meno
7th Tetralogy: Hippias Major, Hippias Minor, Ion, Menexenus
8th Tetralogy: Clitophon, Republic, Timaeus, Critias
9th Tetralogy: Minos, Laws, Epinomis, Letters
June 26, 2026
"مرا به مرگ حکم دادید تا دیگر کسی شاهد کارهای شما نباشد، اما درست برخلاف آن اتفاق میافتد و من این را به شما میگویم.
عدهای در اعتراض به شما برخواهند خاست؛ کسانی که تا به حال مانعشان شده بودم، بیآنکه شما متوجه شوید. آنها جوانتر هستند و تحمل مجازات آنها برای شما دشوارتر خواهد بود.
اگر بر این گمان هستید که با کشتن مردم میتوانید مانع از این شوید که آنها زندگی زشتتان را به رختان بکشند، در اشتباهید"
عدهای در اعتراض به شما برخواهند خاست؛ کسانی که تا به حال مانعشان شده بودم، بیآنکه شما متوجه شوید. آنها جوانتر هستند و تحمل مجازات آنها برای شما دشوارتر خواهد بود.
اگر بر این گمان هستید که با کشتن مردم میتوانید مانع از این شوید که آنها زندگی زشتتان را به رختان بکشند، در اشتباهید"
May 10, 2020
Socrates was a favorite philosopher of my youth but also a chilling reminder on the power of groups, the masses who will always seek to destroy who they don't understand or who challenges them.
December 26, 2020
أفلاطون بيدحرج التماسي
January 24, 2021
محاورات أفلاطون الأربعة (محاورة أوطيفرون- محاورة الدفاع - محاورة أقريطون - محاورة فيدون أو خلود الروح) تدور كل المحاورات في الفصل الأخير تقريباً من حياة سقراط - المعلم الأول - بداية من طلب محاكمته بعده تهم منها الهرطقة والسفسطة وإفساد الشباب ورغم ان الشاكي كان رجلاً لم يتتلمذ علي يد سقراط او حتي تتضرر منه ولكن قبلت المحكمة الإتهام رغم ان تلاميذ سقراط نفسهم شهدوا في صفه في نقض واضح لأسس العدالة التي قامت عليها أثينا أنذاك ولكن علي ما يبدو كان الحكم بسبب عجرفة سقراط المزعومة, فسقرط منذ أن علم أنه أحكم من في الأرض كما أخبرت عرافة أثينا وهو يعلم أنه لا يعلم أي شئ بدء في تفنيد أراء كل من حوله فمن كام حكيماً بالأمس أصبح أمام سقراط شخص جاهل تسخر العامة منه ربما هذا ما دفع الناس لتصديق الإتهام عليه .
المحاورة الأولي : أوطيفرون
تدور المحاورة الأولي بين سقراط ورجل أتهم والده بالقتل , أُعجب سقراط أيما الإعجاب بهذا الشجع الذي أتهم والده حين أحس انه مجرم وتدور المحاورة بالكامل حول معني الفضيلة وهل الفضيلة محببه للألهة اليونانية لأنها جيدة أم جيدة لأنها محبوبة عند ألهة الأوليمب ؟ وما إذا كانت الفضيلة هي التي دفعت هذا الشاب لإتهام والده ؟ وحول معاني العدل سواء الدينية ام تلك التي توجد بيننا ؟ في النهاية يخلص منها سقراط لأن محاوره جاهل بالفضيلة متسرع بالحكم علي كل من حوله ويتهرب من النقاش .
المحاورة الثانية : الدفاع
هنا يصف لنا أفلاطون دفاع سقراط عن نفسه أمام إتهامات كاذبة وأمام قضاة مستعدون للإطاحة به, يبدء سقراط الدفاع بالحديث عن العدل ومعناه ومن ثم يتجه للحديث عن السفسطة تلك التهمة التي يدعي البعض إلصاقها به ؟ وهل فعلاً السفسطة جريمة أم إحتكار الفلسفة في برج عاجي يتداولها القادرون هو الجريمة !
المحاورة الثالثة : أقريطون
وأقريطون هو صديق سقراط المقرب يحكيها من داخل زنزانة سقراط بعد ان تم تصديق حكم الإعدام عليه ورفض سقراط بأي حال ان يتذلل للجنة القضاة أن تعفو عنه او حتي ان يدفع عنه أصدقائه وتلاميذة غرامة كبيرة , بل حتي رفض سقراط أن يهرب من أثينا لدولة أخري , إيماناً منه بأهمية دورة في المجتمع وقدسية إختيارة من العرافة كأحكم من في الأرض .
المحاورة الرابعة : فيدون
ويحكيها فيدون أحد المقربين لسقراط ويحكي فيها اللحظات الاخيرة لسقراط والمحاورة التي دارت بينهم حول الخلود وهل الروح تفني ام تذهب لمكان أفضل ؟ وعن أسباب سقراط الذي فضل الموت الأن بدلاً من انتظاره بعد بضعة سنوات - لأنه كان مسناً - لكي يبحث عن الحكمة الحقة في الأعلي ويتعلم فالفيلسوف من وجهة نظره هو من يؤثر الموت علي الحياة لأن الموت بالنسبه له هو دار التكريم والعلم الصحيح .
المحاورة الأولي : أوطيفرون
تدور المحاورة الأولي بين سقراط ورجل أتهم والده بالقتل , أُعجب سقراط أيما الإعجاب بهذا الشجع الذي أتهم والده حين أحس انه مجرم وتدور المحاورة بالكامل حول معني الفضيلة وهل الفضيلة محببه للألهة اليونانية لأنها جيدة أم جيدة لأنها محبوبة عند ألهة الأوليمب ؟ وما إذا كانت الفضيلة هي التي دفعت هذا الشاب لإتهام والده ؟ وحول معاني العدل سواء الدينية ام تلك التي توجد بيننا ؟ في النهاية يخلص منها سقراط لأن محاوره جاهل بالفضيلة متسرع بالحكم علي كل من حوله ويتهرب من النقاش .
المحاورة الثانية : الدفاع
هنا يصف لنا أفلاطون دفاع سقراط عن نفسه أمام إتهامات كاذبة وأمام قضاة مستعدون للإطاحة به, يبدء سقراط الدفاع بالحديث عن العدل ومعناه ومن ثم يتجه للحديث عن السفسطة تلك التهمة التي يدعي البعض إلصاقها به ؟ وهل فعلاً السفسطة جريمة أم إحتكار الفلسفة في برج عاجي يتداولها القادرون هو الجريمة !
