The Philosophical Contributions of Socrates
From the Apology to Euthyphro, discussion on piety, reason and knowledge
Socrates was the first Athenian philosopher. The pre-Socratic philosophers, like Thales and Parmenides, were from the colonies of Athens. The pre-Socratics were the first people to point out what philosophical problems were (like the problem of change, the problem of origin and the problem of lack), and Plato’s Socrates and Plato were the first ones to attempt to settle these problems.
Because Socrates did not write anything himself, all we know about him is through the accounts of others. After his death, there was an industry that emerged around his accounts — the Sokratikoi Logoi. This points to his popularity. The most popular account is undoubtedly that of Plato, though that does not mean that it is also the most accurate one. Who the historical Socrates was is very hard to discern from the contrasting accounts that we have of him.
Accounts of Plato, Xenophanes and Aristophanes
Xenophanes was a close friend of Socrates. He and Plato were contemporaries.
It is usually the earlier works of Plato that are referred to for knowledge about Socrates. Socrates is famous for saying that the only thing he knows is that he knows nothing. Plato’s Socrates is one who says he does not know, and actually does not know. But Xenophanes’ Socrates is feigning his lack of knowledge. He says he does not know, but he actually knows.
To defend Socrates’ claim of not being wise, one who is wise has access to the Eidos (essence or true nature of a thing) and is able to provide a definition. But Socrates was not able to do this. But because our conception of wisdom or knowledge is much wider, we tend to think of Socrates as a wise person.
Understanding Socrates also helps make sense of Plato’s philosophy, since the former’s death had a significant impact on him. He resented the democratic government of Athens since it had put Socrates, the most virtuous man as per Plato, to death. It helps understand Plato’s inclinations and motivations for a philosopher king as the only ruler ‘fit’ to rule, as expressed in the Republic.
Apology
Allegations Against Socrates
The allegations against Socrates are indicative of the Greek mentality in that period. He was charged with impiety, which was a capital offense, with a punishment of death. This charge of ‘impiety’ stemmed from Socrates’ encouragement to the youth to not accept authority uncritically. (Socrates’ philosophy, and philosophy in general, is more individual-centric. But in that age, the concept of an ‘individual’ was not given. One’s identity was defined by one’s family, state and community. But here, we see a wish to establish one’s individual identity.)
At that time, the political structure of the state was deeply religious. In modern-day terms, their church was the legislative while their king was the executive. The government was composed of the paterfamilias, who were the eldest male members of a family. These paterfamilias had ‘divine insight’ as they were the ones who could understand the family hearth, which was representative of the family God. They were believed to be ‘rational’, which, at that time, had both political and epistemic implications. Their word was taken as rational and right without any justification-requirement, and obedience was a duty. Disrespecting or disobeying them meant disobeying their family god, and since each family hearth was ‘connected’ to the city hearth with a central city God, it would mean disrespecting them. This is why ‘inventing new gods’ was seen as treason and an impious act — because it coupled the invention of new gods with the abandonment of old ones, making a person, in the eyes of the state, unpatriotic.
It is important to note that Socrates was not anti-authority. He did believe in depending on authority, but only the right kind. So there is a sense of authoritarianism in his philosophy through the imposition of the condition of justification. Justification is in the form of eidos and eidos is given. So every philosophy that has a foundation begins in authority (authority is not necessarily of a negative/fascist kind)
The Trial of Socrates
Socrates was about 70 years old when his trial took place in 399 BC. It is believed that there were around 500 people present during the trial of Socrates, which might have gone on for as long as six hours. These people were mostly citizens of Athens, aristocrats who voted in the democratic passing of judgment. At that time, there were approximately 139 demes or families/houses in Athens. These families or houses are lineages composed of a large number of people who were related to each other. The total population is believed to have been around 250,000 people, out of which an estimated 30-60k males/elder males had voting privileges. These males/elder males also composed the war assemblies.
Defense
Against the charge of impiety, Socrates asks the question — what is piety? This is discussed in detail in Euthyphro.
Socrates is not denying the intent or the motivation of the charge, but only its content. Socrates agreed that youth can be corrupted (and that that was obviously a bad thing), but failed to see how he was doing it by trying to teach them about virtue. To make sense of the accusation, the people who thought Socrates was guilty, thought in the following way: Who is being corrupted? The youth. Why? Because they now demand ‘justification’.
