Customer Reviews

The Last Days of Socrates (Penguin Classics)

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I wondered that why there isn't any church putting Jacque Louis-David's painting the Death of Socrates on the wall. If you hear the story of Socrates' sarcrifice, you would understand why this old man is worth of the worship from millions. Imagine you are in the situation of Socrates. Assume that you are a patriotic citizen of a country. For all the years of your life, you try to make your fellow citizen smart and do them goods by spending all your time making speeches on the streets, defending justice and teaching the students without any charges. Assume that you have annoyed the ruling class of this country and they prosecute you on the court for corrupting the youths of your country-they could not prove that though. Assume your fellow citizen vote and put you to death on the court for you are too poor to pay a satisfactory fine and reject to proclaiming justice in exchange for your release. Assume that your best friend asks you to escape from jail since it is unjust for you to accept this unreasonable condemnation, and he guarantees that all the financial problems would be taken care of and your friends who help you escape would not be suffered, so that you can live in the countries that you prefer and raise your children by yourselves. Is anybody there would refuse to escape? However, Socrates does. He launches three arugements. 1. We should never injury others on any circumstances. Escape from jail and breaks the laws is certainly an act that would put the Laws of Athens on the blink of destruction. 2. You should respect your country's command as if you respect your parents. Since a person's birth, his country provides the protections, regulates the supply of food and enriches him with education. Thus, a person shouls respect his country like or more than he respects his parents. 3. There is a contract between the government and the people. If a person does not like the Laws of a country, he can choose to leave it. If he chooses to stay, that means he signs the contract with government of not ! breaking the laws. If he does not break the laws, the government can't do anything on him. If he does, the government reserves the rights to punish him or even execute him.

This book comprises the last part of Socrates' life: Euthyphro, the cause of his accusation, The Apology ,his cross-interrogation at the court, Crito, his refusal to escape from jail, and Phaedo, his Sarcrifice. There are the most important chapters in Plato. The weight of Socrates' sarcrifice is like the cruxifiction of Christ; if he does not die, he is not the Messiah. So, if you don't have too much time to read the Complete Works of Plato, this book undoubtedly would be the best choice for you to understand Plato.

THE DEATH OF SOCRATES is a very inspiring book to read, especially now, when many of us may be facing the same situation he faced--though with a crucial difference. Whatever distortion of the real Socrates may have been introduced by Plato or other writers, enough comes through to paint a portrait of the first true individual in history-- the first person to be guided by his own individual conscience to do what is right, regardless of the consequences. Reading the Apology, one thrills to Socrates intransigence in the face of the Athenian jury which sentenced him to death. CRITO presents the best argument for government under law ever offered, and thus the beginning of the tradition of civil disobedience later taken up by Thoreau, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr. When Socrates' friend Crito urges him to flee, saying that most people will think he was really guilty if he does not, Socrates says, "Why should we pay so much attention to what most people think?" Then he engages in a symbolic dialogue with the Law of Athens, which can be thought of as comparable to the US Constitution. It is clear that he is grateful to the Laws for having given him the opportunity to be a dissenter. The crucial fact is that they have permitted him the right to attempt to persuade his fellow citizens by permitting him free speech. Even when he was arrested for his teachings, he was allowed to speak in his own defense. Although the verdict was unjust, he was a victim not of the Laws but of his fellow men. (p. 95)

However, the tradition of civil disobedience which Socrates founded is only meaningful in a democracy, where people have the right to dissent and to have a fair and public trial. And it is rapidly becoming obsolete. For on October 17, 2006, President Bush signed into law the Military Commissions Act, initiating the gravest crisis in US history, not excepting the Civil War, Pearl Harbor, and 9/11 itself. Congress has had over a year to repeal or amend that act but has failed to do so. Now it is up for review by the Supreme Court. If that body, now nearly half-filled with "rubber stamp" justices, fails to strike down the law as unconstitutional we shall have to resort to a very different tradition than that of Socrates, one which has its roots in medieval England, and was transformed in the 17th century into John Locke's social contract theory. Jefferson expressed it in the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence: speaking of the American colonists, he wrote, "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them to absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and provide new guards for their future security." Faced with the prospect of living in a society which would have made his dissenting individualism impossible, I'm sure Socrates would have agreed.

The life and legacy of Socrates can be interpreted in many different ways, and have been so interpreted. While that is frustrating, it could be argued that it's also inevitable. The words and deeds of great men have different effects on different people. Most scholars base their accounts of Socrates on Plato's dialogues, especially the four dialogues included in this volume: "Euthyphro", "Apology", "Crito" and "Phaedo". They deal with Socrates' trial, execution and death. And no, they don't answer the eternal questions. Rather, they raise more questions than they answer. But then, that's the point!

What makes Socrates so important? The reason, of course, is his philosophy. The whole point of philosophy is to reject tradition and revelation as automatic sources of knowledge, to be taken simply on faith. Instead, human reason is paramount. True, philosophy doesn't *necessarily* reject tradition and revelation, but it does say that such sources of knowledge should be scrutinized by reason. In this sense, philosophy is subversive and radical. At least in a society gone terribly wrong... I mean, who would need philosophy if society had been perfect?

Socrates wasn't the first philosopher, nor even necessarily the "best" one. The reason why his name has been associated with the philosophical endeavour is, of course, the story of his life and above all his death. Socrates became the first known martyr of philosophy, placing his conscience and convictions above politic. Socrates showed how dangerous philosophy can be, by questioning both the oligarchic regime of the Thirty Tyrants in Athens, and the later democracy. He was the perennial dissident, the man who questioned everyone and everything. Ironically, it was the democrats who had him railroaded and executed. A warning for the future?