المحاورة الثالثة : أقريطون
وأقريطون هو صديق سقراط المقرب يحكيها من داخل زنزانة سقراط بعد ان تم تصديق حكم الإعدام عليه ورفض سقراط بأي حال ان يتذلل للجنة القضاة أن تعفو عنه او حتي ان يدفع عنه أصدقائه وتلاميذة غرامة كبيرة , بل حتي رفض سقراط أن يهرب من أثينا لدولة أخري , إيماناً منه بأهمية دورة في المجتمع وقدسية إختيارة من العرافة كأحكم من في الأرض .
المحاورة الرابعة : فيدون
ويحكيها فيدون أحد المقربين لسقراط ويحكي فيها اللحظات الاخيرة لسقراط والمحاورة التي دارت بينهم حول الخلود وهل الروح تفني ام تذهب لمكان أفضل ؟ وعن أسباب سقراط الذي فضل الموت الأن بدلاً من انتظاره بعد بضعة سنوات - لأنه كان مسناً - لكي يبحث عن الحكمة الحقة في الأعلي ويتعلم فالفيلسوف من وجهة نظره هو من يؤثر الموت علي الحياة لأن الموت بالنسبه له هو دار التكريم والعلم الصحيح .
October 9, 2013
أيّ قراءة أجمل من هذه المحاورات التي تتداولها البشرية منذ ألفي عام , و تدهش بذات رد الفعل من سخرية سقراط و حكمه و مناظراته قبل الموت , حتى لو كانوا يعرفون جميعاً أنّ كثيراً من المكتوب كلام أفلاطون يضعه على لسان أستاذه ( خاصة في فيدون) و ترجمة زكي نجيب محمود للمحاورات في اعتقادي هو أفضل ما قدّمه للمكتبة العربية .
November 25, 2014
لم اقرأ فى الفلسفة قبل ذلك , ولكن عندما قرأت كتاب صناعة الواقع ورأيته يعطى أمثلة لأفكار سقراط وافلاطون, قلت يجب ان اقرأ لهم حتي اعلم كيف كان يفكر هؤلاء الفلاسفة منذ الاف الاعوام بأفكار لا تأتى فى عقول من يعيشون فى الألفية الثالثة .
الكتاب عبارة عن أربع محاورات كتبها افلاطون على لسان سقراط , ويقول د. زكي نجيب فى المقدمة ان بداية الحوارات التى كتبها أفلاطون تلميذ سقراط كانت بفكر فلسلفة سقراط ولكن بعد ذلك كتب أفلاطون بفكره وفلسفته الخاصة .
اسلوب المحاورة فى عرض فكرته الفلسفية اسهل وأفضل من كتابه الفكرة, فالمناظرة او المحاورة تعرض وجهتان النظر فعندما ترى وجهة نظر معارضة لفكر سقراط ويقوم سقراط او الفيلسوف بتفنيدها بالعقل والادلة , تقتنع بها أكثر .
الكتاب عبارة عن أربع حوارات :
حوار أطيفرون : عن مفهوم كلمة التقوي
حوار الدفاع : وهو دفاع سقراط عن نفسه فى المحكمة قبل الحكم بإعدامه
حوار اقريطون : وهو تلميذ سقراط جاء اليه ليقنعه بالهرب قبل إعدامه
حوار فيدون : عن الروح وخلود الروح بعد موت الجسد وعودة تلك الروح فى أجساد اشخاص أخري
ترجمة وتعليقات دكتور زكي نجيب محمود رائعة .
September 3, 2015
دربارهی سقراط و سوبژکتیویتهی زیستنش که بهتره اهل فلسفه نظر بدن. من اما میخوام از لذت اعتماد بگم. اعتماد به بانو لیلی گلستان و نشر محترم مرکز، که وقتی کنار هم قرار میگیرن آدم با خاطر آسوده، آسوده از مسئولیتپذیری و حقیقتپرستیشون، اثر رو تهیه میکنه و بلافاصله شروع میکنه به خوندن. چیز کمارزشی نیست. واقعا باید قدر اینجور اتفاقها و این قبیل افراد رو دونست.
October 3, 2024
The year was 399 B.C.E… Socrates a man deemed to be filled with “wisdom and virtue” was convicted and put to trial for corrupting the minds of the youth in surrounding Athens. Plato documents the conversations Socrates has before going to trial, his defence in trial and the days before he is put to death. Years later, the year is 2024 and a 27 year old girl named Jazmyn tries to put a little review together whilst feeling completely impudent in even trying to attempt to do such a task…
Socrates has never seemingly written anything himself, all we have is secondhand information from his followers and admirers, it’s hard to differentiate from Plato’s own philosophy and ideals compared to the truer events and depictions of Socrates last days.
I found this incredibly interesting, especially Apology, where I found Socrates to be put forth as quite a funny and to the point man, he is true to his beliefs and he stands strong despite the criticism. This edition was filled with great introductions and notes at the end that really enhanced my understanding of the text. I still can’t help but feel like I have only skimmed the surface of the meaning and deeper understanding of the full novel, I hope to revisit this in the future after I read a few more books by Plato, Aristotle etc as I think each time I come back I will find something else and gain a deeper understanding.
Socrates has never seemingly written anything himself, all we have is secondhand information from his followers and admirers, it’s hard to differentiate from Plato’s own philosophy and ideals compared to the truer events and depictions of Socrates last days.
I found this incredibly interesting, especially Apology, where I found Socrates to be put forth as quite a funny and to the point man, he is true to his beliefs and he stands strong despite the criticism. This edition was filled with great introductions and notes at the end that really enhanced my understanding of the text. I still can’t help but feel like I have only skimmed the surface of the meaning and deeper understanding of the full novel, I hope to revisit this in the future after I read a few more books by Plato, Aristotle etc as I think each time I come back I will find something else and gain a deeper understanding.
June 17, 2023
Only read the Apology and Crito. The Apology was magnificent. May come back to the other two sometime but unfortunately don’t have the time at the moment.
January 2, 2016
Some times I disagree with the philosophical standing of Plato, other times, I love his works. Particularly this one (or the four combined), depicting the last days of Socrates, mostly arguing for the soul as an immortal constant, referring to form as unchanging and eternal, the common reference to non-empirical knowledge, the difference between the incorporeal and corporeal, and the nature of the soul . I am not going into any detail about these things, because I do not have the background required for the understanding of his views, except for the classes I have taken and the works of his I have read, but that is not much. But I hope that small break down will help many people when answering a question at school, which I might have done before as well, when I have forgone my reading.
