1.1 SOCRATES AND THE SEARCH FOR WISDOM
The prisoner was housed in the state prison, only a stone’s throw to the southwest of the
agora, the bustling marketplace in Athens.* It seemed like just yesterday he had been walking in that very marketplace, discussing philosophy and questioning people on their views
about all possible topics of human concern: knowledge, moral goodness, psychology, politics, art, and religion. But a month ago a jury made up of 500 citizens of Athens had voted
to condemn him to death on the two charges of corrupting the minds of the youth and
teaching about gods other than the official gods of Athens. Under normal circumstances
the prisoner would have been executed soon after the trial, but an annual religious festival
delayed his death by a month.
On the morning of his death, a group of friends arrived at his jail cell just as his wife
and small baby were leaving to get some rest after spending the night with him. The group
consisted of more than 10 of his local friends as well as 5 others who came from out of
town. The prisoner was massaging his leg, which had just been released from its chains. He
looked as he always had, as though this day was just another day in his life. The morning
light streaming through the window reflected off his bald head and highlighted his curly,
gray beard. His mantle, as always, hung awkwardly on his 70-year-old, short, and stocky
*This
SOCRATES
(470–399 B.C.)
account is loosely based on the Phaedo, Plato’s dialogue about Socrates’ last hours.
Socrates and the Search for Wisdom
Law35877_c01_001-047.indd 15
15
10/22/10 2:59 PM
Jacques Louis David’s 1787 painting The Death of Socrates.
frame. People were always amused that one whose mind was so precise and orderly had
such a humorous and unimposing physical appearance. But the solemnity of the occasion
prevented any amusement on this day. The room was charged with emotion, and some
friends were even weeping shamelessly. However, the condemned prisoner was extraordinarily calm and even cheerful as he waited for his death.
The year was 399 B.C., and the man facing execution for his ideas was Socrates, who
had taught the wisdom of philosophy to many Athenians, including his best-known student, Plato. In the hours remaining in his life, Socrates revealed to his followers the secret
of his calm composure. The philosopher is a person, he said, whose soul has been liberated
by wisdom. Such a person has learned to know and therefore participate in ultimate Truth,
Beauty, and Goodness. Since these concepts are eternal and are unchanged by the changes
of the physical aspects that illustrate them, our ability to know these eternal truths indicates
something eternal within us. Because the soul within us is eternal and intangible, Socrates
argued, and because it alone is the real person, then no harm that occurs to the body can
ever affect it. Socrates argued long and patiently throughout the day about his and everyone’s immortality. Whereas his followers dreaded the impending loss of their friend,
Socrates looked forward to being freed from the injustice of the state and reveled in the
hope of entering into a realm of perfect justice where his teachings would be vindicated.
As sunset approached, Socrates’ children were brought to see him one final time. The
oldest was a young man, the middle one was a boy, and the youngest was still a baby. After
they left, the prison warden, who had grown quite fond of Socrates and had visited him
16
CHAPTER 1
Law35877_c01_001-047.indd 16
INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHICAL JOURNEY
10/22/10 2:59 PM
every day, came into the cell to say good-bye. He thanked Socrates for the conversations
they had enjoyed together; then he burst into tears. By now Socrates was ready to leave,
and he asked to receive the drink of poison hemlock that was to be the means of execution.
He drank the cup in one breath; soon his legs began to feel heavy, and he lay down on his
back. The prison guard monitored Socrates’ body as the coldness and numbness started
moving up from his limbs to his heart. Socrates’ last words to his friends were instructions
to make a sacrifice to Asclepius, the god of healing. At first the friends thought that strange,
for one gave thanks to Asclepius after recovering from an illness and being returned to
health. But then they remembered what Socrates had taught them and they knew that he
believed he was soon to find wholeness and to be healed of the spiritual infirmities and
limitations of this earthly life. About Socrates’ death, his disciple Phaedo is reported to have
said, “Such was the end . . . of our friend, whom I may truly call the most wise and just
and best of all men I have ever known.”6
Most accounts of a great figure’s life begin with his or her birth. But in Socrates’ case,
his death tells us the most about his character and his life. Several questions arise out of
this account of Socrates’ death.
• Why was a philosopher considered so dangerous that he had to be put to death?
• Why was Socrates so committed to his philosophical ideas that he was willing to die
for them?
The answers to these questions should become more evident the more you learn about this
great philosopher. For now, it may be helpful to consider what you can learn about yourself
from Socrates’ example.
STOP AND THINK
Socrates lived and died in another land and in another time, but his life and death can
provoke us to ask a number of questions about our own lives. To get an appreciation of
Socrates’ situation, ask yourself the following questions:
• What would make an idea dangerous?
• What ideas (if any) do I find to be uncomfortable, troubling, or even dangerous?
Why?
• Can I think of any ideas in the past that society thought were dangerous but that
turned out to be true?
• Can I think of any ideas that I once thought were dangerous but that I now
accept?
• What ideas are worth living for?
• What ideas would I be willing to die for?
