• Part I: Socrates by Dr. Bin Song

Hallo, this is Bin Song from Washington College. In this episode of the series of “Introduction to Philosophy,” I will pursue one of the most daunting, yet exciting tasks as a philosophical instructor. That is to explain my understanding of Socrates.

I said this is one of the most daunting tasks to do, not because Socrates’s philosophy is abstruse and difficult so as to require a higher intelligence for its analysis. Neither is it because his philosophy was written in a very old language so as to need a sophisticated level of text-reading for scholars to grasp it. No, none of these normal reasons to understand a difficult philosopher applies here.

The primal reason for reading Socrates to be so challenging and exciting is, instead, that Socrates did not write a damn thing! Yes, he did not write down anything, and all we can know about him derives from how other authors wrote about him, such as Plato, Aris’tophanes and Xenopon. Let’s pause a bit to ponder this phenomenon and think about how amazing it is.

Although I am not sure of many things, I am very sure of this: Today, none of philosophers does not write. More probably, the survival of a philosophical scholar in the academy today would almost entirely depend upon how they publish, how they present, and in other words, how they turn their thoughts into ink, paper, digits and other materials. However, the forefather of western philosophy, who single-handedly turned the entire direction of ancient Greek thought from nature to humanity ourselves, and thus, became a name that is indispensable to the concept of “philosophy” ever since, did not even write down a damn thing!

Of course, scholars provided many answers to the question why Socrates did not write down anything. And after reading the original materials from which we can find witnesses to Socrates’ life, I also happen to have my own answer to this question. For instance, I think this is mainly because Socrates preferred talking with real people in the marketplace to writing papers or books for the circle of philosophical elite. The latter form of philosophizing may be thought of by Socrates to be too pedantic, rigid, and quite often, pretending to know something that the authors did not really know, or about which the authors simply would like to change their views quite readily when time passed by. However, all these answers still hang in the air, because after all, Socrates did not write down a damn thing. Even if we have zillions of answers to parse out Socrates’s philosophy, we still have to conclude our answers with another final question, that is, are these answers correct?

The same degree of perplexity can be used to describe Socrates’s attitude towards democracy. According to what we know, Socrates’s life experienced the devastating period of Peloponnesian war (431-401 B.C.E) during which the democratic Athens drastically declined from a regional empire to a diffident and despondent oligarchy after being defeated by its long-standing deadly rival, the Spartans. During this war, Socrates may have participated several of its major battles, but the most zealous activity out of his own will is always to go to the market place of the Athens, and to question all sorts of people about their conventional understandings of the world, their time, and their own persons. After democracy resumed, Socrates was put to death by the democratically elected Athenian court. And Socrates’s self-defense in this trial, according to Plato’s writing the Apology, can be summarized in this following way, which is no less perplexing to modern readers: Socrates said that

First, the charges against me, namely, impiety and corruption of youth, are absolutely non-sense.

Second, however, because the judgement is delivered by a democracy, I will still obey it.

And third, if I choose to be exiled from the Athens, rather than being executed, I will lose my life of continually questioning and examining human life together with my city fellows for ever, and this is more unbearable than death.

So, in a word, according to Socrates’s view, he would like to die for a democracy that allows a life of questioning, rather than living to avoid a wrong judgment, a wrong answer. To put it in a more blunt way, Socrates would like to die for questioning, even if this questioning can lead to seriously wrong answers.

Nevertheless, I believe any one, as long as they once lived under different types of governments, especially an authoritarian in contrast with a democratic one, will find that Socrates’s argument in his self-defense, and his attitude towards democracy in general, actually make a lot of sense. The sense mainly derives from the fact that in non-democratic states, their citizens do not have much a right of questioning. They have all the answers given beforehand, and thus, have no need to challenge any answer, or even no need to ask any questions and think through them by themselves. However, in a democracy, even if the people may be very ill-informed, and they answer questions in a profoundly wrong and disappointing way, at least, individuals can still question those answers if they like to, right? In a democracy, even if you refuse to think for yourself, which is very unfortunate and even immoral, the right of vote implies that at least in paper, you should have already thought for yourself when you cast the vote. So, the criteria for us to evaluate an authoritarian government vis-a-vis a democratic one, according to Socrates’s heroic deed of philosophical martyrdom , should not be only about what correct answers these governments can give to resolve problems in a society, but more importantly, the standard should be also about whether the government can allow its people to continue asking questions, to express their dissatisfaction about given answers, and to pursue their curiosity and interest in a diverse and whole-hearted way.