November 4, 2026
(This review contains some images, but in typical Goodreads behavior, they don't show on mobile, so the formatting might be a little messed up if you're not reading this on the website.)
This is the second time I’ve read these dialogues, the first of which being Hackett’s G. M. A. Grube translation, and I enjoyed them equally as much the second time around. I particularly appreciated Christopher Rowe’s introductions before each dialogue where he sets the scene and context of the dialogues. I found myself cracking up at this particular sentence in the first introduction:
BRUTAL T_T
(Socrates by Leonidas Drosis)
This volume contains four dialogues; Euthyphro, Apology/Defence, Crito, Phaedo. They take place during, as the title states, the last days of Socrates, before he is executed.
1. EUTHYPHRO
Euthyphro is prosecuting his own father for killing a man. His father had killed the man because he himself had murdered another. Euthyphro believes it is the pious thing to do lest this poison spreads because of his father’s doing. At the same time, Socrates is being trialed by Meletus for impiety, corrupting the youth, and (allegedly) not recognizing the gods of the state and creating his own (by claiming a divine voice speaks to him). In this dialogue, Socrates torments Euthyphro with one question: What exactly is piety?
Every time Euthyphro gives him a not so well thought out or convincing answer, Socrates presents him with an argument that proves the fallaciousness of Euthyphro’s definition, ultimately resulting in a frustrating predicament. Euthyphro eventually gets sick of Socrates and exits the humbling conversation.
This dialogue is also where the famous question “Is what is pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by them?”, otherwise known as Euthyphro’s Dilemma, comes from.
(Euthyphro's Dilemma Diagram by Rationalrealm.com)
Admittedly, Socrates knows how to argue and so easily make one question their own understanding of even the simplest of terms, like piety. He is also an expert ragebaiter. Not to impose 21st century slang on an ancient philosopher, but I cannot help it. He will make you feel stupid and demand an answer to his seemingly debilitating questions on the spot, which is usually met with the inevitable walk of shame after having failed to answer the posed question. But that is the point of philosophy, I guess. It does not answer questions, only poses them and thinks about them for an indefinite time. Love it.
2. APOLOGY/SOCRATE’S DEFENCE
This one is not a dialogue, but a speech. Socrates stands in front of the court and his accusers to defend himself against their claims. He states that Meletus and his peers are not his first accusers but that there has existed another set of older accusers such as Aristophanes the comic poet, and he intends on defending himself against both of them. He describes what he is actually like and actually does and how this has led to the present accusations against him.
Socrates has no intention of pleading with the jury, but simply stating why he thinks their accusations are false and interrogating Meletus. He responds to the objections to his speech and offers a few alternatives to the death penalty, all of which are voted against, and Socrates is ultimately sentenced to death. He gives one last speech in response to that decision.
(Trial of Socrates by Unknown Artist)
One thing that stood out to me is Socrates’ insistence on speaking his truth, even if it cost him his life. He told the jury that even if they excused his death sentence under the condition that he stops practicing philosophy, he would refuse, which didn’t really help his case at all. It reminded me of the famous question ‘Is it better to speak or to die?’ Socrates unashamedly said Both. Telling the truth and ensuring that he, and others, lived an examined life was his one and only duty and he would keep fulfilling it even if it cost him his life. The Athenian court didn’t fuck with it. Unfortunately, this intolerance is still and ever more prevalent almost three millennia later. Nothing has changed except that we have gotten crueler.
One random observation/question: What’s with Socrates and using horses in his analogies? He must have really liked horses.
My favorite part of this speech is when he talks about how little he fears death because it means he can spend his time with the likes of Palamedus, Ajax, Orpheus, Odysseus, and Sisyphus. Pretty heartwarming.
Also, the last sentence is excellent. Here it is in Grube’s translation, rather than Rowe’s:
Rowe’s, in case you’re curious:
3. CRITO
Crito, a dear friend and admirer of Socrates, sneaks into Socrates’ cell and offers a plan to help him escape his sentence and run away to Thebes, where he knows people who can take him in. Socrates is appalled by Crito’s suggestion. He lectures Crito on how this would be the most unjust thing to do and that he must obey the law, even if it costs him his life. Disobeying the law, and in so publicly a manner, would only hurt and cause corruption to the city and set a terrible example for its citizens, even though he knows and believes that he is being wrongfully executed.
I like this question Rowe poses in the introduction:
(Crito by Jacques Louis David)
This is maybe Socrates’ least compelling argument, at least from the ones in this volume. Fuck the law and fuck the Athenian government.
Crito is such a good friend. But of course he has no choice but to eventually give up after being unable to persuade Socrates.
4. PHAEDO
This is the longest of this volume. Phaedo, a friend and disciple of Socrates recounts the last hours before Socrates’ death to Echecrates of Phlius. Multiple of his other disciples were also present with Socrates before his death but the final conversation mainly takes place between two Pythagorean philosophers Crito and Simmias.
The dialogue mainly discusses death and the relationship between the soul and the body. How do we know that the soul exists as a separate entity from the body? Why should we believe that the soul continues to exist after the death of the body? Why is it that the philosopher will actually welcome death, rather than detest and cower from it?
This is a dense one that requires even more focus and attention than the rest, specifically because of Socrates’ endless analogies. I really liked the objections that Crito and Simmias present to Socrates and the way Socrates refutes them. He has this way of using an analogy that feels so ridiculously off topic until he eventually links it to the main argument and ends up making perfect sense. Like at some point when he was trying to prove his point that the soul doesn’t actually die, he started talking about one being an odd number and two being an even number and I was like boy what the hell does that have to do with the body and soul??? But best believe, it all made sense in the end! That is why I love reading these.
(The Death of Socrates by Jacques Louis David)
^ The saddest part of this painting is Plato, sitting on the far left, face down and solemn.
This is a great introduction to Plato and if you’ve ever felt too intimidated to pick him up, I assure you that these dialogues are very accessible and will have the gears in your brain turning and ruminating things that you may have not spent enough time thinking of. Highly recommend!
This is the second time I’ve read these dialogues, the first of which being Hackett’s G. M. A. Grube translation, and I enjoyed them equally as much the second time around. I particularly appreciated Christopher Rowe’s introductions before each dialogue where he sets the scene and context of the dialogues. I found myself cracking up at this particular sentence in the first introduction:
‘If they fail to agree about the detail of his [Socrates] ideas, there is little to no disagreement that he was shortish and ugly, with protruding eyes, menacing eyebrows, and a snub nose.’
