Socrates: A Very Short Introduction

Very Short Introductions #027

by C.C.W. Taylor

In this book, Christopher Taylor explores the relationship between the historical Socrates and the engaging and infuriating figure who appears in Plato's dialogues, and examines the enduring image of Socrates as the ideal exemplar of the philosophic life--a thinker whose moral and intellectual
integrity permeated every detail of his life, even in the face of betrayal and execution by his fellow Athenians.

About the Series: Combining authority with wit, accessibility, and style, Very Short Introductions offer an introduction to some of life's most interesting topics. Written by experts for the newcomer, they demonstrate the finest contemporary thinking about the central problems and issues in hundreds
of key topics, from philosophy to Freud, quantum theory to Islam.

Genres: Philosophy, History, Nonfiction, Biography, Greece, Ancient History, Audiobook

122 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1998

Reviews

[Linda · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this book in conjunction with a course I am taking on Masters of Greek Philosophy. I haven't grappled with Greek philosophy since I was an undergraduate, which was a really long time ago.

C. C. Taylor sees Socrates as an elusive figure as he wrote nothing himself. After his death, his disciples (primarily Plato and Xenophon) wrote about his ideas and lifestyle in the genre of reconstructed dialogues. Taylor attempts to find the " historical Socrates" through analyzing these and other sources.

He then examines " Plato's Socrates" and discusses Plato's analysis of his mentor's key ethical ideas and the system of questioning he uses to determine these premises. Plato portrays Socrates as the " ideal" philosopher, a man who lives humbly and is faithful to his ethical teachings.

In the final chapter, Taylor investigates Socrates's influence on later philosophy from Ancient to Modern times. He provides an in-depth analysis of Hegel, Kierkegaard, and Nietzche's responses to Socratic thought.

I felt this short book was a thoughtful, accessible introduction. I recommend it to novices, like myself, who are looking to deepen their understanding.

[Bettie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Description: Socrates has a unique position in the history of philosophy. It is no exaggeration to say that had it not been for his influence on Plato, the whole development of Western philosophy might have bee unimaginably different. Yet Socrates wrote nothing himself, and our knowledge of him is derived primarily from the engaging and infuriating figure who appears in Plato's dialogues. In this book, Christopher Taylor explores the relationship between the historical Socrates and the Platonic character, and examines the enduring image of Socrates as the ideal exemplar of the philosophic life - a thinker whose moral and intellectual integrity permeated every detail of his life, even in the face of betrayal and execution by his fellow Athenians.

Picked this up as an aside to reading The Athenian Mysteries by the lovely Gary Corby. It is marvellous to revisit the classic philosophers now and again - refresher and refreshing.

3* Ancient Egypt
3* Paul
4* Witchcraft
3* The Book of Mormon
4* Druids
4* Forensic Psychology
3* Forensic Science
CR Socrates

[Aaron · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is probably the worst of the VSI series that I've read. It sure doesn't feel directed at amateurs which seems to be the hallmark of the VSI series. It's kind of like reading sludge with unnecessarily difficult prose and argumentation that is not newbie friendly. An example: "It could, of course, be both the case that virtue is knowledge of what the agent's good is, and that the agent's good is knowledge, but in that case the knowledge which is the agent's good has to be a distinct item or body of knowledge from the knowledge of what the agent's good is. Otherwise we have the situation that the knowledge of what the agent's good is is the knowledge that the agent's good is the knowledge of what the agent's good is, and that that knowledge (i.e., the knowledge of what the agent's good is) is in turn the knowledge that the agent's good is the knowledge of what the agent's good is, and so ad infinitum." A philosopher should likely be able to parse this muck but is this introductory material? You be the judge. As an amateur, this gobbledigook is clear as mud to me. I think one of the chief goals of these VSI releases is to inspire you to read beyond a short 100 page introduction and elicit some excitement for further study. Honestly, this sucked the life out of my current interest in Greek philosophy.