SOCRATES’ LIFE AND MISSION
Now that we have learned about Socrates’ death, what do we know about his life? Socrates
was born in 470 B.C. in Athens. Unlike most of Socrates’ students, who came from some
of Athens’ finest families, Socrates came from humble economic circumstances. His father
was a sculptor and his mother a midwife. There are interesting similarities between
Socrates’ method of doing philosophy and the occupations of his parents, which he
observed as a young boy. A sculptor takes a raw hunk of marble and chisels away at it,
Socrates and the Search for Wisdom
Law35877_c01_001-047.indd 17
17
10/22/10 2:59 PM
removing all the extraneous material until a finished, polished statue emerges. Similarly, in
his conversations with the citizens of Athens, Socrates would take the raw, unrefined ideas
of his contemporaries and hammer away at their opinions, removing what was unclear or
erroneous, until he gradually achieved a closer approximation to the truth. Thinking, no
doubt, of his mother, Socrates referred to himself as the “midwife of ideas.” He claimed not
to be able to teach anybody anything, but instead he asked artful questions that sought to
bring to birth the truth that lay hidden within every human soul.
The most definitive information about Socrates’ life comes from the account of his trial
recorded by Plato in the Apology. (The term apology here does not mean expressing regret
but refers to a formal defense such as one might introduce into a court of law.) In the following passage, Socrates tells the court how he got into so much trouble in the first place.
The account begins with an event that was the turning point in Socrates’ life.
A
F R O M P L ATO
Apology 7
O men of Athens, I must beg you not to interrupt me, even if I seem to say something
extravagant. For the word which I will speak is not mine. I will refer you to a witness
who is worthy of credit, and will tell you about my wisdom—whether I have any, and of
what sort—and that witness shall be the god of Delphi. You must have known Chaerephon; he was early a friend of mine, and also a friend of yours, for he shared in the exile
of the people, and returned with you. Well, Chaerephon, as you know, was very impetuous in all his doings, and he went to Delphi and boldly asked the oracle to tell him
whether—as I was saying, I must beg you not to interrupt—he asked the oracle to tell
him whether there was anyone wiser than I was, and the Pythian prophetess answered
that there was no man wiser. Chaerephon is dead himself, but his brother, who is in
court, will confirm the truth of this story. Why do I mention this? Because I am going to
explain to you why I have such an evil name. When I heard the answer, I said to myself,
“What can the god mean and what is the interpretation of this riddle? I know that I have
no wisdom, great or small. What can he mean when he says that I am the wisest of men?
And yet he is a god and cannot lie; that would be against his nature.” After a long consideration, I at last thought of a method of trying the question. I reflected that if I could
only find a man wiser than myself, then I might go to the god with a refutation in my
hand. I should say to him, “Here is a man who is wiser than I am; but you said that I
was the wisest.”
• In the passage you just read, what did the god say about Socrates through the voice
of the prophetess?
• How does Socrates propose to disprove the god’s statement?
• In the next passage, what advantage does Socrates say he has over the politicians of
his day?
Accordingly I went to one who had the reputation of wisdom, and observed to him—his
name I need not mention; he was a politician whom I selected for examination—and the
result was as follows: When I began to talk with him, I could not help thinking that he
was not really wise, although he was thought wise by many, and wiser still by himself;
and I went and tried to explain to him that he thought himself wise, but was not really
wise; and the consequence was that he hated me, and his hatred was shared by several
who were present and heard me. So I left him, saying to myself, as I went away: “Well,
although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I
18
CHAPTER 1
Law35877_c01_001-047.indd 18
INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHICAL JOURNEY
10/22/10 2:59 PM
am better off than he is—for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither
know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have an advantage
over him.” Then I went to another, who had still higher philosophical pretensions, and
my conclusion was exactly the same. I made another enemy of him, and of many others
besides him.
After this I went to one man after another, being aware of the hatred which I provoked, and I lamented and feared this: but necessity was laid upon me. The word of the
god, I thought, ought to be considered first. And I said to myself, “I must go to all who
appear to know, and find out the meaning of the oracle.” And I swear to you, Athenians,
by the dog I swear!—for I must tell you the truth—the result of my mission was just
this: I found that the men most in repute were all but the most foolish; and that some
inferior men were really wiser and better.
I will tell you the tale of my wanderings and of the “Herculean” labors, as I may call
them, which I endured only to find at last the oracle irrefutable. When I left the politicians, I went to the poets; tragic, dithyrambic, and all sorts. And there, I said to myself,
you will be detected; now you will find out that you are more ignorant than they are.
Accordingly, I took them some of the most elaborate passages in their own writings, and
asked what was the meaning of them—thinking that they would teach me something.
Will you believe me? I am almost ashamed to speak of this, but still I must say that there
is hardly a person present who would not have talked better about their poetry than they
did themselves. That showed me in an instant that not by wisdom do poets write poetry,
but by a sort of genius and inspiration; they are like diviners or soothsayers who also say
many fine things, but do not understand the meaning of them. And the poets appeared
to me to be much in the same case; and I further observed that upon the strength of
their poetry they believed themselves to be the wisest of men in other things in which
they were not wise. So I departed, conceiving myself to be superior to them for the same
reason that I was superior to the politicians.