BRUTAL T_T
(Socrates by Leonidas Drosis)
This volume contains four dialogues; Euthyphro, Apology/Defence, Crito, Phaedo. They take place during, as the title states, the last days of Socrates, before he is executed.
1. EUTHYPHRO
Euthyphro is prosecuting his own father for killing a man. His father had killed the man because he himself had murdered another. Euthyphro believes it is the pious thing to do lest this poison spreads because of his father’s doing. At the same time, Socrates is being trialed by Meletus for impiety, corrupting the youth, and (allegedly) not recognizing the gods of the state and creating his own (by claiming a divine voice speaks to him). In this dialogue, Socrates torments Euthyphro with one question: What exactly is piety?
Every time Euthyphro gives him a not so well thought out or convincing answer, Socrates presents him with an argument that proves the fallaciousness of Euthyphro’s definition, ultimately resulting in a frustrating predicament. Euthyphro eventually gets sick of Socrates and exits the humbling conversation.
This dialogue is also where the famous question “Is what is pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by them?”, otherwise known as Euthyphro’s Dilemma, comes from.
(Euthyphro's Dilemma Diagram by Rationalrealm.com)
Admittedly, Socrates knows how to argue and so easily make one question their own understanding of even the simplest of terms, like piety. He is also an expert ragebaiter. Not to impose 21st century slang on an ancient philosopher, but I cannot help it. He will make you feel stupid and demand an answer to his seemingly debilitating questions on the spot, which is usually met with the inevitable walk of shame after having failed to answer the posed question. But that is the point of philosophy, I guess. It does not answer questions, only poses them and thinks about them for an indefinite time. Love it.
2. APOLOGY/SOCRATE’S DEFENCE
This one is not a dialogue, but a speech. Socrates stands in front of the court and his accusers to defend himself against their claims. He states that Meletus and his peers are not his first accusers but that there has existed another set of older accusers such as Aristophanes the comic poet, and he intends on defending himself against both of them. He describes what he is actually like and actually does and how this has led to the present accusations against him.
Socrates has no intention of pleading with the jury, but simply stating why he thinks their accusations are false and interrogating Meletus. He responds to the objections to his speech and offers a few alternatives to the death penalty, all of which are voted against, and Socrates is ultimately sentenced to death. He gives one last speech in response to that decision.
(Trial of Socrates by Unknown Artist)
One thing that stood out to me is Socrates’ insistence on speaking his truth, even if it cost him his life. He told the jury that even if they excused his death sentence under the condition that he stops practicing philosophy, he would refuse, which didn’t really help his case at all. It reminded me of the famous question ‘Is it better to speak or to die?’ Socrates unashamedly said Both. Telling the truth and ensuring that he, and others, lived an examined life was his one and only duty and he would keep fulfilling it even if it cost him his life. The Athenian court didn’t fuck with it. Unfortunately, this intolerance is still and ever more prevalent almost three millennia later. Nothing has changed except that we have gotten crueler.
One random observation/question: What’s with Socrates and using horses in his analogies? He must have really liked horses.
My favorite part of this speech is when he talks about how little he fears death because it means he can spend his time with the likes of Palamedus, Ajax, Orpheus, Odysseus, and Sisyphus. Pretty heartwarming.
Also, the last sentence is excellent. Here it is in Grube’s translation, rather than Rowe’s:
‘I go to die, you go to live. Which of us goes to the better lot is known to no one, except the god.’
Rowe’s, in case you’re curious:
‘But now it is time for us to leave: for me, to go to my death, and for you to go on living. Whether it’s you or I who are going to be a better thing is clear to no one but the god.’
3. CRITO
Crito, a dear friend and admirer of Socrates, sneaks into Socrates’ cell and offers a plan to help him escape his sentence and run away to Thebes, where he knows people who can take him in. Socrates is appalled by Crito’s suggestion. He lectures Crito on how this would be the most unjust thing to do and that he must obey the law, even if it costs him his life. Disobeying the law, and in so publicly a manner, would only hurt and cause corruption to the city and set a terrible example for its citizens, even though he knows and believes that he is being wrongfully executed.
I like this question Rowe poses in the introduction:
‘The question is: are there limits to what he thinks the law can demand of him? If so, it looks like there might be a large hole in his argument for obeying the law now, and not escaping the prison; if he can evade the law’s demand in one case [the demand to stop practicing philosophy], why not in another?’
(Crito by Jacques Louis David)
This is maybe Socrates’ least compelling argument, at least from the ones in this volume. Fuck the law and fuck the Athenian government.
CRITO: ‘It doesn’t seem to me that what you’re proposing to do is even just, betraying yourself when you could be saved, and actively pursuing the same sort of fate for yourself that your enemies would pursue — indeed have pursued, in their desire to destroy you.’
Crito is such a good friend. But of course he has no choice but to eventually give up after being unable to persuade Socrates.
4. PHAEDO
This is the longest of this volume. Phaedo, a friend and disciple of Socrates recounts the last hours before Socrates’ death to Echecrates of Phlius. Multiple of his other disciples were also present with Socrates before his death but the final conversation mainly takes place between two Pythagorean philosophers Crito and Simmias.
The dialogue mainly discusses death and the relationship between the soul and the body. How do we know that the soul exists as a separate entity from the body? Why should we believe that the soul continues to exist after the death of the body? Why is it that the philosopher will actually welcome death, rather than detest and cower from it?
This is a dense one that requires even more focus and attention than the rest, specifically because of Socrates’ endless analogies. I really liked the objections that Crito and Simmias present to Socrates and the way Socrates refutes them. He has this way of using an analogy that feels so ridiculously off topic until he eventually links it to the main argument and ends up making perfect sense. Like at some point when he was trying to prove his point that the soul doesn’t actually die, he started talking about one being an odd number and two being an even number and I was like boy what the hell does that have to do with the body and soul??? But best believe, it all made sense in the end! That is why I love reading these.
(The Death of Socrates by Jacques Louis David)
^ The saddest part of this painting is Plato, sitting on the far left, face down and solemn.
This is a great introduction to Plato and if you’ve ever felt too intimidated to pick him up, I assure you that these dialogues are very accessible and will have the gears in your brain turning and ruminating things that you may have not spent enough time thinking of. Highly recommend!
August 19, 2010
Socrates is a little bit like Superman. As a young man, both are very appealing for their heroism and pristine behavior. As one ages, however, they begin to dissatisfy - there is no way these people could be real.