[Zuberino · Rating 4 out of 5]

প্রাচীন গ্রীক দর্শন নিয়ে আগ্রহ অনেকদিনের। কিন্তু দুরূহ বিষয়কে সরল ভাষায় উপস্থাপন করা যেহেতু সহজ কাজ নয়, তাই আনাড়ী পাঠককে ভেবে-চিন্তে এগুতে হয়। অক্সফোর্ডের এই সিরিজটি যেন একটি বর - সক্রেটিস পুস্তিকাটি হাতে পেয়ে আর দ্বিধা করলাম না। শুরু যদি করবোই, পশ্চিমা দর্শনের নাটের গুরুকে দিয়ে আরম্ভ করাই শ্রেয়।



লেখক টেইলর স্বল্প পরিসরে এবং সহজপাচ্য গদ্যে অত্যন্ত জটিল সব ধ্যান-ধারণার সারসংক্ষেপ তুলে ধরার প্রয়াস পেয়েছেন। প্রচেষ্টা সফলই বলা চলে। রহস্যে মোড়া এই দার্শনিকের নিজের কোন লেখা-জোঁকা আধুনিক পাঠকদের কাছে পৌঁছায়নি, তাই তার সম্পর্কে প্রায় সমস্ত জ্ঞানই সেকেন্ড-হ্যান্ড, অর্থাৎ তার সাগরেদ প্লেটো এবং জেনোফোনের হাত ঘুরে আমাদের কাছে এসেছে। এরা প্রায়শ স্ববিরোধী - যেটা আমাদের "সক্রেটিক প্রব্লেম"।

জীবন-মৃত্যু সম্পর্কে অল্প কিছু যা জানা যায়, তা কম কথায় সেরে টেইলর নেমে পড়েন সক্রেটিসের দর্শন বিশ্লেষণে। বইয়ের সবচেয়ে গুরুত্বপূর্ণ এই অধ্যায়ের নাম প্লেটো'র সক্রেটিস, কারণ মূলত প্লেটোর লিখে রাখা "সক্রেটিক ডায়ালগ" পড়েই আমরা এই মানুষের দর্শন সম্পর্কে ওয়াকিফহাল হই। জিজ্ঞাসু মনের নিরন্তর প্রশ্নবানে প্রচলিত সকল রীতি-নীতি আর বিশ্বাসের মর্মমূলে যুক্তির চিড় ধরিয়ে দেয়া - সেটাই "সক্রেটিক মেথড" (গ্রীক ভাষায় elenchus)। প্রথাভাঙার পরিণতি অবশ্য ভালো হয়নি - ধর্মকে অবজ্ঞা এবং তরুণদের বিপথগামী করার অভিযোগে সক্রেটিসের বিচার হয় এবং মৃত্যুদণ্ডের রায় হয়। অতঃপর হেমলক পান করে সক্রেটিস হয়ে যান মোটামুটি লেজেন্ড। জ্ঞানপিপাসু অনুসন্ধিৎসার চিরন্তন প্রতীক, যার প্রভাব ১৮শ শতকের এনলাইটেনমেন্ট পেরিয়ে আজও অনুভূত।

আমার কাছে সবচেয়ে ইন্টারেস্টিং এবং কঠিন লেগেছে "সক্রেটিক এথিক্স"-এর বিবরণ। নিজের ভবিষ্যৎ রেফারেন্সের জন্যে শর্টকাটে বলি - 1) virtue = knowledge of human good, 2) human good = virtue itself! এই লজিকাল লুপ থেকে বেরুবার বহু পথ খুঁজেছেন বহু জ্ঞানীঋষি। প্লেটোর সমাধান 1) human good = virtue 2) virtue is knowledge, yes, but not of human good but of a higher universal good.