At last I went to the artisans, for I was conscious that I knew nothing at all, as I may
say, and I was sure that they knew many fine things; and in this I was not mistaken, for
they did know many things of which I was ignorant, and in this they certainly were wiser
than I was. But I observed that even the good artisans fell into the same error as the
poets; because they were good workmen they thought that they also knew all sorts of
high matters, and this defect in them overshadowed their wisdom. Therefore I asked
myself on behalf of the oracle, whether I would like to be as I was, neither having their
knowledge nor their ignorance, or like them in both. I answered to myself and the oracle
that I was better off as I was. This investigation has led to my having many enemies of
the worst and most dangerous kind, and has given occasion also to many falsehoods. I
am called wise, for my hearers always imagine that I myself possess the wisdom which I
find wanting in others.
Socrates is still convinced that he is ignorant and has nothing to teach, but now he
knows why the god said he was wiser than anyone else in Athens.
• In what way is he wise?
In the next passage, Socrates anticipates that the court may let him go free on the condition that he cease to do philosophy and stop asking his annoying questions.
• What is his response to this potential offer of a plea bargain?
• What does he say is the mistake that the citizens of Athens are making?
• What does Socrates see as his mission?
Socrates and the Search for Wisdom
Law35877_c01_001-047.indd 19
19
10/22/10 2:59 PM
Men of Athens, I honor and love you; but I shall obey the god rather than you, and
while I have life and strength I shall never cease from the practice and teaching of philosophy, exhorting anyone whom I meet after my manner, and convincing him, saying: O
my friend, why do you who are a citizen of the great and mighty and wise city of Athens,
care so much about laying up the greatest amount of money and honor and reputation,
and so little about wisdom and truth and the greatest improvement of the soul, which
you never regard or heed at all? Are you not ashamed of this? And if the person with
whom I am arguing says: Yes, but I do care; I do not depart or let him go at once; I
interrogate and examine and cross-examine him, and if I think that he has no virtue, but
only says that he has, I reproach him with undervaluing the greater, and overvaluing the
less. And this I should say to everyone whom I meet, young and old, citizen and alien,
but especially to the citizens, inasmuch as they are my brethren. For this is the command
of the god, as I would have you know; and I believe that to this day no greater good has
ever happened in the state than my service to the god.
I do nothing but go about persuading you all, old and young alike, not to take
thought for your persons and your properties, but first and chiefly to care about the
greatest improvement of the soul. I tell you that virtue is not given by money, but that
from virtue come money and every other good of man, public as well as private. This is
my teaching, and if this is the doctrine which corrupts the youth, my influence is ruinous
indeed. But if anyone says that this is not my teaching, he is speaking an untruth.
Wherefore, O men of Athens, I say to you, do as Anytus bids or not as Anytus bids, and
either acquit me or not; but whatever you do, know that I shall never alter my ways, not
even if I have to die many times.
STOP AND THINK
• Socrates has accused his fellow citizens of not keeping their priorities straight. If
Socrates were to cross-examine you, what examples might he find in your life of
placing great value on that which is trivial and undervaluing that which is of
utmost importance?
• Socrates was a man who had a sense of mission in life—a mission that he would
not forsake even to save his life. You, no doubt, are planning to get an education
and to pursue a career that will give you an income. Apart from simply earning
income, do you have a sense of mission in life?
• If so, how would you describe your mission?
• Is it important to have a sense of mission about your life? Why?
• In the next passage, why do you think that Socrates says that a bad person cannot
harm a good person? Do you agree with this statement? Why?
• Why does Socrates think that his accusers (Meletus and Anytus) are harming themselves by prosecuting him?
Men of Athens, do not interrupt, but hear me; there was an agreement between us that
you should hear me out. And I think that what I am going to say will do you good: for I
have something more to say, at which you may be inclined to cry out; but I beg that you
will not do this. I would have you know that, if you kill such a one as I am, you will
injure yourselves more than you will injure me. Meletus and Anytus will not injure me:
they cannot; for it is not in the nature of things that a bad man should injure one better
20
CHAPTER 1
Law35877_c01_001-047.indd 20
INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHICAL JOURNEY
10/22/10 2:59 PM
than himself. I do not deny that he may, perhaps, kill him, or drive him into exile, or
deprive him of civil rights; and he may imagine, and others may imagine, that he is
doing him a great injury: but in that I do not agree with him; for the evil of doing as
Anytus is doing—of unjustly taking away another man’s life—is far greater.
• In the next passage, Socrates says to the jury that he is arguing not for his sake but
for theirs. Why does he think that it is the citizens of Athens who are really being
judged by the outcome of this trial and not him?
• Socrates goes on to compare himself to a gadfly (a large horsefly). Why does he
describe himself in this way?
• What evidence does he give that his intentions were to unselfishly serve the people
of Athens?