This is obviously due to Plato's portrayal of the man, an homage so complete that Socrates becomes pure ideal and ceases to be human. He stands for intellectual honesty and curiosity, morality and justice, without any compromise.
This book is about as good an example of that as possible, and as far as comic book heroes go, it can be enjoyable.
However, the reasoning in most of the book is flawed even by the standards of that time. Scholars argue that Plato does this knowingly, so that the reader will discover these flaws and grow as a consequence. That may very well be, but its boring to follow an argument for 10 pages when you know the underlying assumptions are wrong.
Its a good skim - and it actually begs for a graphic novel version.
This is obviously due to Plato's portrayal of the man, an homage so complete that Socrates becomes pure ideal and ceases to be human. He stands for intellectual honesty and curiosity, morality and justice, without any compromise.
This book is about as good an example of that as possible, and as far as comic book heroes go, it can be enjoyable.
However, the reasoning in most of the book is flawed even by the standards of that time. Scholars argue that Plato does this knowingly, so that the reader will discover these flaws and grow as a consequence. That may very well be, but its boring to follow an argument for 10 pages when you know the underlying assumptions are wrong.
Its a good skim - and it actually begs for a graphic novel version.
June 11, 2009
There are some books that are beyond "liking" or "not liking." They exist on a completely different plain than the rest of literature. This is one of those books. You don't read "The Trial and Death of Socrates" to be entertained; whether you like it or not is completely immaterial. By reading it, you gain an appreciation for one of the greatest thinkers of all time, and a valuable window into the soul of humankind.
How can one possibly quanitfy and encapsulate that into three, four, or five stars?
How can one possibly quanitfy and encapsulate that into three, four, or five stars?
September 26, 2022
أنا آسف والله أنا عيل صغير
January 18, 2018
Ngoài bản dịch của Lê Anh Minh cho bộ Trung-quốc triết học sử của Phùng Hữu Lan, thì bản dịch này của Nguyễn Văn Khoa có độ khảo cứu kĩ càng và chỉn chu nhất trong tình hình dịch sách học thuật ở Việt-nam tính đến thời điểm này. Tuy nhiên, tư liệu mà ông Nguyễn Văn Khoa sử dụng lại thuộc hàng cũ kĩ và thiếu sự đích đáng (đơn cử việc ông dùng bản Anh ngữ của Benjamin Jowett, một bản Anh ngữ cực kì thiếu xác tín), và cũng thật đáng tiếc khi ông cũng không dùng đến những bài khảo cứu trong phương diện triết lẫn ngữ văn (philology) về Platōn nói chung và những đối thoại trong sách này nói riêng.
Hơn nửa thế kỉ trôi qua kể từ tác phẩm đầu tiên của triết Hi-lạp được dịch sang tiếng Việt, Việt-nam vẫn còn chưa đi được một nửa giai đoạn được gọi là "thời kì khai minh" trong công tác dịch thuật triết Hi-lạp cổ điển (period of enlightenment; giai đoạn đầu tiên trong ba giai đoạn, xét theo cách chia của Fujii Yoshio khi bàn về công tác dịch thuật triết Hi-lạp ở Nhật từ thuở Minh-trị cho đến thập niên 1950).
Hơn nửa thế kỉ trôi qua kể từ tác phẩm đầu tiên của triết Hi-lạp được dịch sang tiếng Việt, Việt-nam vẫn còn chưa đi được một nửa giai đoạn được gọi là "thời kì khai minh" trong công tác dịch thuật triết Hi-lạp cổ điển (period of enlightenment; giai đoạn đầu tiên trong ba giai đoạn, xét theo cách chia của Fujii Yoshio khi bàn về công tác dịch thuật triết Hi-lạp ở Nhật từ thuở Minh-trị cho đến thập niên 1950).
June 28, 2015
Rereading, because I miss philosophy. Disclaimer, this review is 0% intellectual because after four years of studying philosophy in undergrad, I'm unable to be serious when talking about Plato, or Socrates, or Aristotle (maybe Aristotle? I might still have some cerebral life left in me to discuss the Ethics... but I digress. Another review, another day).
Anyway, Socrates. I've always had this love/hate relationship with him. He's like that asshole who comes to every fucking party and for some reason, everyone there seems to think it's his party and his house and you all defer to him, and he just kind of takes this respect without saying anything for a while, but then when he's drunk he asks "So this is a nice place, who lives here?" And this happens at every. Single. Fucking. Party. And you start to realize he's just a dick who humblebrags his way through life and every time he makes a self-effacing comment, you know that what he really means is "Watch this: I'm so great I'm even HUMBLE, bitches." And then when he's sentenced to death, you cheer.
For example. "Everyone, even the actual god Apollo, says I'm the smartest person in the world. .. But really guys I'm not." Yeah that sounds 100% sincere, man.
Still, while totally the biggest jackass at the party, he's also the clever fast-talking talldarkandhandsome guy with sexy glasses and a Moleskine who winks at every girl and makes her feel like she's the only one he's acknowledging. So basically, he's a babe.
In sum, I feel like he and I would have great hate sex. That is all.
Anyway, Socrates. I've always had this love/hate relationship with him. He's like that asshole who comes to every fucking party and for some reason, everyone there seems to think it's his party and his house and you all defer to him, and he just kind of takes this respect without saying anything for a while, but then when he's drunk he asks "So this is a nice place, who lives here?" And this happens at every. Single. Fucking. Party. And you start to realize he's just a dick who humblebrags his way through life and every time he makes a self-effacing comment, you know that what he really means is "Watch this: I'm so great I'm even HUMBLE, bitches." And then when he's sentenced to death, you cheer.
For example. "Everyone, even the actual god Apollo, says I'm the smartest person in the world. .. But really guys I'm not." Yeah that sounds 100% sincere, man.
Still, while totally the biggest jackass at the party, he's also the clever fast-talking talldarkandhandsome guy with sexy glasses and a Moleskine who winks at every girl and makes her feel like she's the only one he's acknowledging. So basically, he's a babe.
In sum, I feel like he and I would have great hate sex. That is all.
September 5, 2012
Since I have individually reviewed each dialogue concerning their content I will be personal here. I obviously enjoyed reading these dialogues. I was not only enlightened by them, but moved as well in certain parts, more by Socrates' friends than the man himself. This really should be the jumping off point for anyone interested in philosophy because it sets the tone and you can compare every strand of philosophy after it against it. Plato did not create [western] philosophy, obviously, but he sure did make it into something amazing and it would be worth anyones time to check him out.