আরো দুটো ইন্টারেস্টিং দার্শনিক ধারণা:
১) "জেনে-বুঝে কেউ খারাপ কাজ করে না বা নিজের ক্ষতি করে না" (akrasia)
২) "আমি জানি যে আমি কিছু জানি না" - এই বিখ্যাত উক্তিটি "সক্রেটিক প্যারাডক্স" নামে পরিচিত যদিও মজার ব্যাপার সক্রেটিস নিজে খুব সম্ভবত এই কথা কখনো বলেননি।

এই শেষ প্রসঙ্গে সক্রেটিসের সাথে প্রাচীন এবং আধুনিক দর্শনের যোগসূত্র চলে আসে, যেটি বইয়ের শেষ অধ্যায়ের আলোচ্য। সমসাময়িক সোফিস্টদের সাথে তার ছিল বচসা, আর পরবর্তীতে দর্শনের বিভিন্ন ধারাকে প্রত্যক্ষ বা পরোক্ষ প্রভাবিত করেন - গ্রীকদের সময়ে cynic, skeptic এবং stoic school, তারপর খ্রিস্টীয় এবং মুসলিম দর্শন, এবং আরো সম্প্রতি হেগেল, কিয়ের্কেগার্ড এবং নীটশে। যুক্তি ও বিজ্ঞানের অপ্টিমিস্টিক অন্ধকূপে মানবজাতিকে ঠেলে দেয়ার দায়ে নীটশে কখনো সক্রেটিসকে ক্ষমা করতে পারেননি। "One is chained by the Socratic love of knowledge and the delusion of being able thereby to heal the eternal wound of existence."

"অস্তিত্বের অনন্ত ক্ষত" - অন্তত এই কথাটুকুর জন্যে পাগলা নীটশে-কে পছন্দ করাই যায়!

পুনশ্চ - আমার জীবনে পড়া অন্যতম দুর্বোধ্য বাক্যটি আছে ৬৯ পাতায়। কোট করলাম না, তবে বিশবার পড়েও ঠাহর করতে পারিনি।

[Incek Akim · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pening, sebab aku takde asas pasal Falsafah Yunani Purba. Tapi teringin nak baca sebab Socrates ni antara nama tersohor dalam sejarah Greek. Socrates tidak menulis hasil pandangan / hujahan beliau, tetapi ditulis oleh orang lain.

Ni buku ketiga berkaitan Socrates yang aku pernah baca: buku pertama, Luqmanul Hakim Adalah Socrates Berkulit Hitam terbitan PTS. Buku kedua aku tak ingat la pulak tajuk apa, tapi ada la mention pasal teguk racun hemlok bagai tu.

Buku nipis je, lebih kurang 150 muka surat. Pengenalan ringkas, sesuai untuk yang baru nak berkenalan dengan Socrates. Lama gila nak habis, aku baca sampai tertidur. Punya la "kering" bacaan kali ni. Dah macam baca buku undang-undang. Haha...

[Jeffry · Rating 1 out of 5]

Een draak van een boek. Voor mij veel te veel historiografie, heel droog beschreven en daarmee verre van een inleiding op Socrates.

[C. Varn · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is interesting and particularly strong in the first chapter and fifth chapter. The first chapter deals with other sources we have for Socrates as well as an entire genre we see referenced even if we only have Xenophon and Plato. The next chapters on Plato's Socrates are interesting but truly introductory. Although Taylor does do justice to some of the problems of Socrates's presentation of truth and goodness in Plato's dialogues as well as Plato's apparent "evolving" of the Socratic position. The fourth chapter traces how all the Hellenistic philosophies but the Eupicureans and the Pyrrhic skepticism traced their lineage to Plato including the hyper-hedonistic Cyrenaics and the Academic skeptics. The last chapter gets a little muddled between Hegel and Nietzsche, but the exposition of both Hegel's position on Socrates and Nietzsche's is excellent. I would say this is one of the few of these "Very Brief" introductions that is actually an introduction in the true sense while also including just enough that a knowledgable layman or even a specialist could get something from it.