And now, Athenians, I am not going to argue for my own sake, as you may think, but
for yours, that you may not sin against the god, or lightly reject his favor by condemning
me. For if you kill me you will not easily find another like me, who, if I may use such a
ludicrous figure of speech, am a sort of gadfly, given to the state by the god; and the state
is like a great and noble steed who is tardy in his motions owing to his very size, and
requires to be stirred into life. I am that gadfly which the god has given the state and all
day long and in all places am always fastening upon you, arousing and persuading and
reproaching you. And as you will not easily find another like me, I would advise you to
spare me. I dare say that you may feel irritated at being suddenly awakened when you are
caught napping; and you may think that if you were to strike me dead, as Anytus advises,
which you easily might, then you would sleep on for the remainder of your lives, unless
the god in his care of you gives you another gadfly. And that I am given to you by God is
proved by this: If I had been like other men, I should not have neglected all my own
concerns, or patiently seen the neglect of them during all these years, and have been
doing yours, coming to you individually, like a father or elder brother, exhorting you to
regard virtue; this I say, would not be like human nature. And had I gained anything, or
if my exhortations had been paid, there would have been some sense in that; but now, as
you will perceive, not even the impudence of my accusers dares to say that I have ever
exacted or sought pay of anyone. They have no witness of that. And I have a witness of
the truth of what I say; my poverty is a sufficient witness.
STOP AND THINK
Ask yourself the following questions:
• Who have been the gadflies in my life?
• Who were the people who challenged me and made me uncomfortable, but in
doing so, made me a better person?
• In what way did they perform this role for me?
The list may include persons that you know, such as family, friends, or teachers; persons
you have read about; and books, movies, or songs that have changed you.
In a trial such as Socrates’, the defendant was expected to weep and beg for mercy
from the court. He was also expected to bring his children, relatives, and friends into the
courtroom to plead on his behalf. However, Socrates refused to resort to these emotional
Socrates and the Search for Wisdom
Law35877_c01_001-047.indd 21
21
10/22/10 2:59 PM
strategies, for he wanted to do as he always had done, to argue forcefully for the truth. If
he was to be judged, he wanted to be judged on the basis of his life and ideas.
When the verdict was announced, 280 of the jury had declared him guilty and 220
voted for acquittal; the prosecutor recommended the death penalty. The custom in the
Athenian court was for the defendant to now propose his own penalty and try to convince
the jury to accept a lesser punishment. If Socrates had proposed that he be sent into exile,
never to return to Athens, he might have satisfied his accusers. But Socrates would not play
their game. He argued that he had been sent by his personal god to serve the citizens of
Athens with his probing questions and he had done nothing but provide a great benefit to
the city. Therefore, he proposed that he should receive what he really deserved and that was
the honor reserved for the winners in the Olympics and the military heroes—a lifetime of
free meals at the banquet table of the state’s heroes. What was perceived as extraordinary
arrogance turned the crowd against him, and the vote for the death penalty won by an even
larger majority than before: 360 to 140.
After this crushing verdict, Socrates continued to philosophize in his final speech to the
jury. The real danger in life is not death, he said, but living an evil life. We should not be
willing to do or say anything to avoid death, thinking that by corrupting our souls we have
gained any advantage.
The difficulty, my friends, is not in avoiding death, but in avoiding unrighteousness; for
that runs faster than death. I am old and move slowly, and the slower runner has overtaken me, and my accusers are keen and quick, and the faster runner, who is unrighteousness, has overtaken them. And now I depart hence condemned by you to suffer the
penalty of death, and they, too, go their ways condemned by the truth to suffer the penalty of wickedness and wrong. I must abide by my award—let them abide by theirs. I
suppose that these things may be regarded as fated—and I think that they are as they
should be. . . .
Wherefore, O judges, be of good cheer about death, and know this truth—that no
evil can happen to a good man, either in life or after death. He and his are not neglected
by the gods; nor has my own approaching end happened by mere chance. But I see
clearly that to die and be released was better for me; and therefore my inner spiritual
voice gave no sign. For which reason also, I am not angry with my accusers, or my condemners. They have done me no harm, although neither of them meant to do me any
good; and for this I may gently blame them. . . .
The hour of departure has arrived, and we go our different ways—I to die, and you to
live. Which is better only the god knows.
Socrates lived and died a philosopher—a lover of wisdom. Wisdom was, he thought, the
most important goal we could pursue. Without it, we would be cursed with the most dire
poverty a person could endure. The survey in “Philosophy in the Marketplace” asks you to
think about and have others think about what it means to be wise.
SOCRATES’ METHOD
If wisdom is the most important goal in life to Socrates, how did he go about pursuing it?
Socrates’ method of doing philosophy was to ask questions. That method was so effective
that it has become one of the classic techniques of education; it is known as the Socratic
method, or Socratic questioning. Plato referred to the method as dialectic, which comes
from a Greek word for conversation. Typically, Socrates’ philosophical conversations go
22
CHAPTER 1
Law35877_c01_001-047.indd 22
INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHICAL JOURNEY
10/22/10 2:59 PM
Ask at least five people from different backgrounds the following questions:
1. Name at least three commonly known persons (living or dead) whom you consider to be wise.
2. Why do you consider these persons to be wise?
Note: The stipulation to choose commonly known people is meant to rule out relatives and others whom most people would not know. A subject who answers with only
religious leaders (e.g., Buddha, Solomon, or Jesus) should be asked also for some other
examples in order to guarantee variety.