I will always admire the Socratic method even though I am in no way able to pull it off (trust me I've tried), but it is poetry to read. We could all benefit from a revival of Plato in society, but since I won't hold my breath those who have read him can be thankful for the opportunity.
(I read these dialogues as apart of the Classics of Western Philosophy anthology)
I will always admire the Socratic method even though I am in no way able to pull it off (trust me I've tried), but it is poetry to read. We could all benefit from a revival of Plato in society, but since I won't hold my breath those who have read him can be thankful for the opportunity.
(I read these dialogues as apart of the Classics of Western Philosophy anthology)
April 18, 2018
حينما تنتهي من هذا الكتاب ستشعر بفجيعة لا تقل عن فجيعة فقد أصحاب سقراط له ، كتاب عظيم تجلت فيه كل معاني العظمة ، كتاب من أجل عقلك ومن أجل فكرك إذا كنت تريده أن يتسع ، ربما مع قرائتك الأولي ستدرك النقاط الرئيسية التي ناقشها الكتاب ولكن عليك قرائته ما يربو علي العشرين مرة حتي تدرك معانيه كلها فكل جملة نطق بها سقراط تحمل معاني وتأويلات وفلسفات كثيرة تستدعي العقل ليعمل وليفكر
..
*حاشية*
كل الشكر لفيلسوفنا العظيم - زكي نجيب محمود - الذي كانت تقديماته لكل محاورة غنية ومفسرة وموضحة علي أعلي مستوي ، والتي جاءت هوامشها في الترجمة ثرية بالمعلومات عن تلك الحضارة والأيام التي عاشها سقراط وموضحة لبعض الكلام الذي يستعصي علي افهم من المرة الأولي ، وعلي ترجمته التي أظهرت الكتاب وكأنه اراء فلاسفة عرب بلغتهم ، فقد كانت الترجمة بليغة بكل ما تحمله المعني وخلت تماماً من الحرفية أو النقل
رحمك الله دكتور زكي نجيب محمود ، وخلد إسمك بما قدمته لنا أبد الأبدين
..
*حاشية*
كل الشكر لفيلسوفنا العظيم - زكي نجيب محمود - الذي كانت تقديماته لكل محاورة غنية ومفسرة وموضحة علي أعلي مستوي ، والتي جاءت هوامشها في الترجمة ثرية بالمعلومات عن تلك الحضارة والأيام التي عاشها سقراط وموضحة لبعض الكلام الذي يستعصي علي افهم من المرة الأولي ، وعلي ترجمته التي أظهرت الكتاب وكأنه اراء فلاسفة عرب بلغتهم ، فقد كانت الترجمة بليغة بكل ما تحمله المعني وخلت تماماً من الحرفية أو النقل
رحمك الله دكتور زكي نجيب محمود ، وخلد إسمك بما قدمته لنا أبد الأبدين
December 9, 2016
Well this blew my mind
February 8, 2019
The Last Days of Socrates (2003) is a collection of four of Plato’s dialogues, all centred around the last days that his tutor Socrates was alive. The four dialogues follow Socrates’ adventures as he goes to court to face his accusers in his trial, his conviction and his final moments before taking the poison and dying.
The first dialogue, Euthyphro, takes place at the Athenian court, when Socrates has to wait for his trial to begin. There, while waiting, he meets a man, Euthyphro, who comes to accuse his father for murdering one of his slaves. The slave had killed someone from Euthyphro’s father’s household, so Euthyphro’s father tied up the slave, put him in a ditch and went to the Athenian court to ask what he should do. After he came back, the slave had died from hunger and thirst, so Euthyphro decides to take his own father to court and let the judges decide if they convict the man for murder or not.
Socrates naturally begs the question: why do you think it is good to take your own father to court? After which Euthyphro ends up in a Socratic dialogue which centres around the question of what is pious? Pious, because Euthyphro tells Socrates that it is good to accuse his own father because the gods approve of this. In summary: Socrates asks him whether (1) something is pious because the gods approve it, or (2) the gods approve it because it is pious? (1) leads to a definition of piety as slaving away at the whims of the gods, which cannot be really pious; (2) leads to a definition of piety as something in itself, something to which the gods have to submit, just like human beings need to. (1) is obeying a dictator while (2) makes the gods superfluous.
So Euthyphro counters that Piety is a subdivision of Justice. Justice can be split up into just according to humans (treating other human beings well) and just according to gods (offering to the gods what’s due to them). Euthyphro answers that human piety offers gratitude to the gods, but, according to Socrates, this brings one back to the original question: why do the gods then approve of this? Now, Euthyphro has enough, leaves Socrates and the dialogue ends.
In the Apology, Socrates offers his defence speech, after his accusers have brought the charges against him. Socrates is accused of being an atheist (i.e. not believing in the gods that the State prescribes) and a corrupter of morality (i.e. teaching the young to think for themselves and not believe arguments based on authority/expertise).
Socrates defends himself in a rather apathic way, not caring much about what will happen to him. The only thing he cares for is to stick to his principles. He says he is no atheist since he believes in God (his own God, not the Athenian gods); he is not a teacher since he doesn’t ask money for his dialogues and he doesn’t teach any subject; and he doesn’t know anything, that’s the only thing he knows, so he could never corrupt his conversational partners anyway.
Many years ago, the Oracle at Delphi told a friend of Socrates that Socrates is the wisest of men. To find out why, he went to the people who are supposed to be knowledgeable experts in their fields: politicians, poets and skilled craftsmen. But by questioning these people, Socrates found out that all of them pretended to know things while in actuality they didn’t know anything. And not only this, this didn’t even know that they didn’t know anything.
So, Socrates pleads ‘not guilty’, since he has done no harm to anyone – rather the reverse: he has enlightened people and has protected the Athenian people from making certain mistakes. He warns the jury (which were judges as well), that they have made a big mistake by ordering Socrates’ to die and that Athens will pay for it. Without knowledge, Athens will not be virtuous.
We see here the upright dogmatists not bending his back in front of resentful, lowly opponents. He is even haughty enough to laugh away the offer to live, by either excusing himself, escaping from prison or paying a fee – in fact, he supposes his punishment to be that the State will take care of him in a fashionable manner, providing food and shelter, out of gratitude for his work.
When in his cell, awaiting his day of reckoning, Socrates is visited by friends. One of them, Crito, is the main personage in the third dialogue, Crito. Crito comes to visit Socrates to beg him to escape his prison cell and live somewhere else and see his three children grow up. Socrates replies that escaping prison would mean breaking the Athenian law and hence injuring the State and the Laws. Injuring someone is injustice, and being virtuous forbids injustice. Socrates has two options: convince the State of its mistake (which he failed to do) or to undergo punishment.