[Maan Kawas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent introduction about Socrates!

[Chatgemini · Rating 2 out of 5]

In a series like A Very Short Introduction, two conditions are important for it to serve its purpose of motivating the reader to explore the subject further. The first is that the contents of VSI should be written in an engaging manner and the second is should contain all the important aspects related to the subject. On both these criteria, the book falls short. The writing is quite dense and is unlikely to sustain the interest of any reader except someone interested in the subject of Philosophy. On the second count, it only takes up one aspect of Socratic writings whereas, it made sense to give an overview of what Socrates really was, the historical context and his key achievements and failures.

[Dario Andrade · Rating 4 out of 5]

Uma boa síntese da vida e obra de Sócrates. Nos dois primeiros capítulos, o autor se ocupa do lugar especial do ateniense na história da filosofia:
“Sócrates ocupa um lugar ímpar na história da filosofia. Por um lado, é um dos mais influentes de todos os filósofos e, por outro, um dos mais enigmáticos e menos conhecidos” (9)
Ele não poderia deixar de lado o julgamento de Sócrates:
“Sócrates, proponho eu, era visto como um religioso atípico e como um subversor da religião e da moralidade tradicionais, cuja influência corruptora havia sido espetacularmente demonstrada pelos crimes notórios de alguns de seus discípulos mais próximos” (27)
E a sua missão de vida:
“outra característica extraordinária da versão platônica da anedota do oráculo é a transformação da jornada de Sócrates, de uma busca pelo significado do que o oráculo dissera, em uma missão de vida de cuidar das almas de seus concidadãos, submetendo-os ao seu escrutínio” (30)
No capítulo 3 ele trata do chamado ‘problema socrático’, i.e., as origens do estilo e a questão das fontes. O diálogo socrático, enquanto gênero literário foi utilizado por muitos autores da Antiguidade, além de Platão e Sócrates. Só desses dois há obras completas. Dos demais restam apenas fragmentos.
Outro problemas diz respeito à distinção entre o que é de Sócrates e o que é de Platão.
No final das contas, é uma questão insolúvel:
“No tocante à representação de Sócrates feita por Platão, não se pode traçar uma linha nítida que separe o ‘Sócrates histórico’ do ‘Sócrates platônico’” (53)
De qualquer modo, o autor elenca aquilo que para ele é apenas de Platão:
“Além da (1) teoria das formas, duas outras doutrinas que podem ser razoavelmente atribuídas a Platão são as da (2) divisão tripartite da alma, que não aparece antes das obras do grupo do meio, República e Fedro, e a (3) teoria da reminiscência. Esta é plausivelmente atribuída a influências pitagóricas encontradas em sua primeira visita à Sicília, em 387 (...) Também intimamente ligada à reminiscência está a (4) teoria da reencarnação [que fecham o Fédon e A República]” (52)
No capítulo 4 ele trata do Sócrates de Platão a partir de 4 critérios:
a. Caracterização. Sócrates é caracterizado não como um professor, mas como um investigador que investiga por meio do exame crítico da opinião dos outros. (55)
b. Definição. Tentativa de definir uma virtude ou algum outro conceito ético significativo (55), mas que trás algumas problemas na obra socrática: um problema: “‘isto é um exemplo de F?’ não pode ser resolvida sem uma resposta à pergunta anterior ‘O que é F?’”
c. Ética: como se deve viver (55) e Sócrates nega ter qualquer sabedoria. Aceitação das limitações humanas (57) e Sócrates não aceita nenhum perito, ao menos não peritos humanos, em assuntos de moralidade (59)
Eixo fundamental do pensamento socrático: Para Sócrates ninguém faz o mal intencionalmente (75)
“Até aqui a teoria identifica a bondade com o atributo que garante o sucesso global na vida e identifica esse atributo, por meio da teoria motivacional descrita logo acima com o conhecimento do que é melhor para o agente” (75)
Assim, consequência importante:
“dada esse tese, o lema de que ninguém age mal intencionalmente assume a dimensão moral de que ‘ninguém age mal (ou ‘age injustamente’) intencionalmente, mas todos que agem mal o fazem involuntariamente” (76)
“Platão tornara-se consciente da incoerência do sistema da ética socrática, cujos dois preceitos centrais são que virtude é conhecimento (isto é, do bem humano) e que a virtude é o bem humano” (82)
E a solução de Platão (Na República):
“Nessa concepção (1) o bem humano é a virtude, (II) a virtude não é idêntica ao conhecimento, mas dirigida por ele, e (III) o conhecimento em questão é conhecimento do bem universal” (82)
Outra solução (Em Protágoras):
“(I) virtude é conhecimento do bem humano (como no Mênon); (II) o bem humano é uma vida agradável no todo” (83)