Review the answers: Are any categories of people notable by their absence? (e.g., were
any women mentioned? artists? scientists?) Are any categories of people notable by
their frequency? (e.g., are most of the people mentioned political figures? religious figures?) Were any philosophers mentioned? Do you find any other patterns in the
answers? What can we learn about people’s notions of wisdom from this survey? Do
you agree with these conceptions of wisdom? Why?
S
PHILOSOPHY
in the
MARKETPLACE
through seven stages as he and his partner continually move toward a greater understanding
of the truth:
1. Socrates unpacks the philosophical issues in an everyday conversation. (The genius
of Socrates was his ability to find the philosophical issues lurking in even the most
mundane of topics.)
2. Socrates isolates a key philosophical term that needs analysis.
3. Socrates professes ignorance and requests the help of his companion.
4. Socrates’ companion proposes a definition of the key term.
5. Socrates analyzes the definition by asking questions that expose its weaknesses.
6. The subject produces another definition, one that improves on the earlier one.
(This new definition leads back to step 5, and on close examination the new definition is once again found to fail. Steps 5 and 6 are repeated several times.)
7. The subject is made to face his own ignorance. (Finally, the subject realizes he is
ignorant and is now ready to begin the search for true wisdom. Often, however,
the subject finds some excuse to end the conversation or someone else makes an
attempt at a new definition.)
Socrates’ hope in utilizing this method was that in weeding out incorrect understandings, he and his conversational partner would be moving toward a clearer picture of the
true answer. Because Socrates believed that the truth about the ultimate issues in life lay
deeply hidden within us, this process of unpacking the truth within was like that of a
midwife helping a mother in labor bring forth her child.
One of Socrates’ most skillful techniques for showing the weakness of someone’s position was his use of the reductio ad absurdum form of argument. This term means “reducing
to an absurdity.” Socrates would begin by assuming that his opponent’s position is true and
then show that it logically implies either an absurdity or a conclusion that contradicts other
conclusions held by the opponent. Deducing a false statement from a proposition proves
that the original assumption was false.
You can view the Socratic method in action by working through a passage from Plato’s
dialogue the Republic. (Because Socrates did philosophy by engaging in conversations and
not by writing, everything we know about him comes from the writings of Plato and other
contemporaries. Plato’s earlier dialogues, such as the Apology, are thought to represent the
Socrates and the Search for Wisdom
Law35877_c01_001-047.indd 23
23
10/22/10 2:59 PM
historical Socrates. The Republic was written in Plato’s middle period. The ideas, while
expressed through the voice of Socrates, are thought to be Plato’s own elaboration on and
expansion of his teacher’s thought.) The story begins with Socrates and his friends meeting
in town on the occasion of a religious festival. They end up at the home of Polemarchus
and meet his father, Cephalus, a retired and wealthy businessman. Cephalus talks about the
joys of growing old and the virtue of having lived a fulfilled life. Socrates is keenly interested in what he has to say and begins to ask him about what has filled his life with peace
and happiness. At this point in the story, we begin at the first step of Socrates’ philosophical dialectic.
Unpacking the Philosophical Issues
Cephalus replies that the secret of his peace and happiness is a life lived on the basis of
justice and piety. Socrates then begins to ask Cephalus about his concept of justice, which
takes the two men to the next step of the dialectic.
Isolating a Key Philosophical Term
The result is that Socrates examines Cephalus’s and the others’ notions of justice and finds
that none of their definitions is satisfactory. At that point, Thrasymachus, a rather smug
and outspoken teacher, cannot contain himself any more and jumps into the conversation.
He insists that Socrates stop playing games with them and offer his own definition of justice. As usual, Socrates claims that he is not knowledgeable on this issue and begs Thrasymachus to enlighten him with his wisdom. Thus, Socrates begins his conversation with
Thrasymachus at the third step of his dialectic.
Professing Ignorance and Requesting Help
The following passage begins with Thrasymachus’s cynical reply.
A
F R O M P L ATO
Republic 8
Behold, he said, the wisdom of Socrates; he refuses to teach himself, and goes about
learning of others, to whom he never even says thank you.
That I learn of others, I replied, is quite true; but that I am ungrateful I wholly deny.
Money I have none, and therefore I pay in praise, which is all I have: and how ready I
am to praise any one who appears to me to speak well you will very soon find out when
you answer; for I expect that you will answer well.
Having flattered Thrasymachus’s rather enormous ego, Socrates moves the conversation
to the fourth step of his dialectic.
Proposing a Definition
•
•
•
•
24
CHAPTER 1
Law35877_c01_001-047.indd 24
In the next passage, identify Thrasymachus’s definition of justice.
What arguments could be made in favor of this definition of justice?
What are some of the implications of this definition?
Does Thrasymachus offer a satisfactory notion of justice? Why?
INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHICAL JOURNEY
10/22/10 2:59 PM
Listen, then, he said; I proclaim that justice is nothing else than the interest of the
stronger. And now why do you not applaud me? But of course you won’t.
Let me first understand you, I replied. Justice, as you say, is the interest of the stronger. What, Thrasymachus, is the meaning of this? . . .
Well, he said, have you never heard that forms of government differ; there are tyrannies, and there are democracies, and there are aristocracies?
Yes, I know.