In this dialogue, Plato lets Socrates explain how the Laws are almost a personage on their own – Socrates claims the laws birthed him, reared him and when he turned 17 (the age at which a child became an adult), he voluntarily entered into a contract with the State. He could have left, then and in the meantime, but he didn’t. This signals the willing submission to the State and its Laws. Escaping prison now would mean breaking the law; being just requires Socrates to undergo his punishment (i.e. die).
Again, we see here the dogmatist who feels upright and superior to all the hypocrites around him – a typical academic attitude, which can be seen in many academics in our own time as well. The feeling of superior knowledge and the position that entitles someone to exclaim truths – never mind all the fallacies involved here.
Anyway, the final dialogue, the Phaedo, explains how Socrates lived in his final moments. A group of friends visit him, and are grieved and worried about their friend’s nearing death. Socrates tries to argue them out of their emotions by claiming that they should be happy for him. Why? Because, being a philosopher, he will in a very short time become an immortal soul again, soaring to heavenly heights, since he has led a good life. The gods chain souls in fragile, corruptible and corrupting bodies. They will reward a man for living a life of contemplation, resisting all the bodily desires such as food, drinks and sex.
Most of the people will succumb to the bodily seduction and lead a life of debauchery and ignorance. The gods will punish these souls by reincarnating them as stupid, lowly animals, such as donkeys and flies. People who do better will be reincarnated as social animals, bees and ants, for example. The most purest of souls, those who devote their entire life to loving wisdom (i.e. literally, the philosophers), will be best off – they will be rewarded in the afterlife and meet the gods and other great men.
This is the picture of the afterlife that Socrates paints. But why should his friends believe him? Because of his arguments. Socrates thinks that he can logically prove the existence of an immortal (literally un-dying) and imperishable soul. Composites can break down in their constituents, which can form new composites – hence, these substances are changing, perceptible and mortal. Elements, though, cannot – by definition – be broken down in more elementary constituents – hence, these substances are unchanging, imperceptible and immortal. These elements can only be abstracted from perceptible things and hence perceptible things can only resemble these abstract things in more or less degrees. Plato identifies these imperceptible things as Ideas, or Forms, and the sensible things as material objects, which partake in these Ideas.
The soul is deemed to be such an immortal and imperceptible element, and hence cannot be destroyed (literally is un-dying). So, when we observe corpses decompose, we see composites break down in their elements. But the soul, as a life-giving element, cannot be destroyed so it has to go somewhere after the body dies. The soul become a pure reality, a pure Idea, again – just like it was before it was tied town to a fragile body by the gods. Also, we can know that our soul existed before our births be turning the Plato’s theory of knowledge as recollection. We know things that cannot come from sense-perception, so this knowledge but somehow already exist in our souls before we were born as organisms. This proves that the soul exists before we are born as organisms and that the soul knew much but forgot things (possibly due to bodily distractions).
The Apology is basically one long argument to prove the existence of the soul as an immortal, imperceptible, infinite thing. It is Plato’s finest exposé of his theory of Ideas (or Forms) and it offers us the mechanism by which these Ideas operate to create the world around us and all the change in it. Building on Pre-Socratic notions, Plato explains that the universe was ordered out of mixed substances by Intelligence, and that Intelligence partakes in certain objects in the universe, giving these objects life, motivation and reason. The human soul is such an intelligent thing, partaking in Intelligence in more or lesser degrees.
I can see how this mysticism might appeal to people, deriving true reality from the endless bombardment of sense-experience. Our senses are limited and prone to errors, so it’s very comfortable to look for stability behind all the apparent change. But it is a logical fallacy, none the less – you cannot treat existence as a predicate. Existence is not a quality that objects can possess or lack. You cannot claim that because I can abstract a perfect circle from observations from imperfect, worldly circles (e.g. in the sand), this abstraction thus exists. Thinking something is not an argument for the existence of that something. We see in Socrates, and Plato, still the mysticism and pseudo-philosophy that would only be destroyed when British empiricism tried, once more, to understand how knowledge comes to be – ending in Hume’s radical scepticism and Kant’s failed attempt to restore some Platonic Idealism.
In sum: Plato tries to derive the existence of empirical objects from analytic deductions – something which has clouded philosophy for way too long. Even now, there is much too much mysticism involved in certain branches of philosophy – deducing supposed knowledge from imperceptible realms. Also, Plato had an excuse for his flaws – limited knowledge – and as a creative mind, he was paving the way for future philosophy to ride on – this cannot be said of more modern speculative philosophers like Hegel, Husserl and Heidegger. Still, it’s interesting stuff to read, and The Last Days of Socrates (2003) is a decent collection of four of Plato’s most important and influential works.
The first dialogue, Euthyphro, takes place at the Athenian court, when Socrates has to wait for his trial to begin. There, while waiting, he meets a man, Euthyphro, who comes to accuse his father for murdering one of his slaves. The slave had killed someone from Euthyphro’s father’s household, so Euthyphro’s father tied up the slave, put him in a ditch and went to the Athenian court to ask what he should do. After he came back, the slave had died from hunger and thirst, so Euthyphro decides to take his own father to court and let the judges decide if they convict the man for murder or not.
Socrates naturally begs the question: why do you think it is good to take your own father to court? After which Euthyphro ends up in a Socratic dialogue which centres around the question of what is pious? Pious, because Euthyphro tells Socrates that it is good to accuse his own father because the gods approve of this. In summary: Socrates asks him whether (1) something is pious because the gods approve it, or (2) the gods approve it because it is pious? (1) leads to a definition of piety as slaving away at the whims of the gods, which cannot be really pious; (2) leads to a definition of piety as something in itself, something to which the gods have to submit, just like human beings need to. (1) is obeying a dictator while (2) makes the gods superfluous.
So Euthyphro counters that Piety is a subdivision of Justice. Justice can be split up into just according to humans (treating other human beings well) and just according to gods (offering to the gods what’s due to them). Euthyphro answers that human piety offers gratitude to the gods, but, according to Socrates, this brings one back to the original question: why do the gods then approve of this? Now, Euthyphro has enough, leaves Socrates and the dialogue ends.
In the Apology, Socrates offers his defence speech, after his accusers have brought the charges against him. Socrates is accused of being an atheist (i.e. not believing in the gods that the State prescribes) and a corrupter of morality (i.e. teaching the young to think for themselves and not believe arguments based on authority/expertise).