d. Sofistas. Confronto de Sócrates com sofistas (56)

Outro ponto importante: Método da reminiscência: “...no qual o conhecimento que a alma sempre possuiu, mas esqueceu no processo de reencarnação, é redespertado pelo processo do exame crítico” (63)

No capítulo 4, ele trata da relação entre Sócrates e os sofistas
Protágoras: “longe de as convenções frustrarem o desenvolvimento da natureza humana, é somente através das convenções que a natureza humana pode sobreviver e prosperar, no sentido de desenvolver uma civilização” (87)
Para Sócrates, “[os sofistas são perigosos] porque se definem como peritos na mais importante das questões, ‘Como se deve viver?’, sem na verdade possuir o conhecimento necessário” (88)
No capítulo 5, o autor trata de Sócrates e a filosofia subsequente, ou seja, Sócrates foi sendo reinventado e reapropriado ao longo dos séculos.
Em suma, acho que o livro cumpre aquilo que promete: ser uma introdução breve e didática da obra e vida de Sócrates.

[Kendall Davis · Rating 4 out of 5]

I especially appreciated the discussion of the reception of Socrates.

[Vignir Másson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fín fyrir það sem hún er en fékk lítið út úr henni.

[Lee · Rating 1 out of 5]

This was not a good introduction. Instead, it was an academic thinking that they could write the same academic nonsense that they normally write, speaking to the same academic audience they normally write for. So minute was the minutiae he was arguing about that I had trouble following along with much of what he said, despite having a Ph.D. in the humanities.

Here is an example:

"So far we have considered as a single group all those dialogues which stylometric criteria indicate as earlier than the ‘middle group’:Parmenides, Phaedrus, Republic, and Theaetetus. Within that group any differentiation has to appeal to non-stylometric criteria. Here Aristotle’s evidence is crucial. Accepting as historical his assertion that Socrates did not separate the Forms, we can identify those dialogues frorn the stylistically early group in which Socrates maintains the theory of Forms, viz. Phaedo, Symposium, and Cratylus, as dialogues where, in that respect at least, the Socrates of the dialogue is not the historical Socrates. This result can now be supplemented by some conjectures about the likely course of Plato’ philosophical development which have at least reasonable plausibility."

Academic naval gazing at its worst.

Read 41%

[Alex · Rating 2 out of 5]

I went into this book thinking it was going to be a very short introduction to the *ideas of Socrates*. This was a mistake. This is, apparently, a very short (and very dry and academic) introduction to the actual historical figure of Socrates. If you know anything at all about Socrates, you have probably guessed that this book spends page after page after page recounting what other people said about Socrates.

Can't recommend it, honestly. If you want to learn about Socrates, perhaps the best place to Start is with primary works by Plato (Republic, Dialogues). Somehow ancient greek texts are easier to read and get through than this book from the 21st century.

[Nasreddin · Rating 1 out of 5]

Never did such a short book take so long. I fell asleep each time, and had to soldier my way through it.
It's written in a VERY dry academic sense, which is also evident in the syntax, and the high brow language employed.