And the government is the ruling power in each state?
Certainly.
And the different forms of government make laws democratic, aristocratic, tyrannical,
with a view to their several interests; and these laws, which are made by them for their
own interests, are the justice which they deliver to their subjects, and he who transgresses
them they punish as a breaker of the law, and unjust. And that is what I mean when I say
that in all states there is the same principle of justice, which is the interest of the government; and as the government must be supposed to have power, the only reasonable conclusion is, that everywhere there is one principle of justice, which is the interest of the
stronger.
With Thrasymachus’s definition on the table, Socrates now moves to the next step of his
philosophical method.
Analyzing the Definition by Asking Questions
In the following passage, notice how Socrates uses a reductio ad absurdum argument to
show that Thrasymachus’s position leads to a contradictory conclusion. Socrates’ love of
irony is evident at the end of this passage as he refers to Thrasymachus as the “wisest of
men” just as he demolishes Thrasymachus’s position.
• What is the contradictory conclusion that Socrates infers from the definition?
• How do you think Thrasymachus could modify his definition to avoid this absurd
conclusion?
• Set out the steps of Socrates’ argument in this passage.
Now I understand you, I said; and whether you are right or not I will try to
discover. . . . Now we are both agreed that justice is interest of some sort, but you go
on to say “of the stronger”; about this addition I am not so sure, and must therefore
consider further.
Proceed.
I will; and first tell me, Do you admit that it is just for subjects to obey their rulers?
I do.
But are the rulers of states absolutely infallible, or are they sometimes liable to err?
To be sure, he replied, they are liable to err.
Then in making their laws they may sometimes make them rightly, and sometimes
not?
True.
When they make them rightly, they make them agreeably to their interest; when they
are mistaken, contrary to their interest; you admit that?
Yes.
And the laws which they make must be obeyed by their subjects,—and that is what
you call justice?
Socrates and the Search for Wisdom
Law35877_c01_001-047.indd 25
25
10/22/10 2:59 PM
Doubtless.
Then justice, according to your argument, is not only obedience to the interest of the
stronger but the reverse?
What is that you are saying? he asked.
I am only repeating what you are saying, I believe. But let us consider: Have we not
admitted that the rulers may be mistaken about their own interest in what they command, and also that to obey them is justice? Has not that been admitted?
Yes.
Then you must also have acknowledged justice not to be for the interest of the stronger, when the rulers unintentionally command things to be done which are to their own
injury. For if, as you say, justice is the obedience which the subject renders to their commands, in that case, O wisest of men, is there any escape from the conclusion that the
weaker are commanded to do, not what is for the interest of the stronger, but what is for
the injury of the stronger? . . .
To summarize Socrates’ argument thus far, he has begun with Thrasymachus’s definition: (a) To be just is to do what is in the interest of the stronger person. However, Socrates
has gotten him to admit that those in power can sometimes be mistaken as to what is in
their own best interest. If so, then the rulers can foolishly pass laws that will not serve their
interests. (Such is often the case in tyrannical governments where the laws become so
oppressive they drive people to revolution.) However, because Thrasymachus has said that
it is just for subjects to obey their powerful rulers, it follows that there will be occasions
when the subjects will be required to obey laws that are not in the interest of the stronger
person. In other words, we now have the conclusion (b): To be just is to do what is not in
the interest of the stronger person. So, Thrasymachus has been led to assert both statements
(A) and (B), but these statements contradict each other. If one’s position leads to a contradiction, then the position cannot be true.
At this point, two members of the group, Polemarchus and Cleitophon, argue over
whether Socrates has trapped Thrasymachus. To resolve their debate, Socrates asks Thrasymachus to clarify his position. This response gives Thrasymachus the chance to add an
important qualification to his definition to avoid the contradiction Socrates has exposed.
We are now at the sixth step of Socrates’ dialectical method.
Producing an Improved Definition
• How does Thrasymachus modify the notion of ruler from that of his original
definition?
Tell me, Thrasymachus, I said, did you mean by justice what the stronger thought to
be his interest, whether it really is so or not?
Certainly not, he said. Do you suppose that I call he who is mistaken the stronger at
the time when he is mistaken?
Yes, I said, my impression was that you did so, when you admitted that the ruler was
not infallible but might be sometimes mistaken.
You argue like a quibbler, Socrates. Do you mean, for example, that he who is mistaken about the sick is a physician in that he is mistaken? or that he who errs in arithmetic or grammar is an arithmetician or grammarian at the time when he is making the
mistake, in respect of the mistake? True, we say that the physician or arithmetician or
grammarian has made a mistake, but this is only a way of speaking; for the fact is that
neither the grammarian nor any other person of skill ever makes a mistake in so far as he
26
CHAPTER 1
Law35877_c01_001-047.indd 26
INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHICAL JOURNEY
10/22/10 2:59 PM
is what his name implies; they none of them err unless their skill fails them, and then
they cease to be skilled artists. No artist or sage or ruler errs at the time when he is what
his name implies; though he is commonly said to err, and I adopted the common mode
of speaking. But to be perfectly accurate, since you are such a lover of accuracy, we
should say that the ruler, in so far as he is the ruler, is unerring, and, being unerring,
always commands that which is for his own interest; and the subject is required to execute his commands; and therefore, as I said at first and now repeat, justice is the interest
of the stronger.