Socrates defends himself in a rather apathic way, not caring much about what will happen to him. The only thing he cares for is to stick to his principles. He says he is no atheist since he believes in God (his own God, not the Athenian gods); he is not a teacher since he doesn’t ask money for his dialogues and he doesn’t teach any subject; and he doesn’t know anything, that’s the only thing he knows, so he could never corrupt his conversational partners anyway.
Many years ago, the Oracle at Delphi told a friend of Socrates that Socrates is the wisest of men. To find out why, he went to the people who are supposed to be knowledgeable experts in their fields: politicians, poets and skilled craftsmen. But by questioning these people, Socrates found out that all of them pretended to know things while in actuality they didn’t know anything. And not only this, this didn’t even know that they didn’t know anything.
So, Socrates pleads ‘not guilty’, since he has done no harm to anyone – rather the reverse: he has enlightened people and has protected the Athenian people from making certain mistakes. He warns the jury (which were judges as well), that they have made a big mistake by ordering Socrates’ to die and that Athens will pay for it. Without knowledge, Athens will not be virtuous.
We see here the upright dogmatists not bending his back in front of resentful, lowly opponents. He is even haughty enough to laugh away the offer to live, by either excusing himself, escaping from prison or paying a fee – in fact, he supposes his punishment to be that the State will take care of him in a fashionable manner, providing food and shelter, out of gratitude for his work.
When in his cell, awaiting his day of reckoning, Socrates is visited by friends. One of them, Crito, is the main personage in the third dialogue, Crito. Crito comes to visit Socrates to beg him to escape his prison cell and live somewhere else and see his three children grow up. Socrates replies that escaping prison would mean breaking the Athenian law and hence injuring the State and the Laws. Injuring someone is injustice, and being virtuous forbids injustice. Socrates has two options: convince the State of its mistake (which he failed to do) or to undergo punishment.
In this dialogue, Plato lets Socrates explain how the Laws are almost a personage on their own – Socrates claims the laws birthed him, reared him and when he turned 17 (the age at which a child became an adult), he voluntarily entered into a contract with the State. He could have left, then and in the meantime, but he didn’t. This signals the willing submission to the State and its Laws. Escaping prison now would mean breaking the law; being just requires Socrates to undergo his punishment (i.e. die).
Again, we see here the dogmatist who feels upright and superior to all the hypocrites around him – a typical academic attitude, which can be seen in many academics in our own time as well. The feeling of superior knowledge and the position that entitles someone to exclaim truths – never mind all the fallacies involved here.
Anyway, the final dialogue, the Phaedo, explains how Socrates lived in his final moments. A group of friends visit him, and are grieved and worried about their friend’s nearing death. Socrates tries to argue them out of their emotions by claiming that they should be happy for him. Why? Because, being a philosopher, he will in a very short time become an immortal soul again, soaring to heavenly heights, since he has led a good life. The gods chain souls in fragile, corruptible and corrupting bodies. They will reward a man for living a life of contemplation, resisting all the bodily desires such as food, drinks and sex.
Most of the people will succumb to the bodily seduction and lead a life of debauchery and ignorance. The gods will punish these souls by reincarnating them as stupid, lowly animals, such as donkeys and flies. People who do better will be reincarnated as social animals, bees and ants, for example. The most purest of souls, those who devote their entire life to loving wisdom (i.e. literally, the philosophers), will be best off – they will be rewarded in the afterlife and meet the gods and other great men.
This is the picture of the afterlife that Socrates paints. But why should his friends believe him? Because of his arguments. Socrates thinks that he can logically prove the existence of an immortal (literally un-dying) and imperishable soul. Composites can break down in their constituents, which can form new composites – hence, these substances are changing, perceptible and mortal. Elements, though, cannot – by definition – be broken down in more elementary constituents – hence, these substances are unchanging, imperceptible and immortal. These elements can only be abstracted from perceptible things and hence perceptible things can only resemble these abstract things in more or less degrees. Plato identifies these imperceptible things as Ideas, or Forms, and the sensible things as material objects, which partake in these Ideas.
The soul is deemed to be such an immortal and imperceptible element, and hence cannot be destroyed (literally is un-dying). So, when we observe corpses decompose, we see composites break down in their elements. But the soul, as a life-giving element, cannot be destroyed so it has to go somewhere after the body dies. The soul become a pure reality, a pure Idea, again – just like it was before it was tied town to a fragile body by the gods. Also, we can know that our soul existed before our births be turning the Plato’s theory of knowledge as recollection. We know things that cannot come from sense-perception, so this knowledge but somehow already exist in our souls before we were born as organisms. This proves that the soul exists before we are born as organisms and that the soul knew much but forgot things (possibly due to bodily distractions).
The Apology is basically one long argument to prove the existence of the soul as an immortal, imperceptible, infinite thing. It is Plato’s finest exposé of his theory of Ideas (or Forms) and it offers us the mechanism by which these Ideas operate to create the world around us and all the change in it. Building on Pre-Socratic notions, Plato explains that the universe was ordered out of mixed substances by Intelligence, and that Intelligence partakes in certain objects in the universe, giving these objects life, motivation and reason. The human soul is such an intelligent thing, partaking in Intelligence in more or lesser degrees.
I can see how this mysticism might appeal to people, deriving true reality from the endless bombardment of sense-experience. Our senses are limited and prone to errors, so it’s very comfortable to look for stability behind all the apparent change. But it is a logical fallacy, none the less – you cannot treat existence as a predicate. Existence is not a quality that objects can possess or lack. You cannot claim that because I can abstract a perfect circle from observations from imperfect, worldly circles (e.g. in the sand), this abstraction thus exists. Thinking something is not an argument for the existence of that something. We see in Socrates, and Plato, still the mysticism and pseudo-philosophy that would only be destroyed when British empiricism tried, once more, to understand how knowledge comes to be – ending in Hume’s radical scepticism and Kant’s failed attempt to restore some Platonic Idealism.
In sum: Plato tries to derive the existence of empirical objects from analytic deductions – something which has clouded philosophy for way too long. Even now, there is much too much mysticism involved in certain branches of philosophy – deducing supposed knowledge from imperceptible realms. Also, Plato had an excuse for his flaws – limited knowledge – and as a creative mind, he was paving the way for future philosophy to ride on – this cannot be said of more modern speculative philosophers like Hegel, Husserl and Heidegger. Still, it’s interesting stuff to read, and The Last Days of Socrates (2003) is a decent collection of four of Plato’s most important and influential works.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,887 reviews