Socratic Definition
The Socratic definition is a definition of X that abstracts the eidos or the essence/ general characteristics from a set of things considered to be X to explain the nature of X in itself and without having to invoke instances or examples of X. This was a difficult task. For example, I cannot define what is good by pointing out instances of it. To reach a Socratic definition, I’d have to explain goodness (which is necessarily present in each instance of good). Thus, to know ‘X’, I need to grasp its general characteristics.
The Socratic method is what is used by Socrates to reach the ‘Socratic’ definition. It can be understood as the art of questioning used in the quest for eidos. The main question that Socrates asks can be expressed as — What makes X, X?
Socrates is famous for having said that he knows nothing. Plato’s Socrates is wise insofar as the process of arriving at knowledge is concerned, but not concerning the product (knowledge) itself. In most of the dialogues, they arrive, through discussion (in the Socratic method) at what is NOT knowledge, but not at what the eidos of knowledge is. This search for Eidos is common in all of Plato’s dialogues.
The concept of the Socratic definition was vital to the birth of essentialism, as per which there are certain characteristics present in things that make them what they are, and the goal of philosophy and the sciences is to discover and express what these are. This posits the existence of an essence prior to the existence of the thing itself, as opposed to the modern existentialist thought (which challenges Greek thought) that existence precedes essence.
Socrates was the first to believe there must be essences for the possibility of definitions to be there. These essences are not invented but discovered. And though you may challenge the authority of God, you cannot challenge the authority of the essence or eidos as it is given. It can only be discovered through reason. Hence, it follows that reason cannot be challenged. Only after one has discovered eidos can they generate a definition, and only after a definition has been generated can its implications be understood and implemented.
Euthyphro
In Euthyphro, the concept of piety is discussed. It is here that we get the first insight into the Socratic method, and the concern for a ‘definition’ arises. These have informed and governed epistemology for generations. The dialogue explores the concept of the ‘sanction of the act’. Is it the case that what is obeyed has the sanction of being just? Thus, the text Euthyphro symbolizes a demand for justification independent of ‘status’- it is against the acceptance of the word of authority without any justification. At that time, ‘just’ was taken to mean the dictums of the paterfamilias/male heads. But, by questioning this conception of ‘just’ and by asking for the heads to be accountable, the philosophers, here Socrates, particularly, were ‘guilty’ for the generation of demand for ‘justification’, because that is how revolts arose. It can be understood as a demand for eidos through the account.
The main question asked here is — what is piety? Is something pious because it is loved by gods, or is it loved by gods because it is pious? In case the former is true, that makes the concept of piety arbitrary because God could love anything. And if the latter is true then the need for positing the god as authority disappears. Moreover, two or more gods could love different things or love and hate the same thing. Thus, as per Socrates, this definition of piety — that pious is what is loved by gods — fails, because it is not stable, and Eidos needs to be a stable standard of measure.
The invocation of god in attempting to make sense of the concept of piety shows that Socrates was authoritarian to some extent and that it was only a partial attempt at challenging authority. What was challenged was the prevalent idea of God, but not God per se. In the Republic, Plato emphasizes that we must only allow the right kinds of gods; poets must only write about the right kinds of god, not the ones who are angry, jealous, egotistical or lustful. Such gods were human in urges, and the difference was that they were much more powerful. This is why the question of piety is brought up in Euthyphro. Socrates believed that god loves pious things because they are pious.
The character Euthyphro is unique in the sense that he is perhaps the only person who appears to be sympathetic towards Socrates in the dialogues written by Plato. Not unlike Socrates’ day-to-day life, Euthyphro is challenging authority by not being blindly obedient and asking for account or justification. But Socrates is pushing Euthyphro even further by asking him to doubt, in addition to the state authority figures’ account, the account of god as well. And this is why Athenians blamed him for ‘corrupting’ the youth.
Socrates is perhaps one of the only philosophers who embodied what he preached to an absolute extent. He believed that there is no distinction between theoretical and practical philosophy. He is often portrayed as a hero in literature because he died for the ideas he believed in.