In the previous passage, Socrates goaded Thrasymachus into thinking about the ideals
that are embodied in any profession. Thus Socrates gets him to admit that a physician who
harms a patient is not really fulfilling the ideals of medicine, but is only acting as a would-be
physician. In this way Socrates tricks Thrasymachus into saying that someone is a true ruler,
strictly speaking, only when he or she is faithfully practicing the skill of ruling.
By using analogies from the arts of medicine, horsemanship, and piloting, Socrates gets
his companion to admit that true rulers are those who look after the interests of their subjects and do not merely serve their own, selfish interests. The next passage begins with
the voice of Socrates as he repeats the cycle of his dialectic on the new, revised definition
of justice.
Reanalyzing the Definition by Asking More Questions
• Follow the steps of Socrates’ argument by analogy as he gets Thrasymachus to
reverse his original position.
Is the physician, taken in that strict sense of which you are speaking, a healer of
the sick or a maker of money? And remember that I am now speaking of the true
physician.
A healer of the sick, he replied. . . .
Now, I said, doesn’t every art have some interest which it serves?
Certainly.
And does not every art exist to consider and provide for these interests?
Yes, that is the aim of art.
And the interest of any art is to be as perfect as possible—this and nothing else?
What do you mean?
I mean what I may illustrate negatively by the example of the body. Suppose you were
to ask me whether the body is self-sufficing or has wants, I should reply: Certainly the
body has wants; for the body may be ill and require to be cured, and has therefore interests to which the art of medicine ministers; and this is the origin and intention of medicine, as you will acknowledge. Am I not right?
Quite right, he replied. . . .
Then medicine does not consider the interest of medicine, but the interest of the
body?
True, he said.
Nor does the art of horsemanship consider the interests of the art of horsemanship,
but the interests of the horse; neither do any other arts care for themselves, for they have
no needs; they care only for that which is the subject of their art?
True, he said.
But surely, Thrasymachus, the arts are the superiors and rulers of their own
subjects?
Socrates and the Search for Wisdom
Law35877_c01_001-047.indd 27
27
10/22/10 2:59 PM
To this he assented with a good deal of reluctance.
Then, I said, no science or art considers or commands the interest of the stronger or
superior, but only the interest of the subject and weaker?
He made an attempt to contest this proposition also, but finally acquiesced.
Then, I continued, no physician, in so far as he is a physician, considers his own good
in what he prescribes, but the good of his patient; for the true physician is also a ruler
having the human body as a subject, and is not a mere money-maker; that has been
admitted?
Yes.
And the pilot likewise, in the strict sense of the term, is a ruler of sailors and not a
mere sailor?
That has been admitted.
And such a pilot and ruler will provide and prescribe for the interest of the sailor who
is under him, and not for his own or the ruler’s interest?
He gave a reluctant “Yes.”
Then, I said, Thrasymachus, there is no one in any rule who, in so far as he is a ruler,
considers or enjoins what is for his own interest, but always what is for the interest of his
subject or suitable to his art; to that he looks, and that alone he considers in everything
which he says and does.
When we had got to this point in the argument . . . every one saw that the definition
of justice had been completely upset.
At this point, the first round of Socrates’ intellectual bout with Thrasymachus comes to
an end. With Thrasymachus’s initial definition of justice defeated, we reach the seventh
step of Socrates’ dialectic.
Facing Ignorance
Thrasymachus is bloodied, but not defeated. He tacitly admits Socrates’ point that justice
is serving the interests of one’s subjects. But now he takes a totally new approach and says
that injustice is the only lifestyle that is profitable and is the one that the smart person
would choose. So, instead of continuing to tout his perverse definition of justice (which
Socrates has unraveled), Thrasymachus now makes injustice the ideal. Socrates’ refutation
of this thesis takes up most of the remainder of the Republic, and it leads him into a largescale discussion of human nature, knowledge, reality, morality, and politics.
SOCRATES’ TEACHINGS
As you may suspect, Socrates had some opinions about the practical value of philosophy.
His trial illustrated the fact that his main philosophical concern was with ethics. Although
he also philosophized about such topics as the nature of knowledge, the nature of reality,
human nature, religion, and political philosophy, Socrates was interested in those topics
primarily for the light they could shed on the question, How should we live if we are to be
successful and fulfilled human beings? Socrates’ teachings on this issue can be summarized
in three theses. After listing them, I discuss each one in turn.
1. The unexamined life is not worth living.
2. The most important task in life is caring for the soul (the real person).
3. A good person cannot be harmed by others.
28
CHAPTER 1
Law35877_c01_001-047.indd 28
INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHICAL JOURNEY
10/22/10 2:59 PM
The Unexamined Life Is Not Worth Living
As was evident from his remarks at his trial, Socrates was concerned that his contemporaries were like dozing cattle who, at the end of their life, would sleepily look around, not
knowing who they were, why they were that way, or what their life had been all about. In
contrast, Socrates chose as his motto the inscription on the temple at Delphi: “Know thyself.” The examined life and examined beliefs lead to lives that are responsible and fully
awake. To use a metaphorical cliché, everyone in Socrates’ society was so busy “keeping the
ball rolling,” they had never asked what the ball was, or why it was so important to keep it
rolling, or where it was going. For Socrates, what is important was not so much what we
do, for our activities and careers can change. What is important is who we are and who we
are trying to become. Socrates’ thesis is that making oneself as good as possible is the true
goal in life and the key to genuine success.