I bought it used though, for less than 1 euro, so I can't complain too much, but reading this jargon filled book, felt like a mental chore that was not rewarding at all.

Not a very good introduction at all to Socrates, especially for a non academic who wishes to take his / her first step in to the world of philosophy.

[Jonathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A bit more than an introduction. Fairly technical.

[Illiterate · Rating 2 out of 5]

Plato’s Socrates is wonderful (chap 3). I have far less interest in others (chaps 4-5) including the “real one” (chaps 1-2).

[Rene Walter · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good short introduction to the "ideal philosopher", as Plato put it. Taylor analyzes the dialogues written by Socrates' disciples on the search for the "historical Socrates" and later describes how medieval and modern philosophy interpreted him, focussing on Kierkegaard and Nietzsche.

[Rodrigo Jungmann · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bom.

[Bora · Rating 4 out of 5]

He just like me fr i also love to talk randomly without coming to a conclusion !!!

[Daniel Wright · Rating 2 out of 5]

Socrates has an eternally intriguing and enigmatic figure. This book attempts to aim at the historical Socrates, and discovers (unsurprisingly) that there is not much to hit at the other end. He discusses the relevance, naturally, of Plato's dialogues and the Apology, but also, more interestingly, Xenophon's Memorabilia. Put together, this makes for a study that promises rather more than it delivers.

[Ethan · Rating 3 out of 5]

The general historical and biographical background was helpful, as was some of the information on textual evidence about Socrates outside of Plato's works. The more philosophical sections didn't reference as much contemporary Plato scholarship as I would have liked, and some parts, such as the section on Socrates's disavowal of wisdom, seem to stray from textual evidence when doing so isn't really necessary. Overall, though, a helpful introduction.

[Marcus Vinicius · Rating 5 out of 5]

Socrates quest for wisdom and truth and his strategy to achieve it are well exposed by C. C. W. Taylor. The main features of Socrates think are presented with the diverses dialogues that it maintain with others greek thinkers and schools. His influence in the philosophies of his time and in future philosophers and schools of thought are mentioned, with specially attention to Hegel, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. Usefull reading that help one understand some features of postmodern life.

[Jacob Stelling · Rating 2 out of 5]

For the majority of the book I was confused, and that which I did understand wasn’t very engaging.

As an “introduction” to a topic I was expecting it to be easier to follow... although the comparisons between the historical figure of Socrates and that presented in the literature of Plato et al were certainty interesting.

Perhaps the Socrates we have come to know is more of an ideal than a reality.

[Sergey Dudko · Rating 3 out of 5]

Self-control, Justice, Knowledge, Courage
Socratic strength was to be promoted by a life of physical austerity, eschewing all pleasures except those appropriate to such a life
Socrates is an appropriate exemplar of intellectual and moral integrity
Reject the standing tendency to dogmatism
The pretence of ignorance by Socrates was a tactic which he used in his destructive critique of conventional morality

[AH · Rating 3 out of 5]

chapter 5 was getting a little bit confusing until Nietzsche came in and the flow of the book recovered.Taylor also mentions different views of Socrates historicity and tries to stay neutral as the accounts available to us vary; overall ,a quick read and a fairly examined introduction to Socrates.

[S G Akshaykumar · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was a bit confused about whether I was the only one who didn't get this book. But after reading the reviews I am ok. This one is a bad seed in the series. I read the ones about French Revolution and Jung, they were really good. This is mediocre at best.

[Ada]

***Did Not Finish @19:39 minutes on vrijdag 12 december 2025 | audiobook***
Narrator: Michael Page
❌ No star rating because of reasons

I CANNOT DO IT. The narrator sounds way too much like my old professor. So much so I am not only tuning out (I AM FOLDING LAUNDRY, HOW?!) I can almost see his moustache wiggling while he talks. Does Michael Page have a moustache*? Probably not but my professor did.