So, understood as such, the seemingly perplexing nature of Socrate’s life and Socrates’s philosophy becomes highly understandable. Perhaps, for Socrates, continually asking questions and discussing questions in the right way are more important than having any ready-made answers. The following three examples will help you understand why this is so.

First, why does Socrates think that he is wise because he knows he knows nothing, whereas no one else knows that they know nothing? This is because in order for humans to continually ask questions, none of us can be so arrogant as to think we already have the absolute knowledge on any issue. If we think so, dialogue will become unnecessary, and questioning will be forbidden, and therefore, humans will become more foolish, rather than wiser.

Second, why does Socrates think that virtuous life is the best life of human beings, and virtue is the reward of practicing virtue itself? Obviously, Asking questions and discussing them in a logical and reasonable way requires lots of virtues: we must be patient, we must respect our interlocutors, we must be honest about what we know and what we do not know, we also need to be courageous to admit our own ignorance or to reveal others’ if necessary, and we also need to care about the well-being of others because we do not want them to be misguided by false knowledge, etc. See, there are so many virtues that we need to acquire in order that questioning can be continually conducted. However, do we need to be benefited from the consequence of these virtues in order that we can practice them? No, according to Socrates, even if questioning leads to seriously wrong answers, we still need, and even need more, to continue the questioning. So, the process of practicing virtues is far more rewarding than the consequences of them.

Finally, why does Socrates think that unexamined life is not worth living, and his divine mission is to be a gadfly to the Athenian democracy so as to make his Athenian fellows stay away from complacency and intellectual stagnancy? That’s because democracy represents a noble ideal of human life that humans can actually govern themselves, and choose their own way of life based upon their full and sincere intellectual assent. Quite obviously, this ideal is based upon the guarantee of the right of questioning, rather than upon any ready-made answer to any type of questions.

So, let’s go back to the original question of this episode, as a philosopher, did Socrates give us any answer to questions we can ask about his thought? I think the answer to this question is both no and yes. No, he does not give us any doctrine, any theory, or any ready-made answer to any question. However, the answer to this question can also be yes. Yes, Socrates’s answer, if any, would lie exactly in the fact that he just wants us to continually ask questions, think for ourselves, and discuss all questions in a logical, methodical and improvable way.

However, am I correct on understanding Socrates as such? Do you agree or not? Have you read materials about Socrates so that you can debate with me? Do I read all of them? This list of questions will continue, and I am extremely happy to conclude this lecture with this list.

• Part II: Ten Key Points of Socrates’s Life

• Part III: Plato’s Apology, Ten Key Points

Quiz:

(1) Socrates didn’t write down anything, and scholars have to use other authors’ writing on him to investigate what are the life and philosophy of the historical Socrates. This is called the “Socratic Problem” in the studies on Socrates. Is this statement true or false.

A) True.
B) False.

(2) Which part of Plato’s writing is the more reliable account of Socrates’s thought?

A) Earlier one, such as the Apology.
B) Middle-period one, such as the Republic.
C) Later one, such as the Timaeus.

(3) By what charges was Socrates sent to death?

A) Impiety
B) Dishonesty
C) Corruption of the Youth.

(4) Socrates was told by the Oracle of Delphi as the wisest human among the Athenians. This is because

A) Socrates was the teacher of Plato.
B) Socrates transforms ancient Greek philosophy
C) Socrates knows that he knows nothing, but others do not know that they know nothing.

(5) Socrates demands that philosophers are different from sophists, because sophists teach people how to win arguments in the democratic assembly and thus, gain power, while philosophers use their argumentative skills to pursue wisdom for the sake of wisdom. Is this statement true of false?

A) True
B) False.

(6) Socrates transformed ancient Greek philosophy because he utilized the same method of rational criticism and open inquiry to discuss issues of human life, rather than nature, and thus, turned the attention of philosophy from nature to humanity ourselves. Is this statement true or false?

A) True
B) False.

7) How does Socrates defend himself in the trial? Do you agree with his defense? Please answer these questions using a couple of sentences.

8) What is the relationship between Socrates and ancient Greek democracy? Please answer this question using a couple of sentences.

Recommended Watch:

Recommended Reading:

Plato, the Apology . in Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 1. Translated by Harold North Fowler; Introduction by W.R.M. Lamb. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1966.