The Most Important Task in Life Is Caring for the Soul
According to Socrates, the soul is not some ghostly shadow accompanying us, as Homer
and the Greek poets assumed. Instead, the soul is the real person. It is our core personality
or character and is the source of all our thoughts, values, and decisions. The state of a
person’s soul makes him or her either foolish or wise. Like the body, the soul (or the inner
person) can be healthy or diseased, and for Socrates, ignorance is the most deadly disease
of the soul. Of course, this ignorance is not the kind of ignorance that could be cured by
memorizing an encyclopedia. Instead, the unhealthy soul is one that is ignorant of the true
priorities in life. Although Socrates seemed to have believed in life after death, this belief
was not his motive for being concerned about the moral health of his soul. As Gregory
Vlastos says,
The soul is as worth caring for if it were to last just twenty-four more hours, as if it
were to outlast eternity. If you have just one more day to live, and can expect nothing
but a blank after that, Socrates feels that you would still have all the reason you need
for improving your soul; you have yourself to live with that one day, so why live with
a worse self, if you could live with a better one instead?9
In Socrates’ day there was an influential group of philosophers known as the Sophists. The
Sophists were traveling educators who would offer practical courses for the payment of a
fee. One of their main teachings was skepticism, the belief that we cannot have knowledge.
Hence, to the Sophists, “moral goodness” and “truth” are just sounds that we make with
our mouths; they do not refer to anything. One opinion is just as good as another, they
taught. If we cannot know what is true or right, then the only goal in life is to achieve
success by whatever means possible. Accordingly, the Sophists taught their students how to
argue and how to influence people with their opinions. (Thrasymachus in the previous
reading was a leading Sophist.)
Socrates was upset that although the Sophists were offering people a map of how to get
through life, it was the wrong map. The Sophists claimed to teach people how to achieve
success; however, they and their students assumed that success meant achieving wealth,
fame, or power. To creatively superimpose the status symbols of our day onto theirs,
Socrates’ contemporaries thought that success meant driving a BMW chariot, wearing a
Calvin Klein tunic, being a high-priced lawyer charging 100 drachmas an hour, or getting
your picture on the front page of the Athens Times. But Socrates claimed that his contemporaries had not really examined what it meant to be a success in life. They were busy
trying to be successful businesspersons, politicians, lawyers, physicians, athletes, or artists,
Sophists traveling
educators during
Socrates’ day who would
offer practical courses
for a fee and who taught
the doctrine of
skepticism
skepticism the belief
that we cannot have
knowledge
Socrates and the Search for Wisdom
Law35877_c01_001-047.indd 29
29
10/22/10 2:59 PM
Socrates is probably one of the best known philosophers in history. See how much people know about him by asking 5 to 10 people who have not had a philosophy class the
following questions.
S
PHILOSOPHY
in the
MARKETPLACE
•
•
•
•
Who was Socrates?
What is the Socratic method of teaching?
What were some of Socrates’ teachings?
Why was he put to death by the people of Athens?
It might be uncharitable to criticize your friends’ answers unless they ask you what you
think. Nevertheless, after you have collected various answers, rank them according to
which ones you think are the most accurate and the least accurate. Based on your survey, how much does the general public know about Socrates?
but they never considered that realizing their potential as persons was the most important
occupation they had in life.
A Good Person Cannot Be Harmed by Others
This statement follows from the rest of Socrates’ teachings. If the real me, the most important part of who I am, is not my possessions nor the outward, physical part of me, then
no one can corrupt me or damage me from outside. An evil person can cause great pain
or even kill me, but what makes me the person I am cannot be affected or harmed by any
outward force. More precisely, I cannot be harmed by others unless, of course, I allow my
values, my beliefs, my emotions, and my direction in life to be influenced unthinkingly
by those around me. To paraphrase Socrates’ view, we can choose to be like driftwood,
floating on the surface of life, passively turning this way or that as each wave or gust of
wind influences our motion. In this case, we are allowing ourselves to be vulnerable to the
effects and harm produced by others. On the other hand, we can choose to be like the
captain of a sailboat who sets his or her own direction with the rudder and the sails. If we
set our sights on wisdom, then our values, like the keel of the boat, will keep us on the
course we set. We have to respond to the winds in society that are blowing about us, but
we are in control and we make the winds serve our purpose rather than being at their
mercy. Hence, the Socratic vision of the life of philosophical wisdom is one in which selfexamination leading to self-knowledge gives us the wisdom to care for the best part of
ourselves and liberates us from the control and harm of everything outside, making us
inner-directed and fulfilled persons.
30
CHAPTER 1
Law35877_c01_001-047.indd 30
INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHICAL JOURNEY
10/22/10 2:59 PM