I hate this. I hate that I cannot just listen about Socrates without seeing my MEDIEVAL professor. Why does he not sound like my professor who actually taught about the Classics? 😭 He was so good at making this time period feel alive. Very strange man but a great teacher. This is very suck-ish of me. Yet, I can. not. do. it.

*HE ACTUALLY HAS ONE. Not a big one like my old professor. His is fairly normal. Still. I was sort of right.

***before listening | audiobook***
I started this because I thought something about the Greek Philosophers to 11/12 year old kids and realised I had a gap in my knowledge. They do not have to know very much about Socrates, Plato and Aristotle beyond the first line on Wikipedia (this is an exaggeration) but there is always THAT kid who wants to know more.

So why was he called the grandfather of Philosophy? Hopefully I will find a kid-friendly answer beyond: he was the first.

Narrator: I have to say I am not a fan. He sounds a bit too much like one of my most disliked professors. It has something to do with his inflictions on words. Hopefully I will get used to it.

SIDENOTE: The kids thought they should get taught via the Socratic method until they realised if I took that serious, they had to do tons of research. I will not allow my students to ask questions and giving out dummy answers!

[Bernie Gourley · Rating 5 out of 5]

In Plato’s Socratic dialogues, Socrates is forever challenging sophists and others who propose to know what virtues are while they are demonstrably unable to define or delineate them. I wonder how he would have felt about being one of the foremost examples of a person that people firmly believe they know, when there is good reason to believe that much of what we know is false. Socrates is described in comedic plays like “Clouds” by Aristophanes, but those descriptions are written for comedic effect. There is a large body of works by Plato describing Socrates’ philosophical jousts, but it seems clear that some of these writings reflect Plato’s views which may or may not have been shared by Socrates. There are a few matters of official records, and numerous isolated mentions from people who either loved or loathed Socrates (loving and loathing not being states conducive to accurate reporting.)

This book attempts to concisely review what is known about Socrates and his philosophy, what is myth, and what can, at best, be regarded as the features of a fictional Socrates. The book starts with a chapter on Socrates’ life and what is widely believed true about his biography. Then the book outlines the body of writings that discuss and describe Socrates, particularly those of Plato, Xenophon, and Aristotle. Next there is a chapter that explores the philosophy Plato’s Socrates, a fictional construct partially based on the man and partly shaped by his student’s views. The last two chapters discuss the legacy of Socrates (real and mythical) in philosophy and culture.

There is a Further Reading section at the end to give the reader some sources to continue their investigations. I found this to be a fine overview, well-organized, and readable. It will be more useful to those who read Plato, and relevant works of Xenophon.

[Evan Micheals · Rating 1 out of 5]

I read this to gain more knowledge about the philosopher I believe I would have got on best with – Socrates, an annoying ugly man who asked those in power awkward questions. What I found was an overly academic book that focused too much on epistemology, and too little on what Socrates meant and taught. If I was wanting to learn more about Socrates, I would not read this book.

Firstly, Socrates mainly tried to find agreement of what something was, “according to Socrates the primary knowledge concerning any subject is precisely knowledge of what that subject is” (p 61). Before you can comment on something, you have to agree what it is with whom you are discussing it with.

“One is chained by the Socratic love of knowledge and the delusion of being able thereby to heal the eternal wound of existence” (p 108). I read this and thought this is what I am up too. If I can read more, learn more, I will stumble across the Philosophers Stone. I have now read enough to know it is a delusion, but one I continue to ignore. I love learning and find myself in a flow state when I feel I am learning.

“Socrates, in terms expressive of a loathsome snobbishness which even slips into antisemitism. Socrates belonged to the lowest social class: he was riff-raff. His ugliness was a symptom of a foul and dissolute temperament” (p 110). I identity with the lower class riff-raff that will never be asked to lead. I am a gadfly to the elite. Socrates is the philosopher I identify with the most, we would be mates.