I don't think Socrates was necessarily a "radical" in the modern sense of that term. He seems to have mingled in high society, and some of his friends and disciples had connections with the oligarchic regime. Neither his disciple Plato nor Plato's pupil Aristotle were democrats, not even by Greek standards. Socrates didn't seem to believe that society could be changed, and therefore tended to avoid politics, except when he was duty bound as a citizen to perform political tasks (he also fought as a soldier). In some ways, Socrates actually resembled a guru. His teachings were oral, he had a circle of admirers and disciples, and he may have imparted somewhat different teachings to each of them. There are also hints at a fundamentally religious worldview, as when Socrates says that a little god or daemon were giving him advice, when he talks of reincarnation and Heaven in "Phaedo", or when he takes seriously the oracular statements of the priestess at Delphi.

Yet, by his bold questioning of established politics, ethics and religion, Socrates nevertheless showed the radical potential of philosophy and rational discourse. On a more somber note, the trial and execution of Socrates also shows that some people, even in a democracy, simply can't stand the truth.

Free soup for Socrates? Still today, many people, rulers and commoners alike, would consider that proposal to be very provocative indeed.

...a 2400 year old work of philosophy? The question, itself, is not without philosophic interest.

Rather than presume to judge Plato, or Socrates, or Plato-as-Socrates, I will simply add my own voice to the chorus of general opinion and say: TLDoS is as resonant and, in its way, relevant, today as it was so many aeons ago. Though hardly a work of unassailable logic it is, nonetheless, a deeply thoughtful, imaginative, and passionately argued one. As I made my way through it, I had to remind myself, from time to time, that what I had before me was a work of ancient literature. Tredennick and Tarrant are to be commended for their eminently readable translation. As I am not a classicist, I cannot speak to the quality of the translation, but if the quality of the endnotes serves as any indication, I would venture to guess that the translation is first-rate.

A very complex Socrates -- as remembered, as imagined, and perhaps also as invented -- emerges from the four dialogues in TSDoS. That this same Socrates still has power to reach across the ages to confound, inspire, frustrate, entertain, and teach is as sure a testament to his legacy, and to the legacy of classical Greek philosophy, as any.

Read and learn.

In Athens, during the fifth century B.C., the Sophists were wise men. They were not philosophers, or scientists, they were itinerant teachers. Socrates was a moralist and a religious man. Plato was forty years younger than Socrates. THE APOLOGY and the CRITO are founded on fact, shaped by Plato's artistry, (he was a poet, also).

Socrates was indicted for impiety. A public action was brought against him as a menace to society. Orators and poets disliked Socrates's influence on the young. He asserted in THE APOLOGY that the true champion of justice must confine himself to private life. Socrates received the death penalty. He did not think he should stoop to servility because he was in danger.

Death is either annihilation or migration of the soul. Crito visited Socrates in prison. Crito urged him to escape. He claimed that Socrates was throwing away his life when he might save it. Socrates argued with Crito that he had no problem with the laws and, thus, he had a duty to be law-biding. Aiding Socrates's escape would be a breach of faith.

PHAEDO is the last conversation. Socrates believed a man should be cheerful in the face of death. A love of wisdom, not the body, makes a person cheerful. Soul resembles the divine, body resembles what is mortal. No soul which has not practiced philosophy may attain the divine nature. Pythagoreans have a theory of the soul. The soul is imperishable. Friends were admonished by Socrates to just be themselves. The philosopher faced death handily.

Amazing and wonderful, the three titles are a compelling work.

The only "sad case" is for the critic below, who while being an independant baptist minister, is so blinded by his prejudice as to ingore the universal truths in this book. The archetypal death of a martyr is described here in all its glory. Great Book!

Breaks down the old Greek text so everyone can understand. Easy read and a book well worth exploring.The Last Days of Socrates (Penguin Classics)

It is presumptuous to review the dialogues: they will outlast us all. This is a fine edition, with a wise choice of material. There could perhaps have been more discussion of the revolution in Socratic studies (initiated by Gregory Vlastos) over the past 40 years. One should add the volume on the Early Dialogues to get the true flavour of the strangeness of Socrates and the radical nature of his challenge. The hardest thing to capture in reading these dialogues is the flavour of the way in which Plato (who wrote them) is puzzled throughout by what happened: who is this person, and why does he act this way? It is as if he had to write them down so as to try and make out what the hell Socrates was up to. We touch on something Greek and mysterious (in the Greek sense of mystery) here -- every real commentator has been drawn into the Socratic vortex displayed in these moments. This helps characterize the strange, haunted, almost ritualistic tone that gathers depth as one approaches the end.

Although many accounts of Socrates' trial are known to have existed for some time after the actual events described by Plato, only Plato's and Xenophon's accounts survive. Both writers were sympathetic to Socrates, and so are somewhat suspect as to whether they adequately and accurately describe the full nature of the charges against Socrates. Plato, a 27-year-old admirer of Socrates at the time of the trial, describes the charges as being impiety (questioning the state sanctioned [poly]theology) and, thereby supposedly corrupting the minds of Athens' youth. A similar charge had, years earlier, driven Anaxagoras from Athens, but many scholars believe there were probably other factors involved in the case against Socrates. Here we find an intractable mystery (and some unwarranted speculations that are merely libelous)*.

Plato's telling of Socrates' last days consists in four parts:
(1.) Euthyphro: Socrates in Action. (2.) The Apology: Socrates on Trial. (3.) Crito: Socrates in Prison. (4.) Phaedo: The Last Conversation.

Euthyphro, The Apology, and Crito are better paced and more interesting than Phaedo, which is a long Socratic argument that the soul must possess some extra-material existence, which continues, or is somehow renewed, beyond corporeal death. I suspect that most readers will enjoy the first three sections of this text, but find the last (and longest) more of a chore; at least that is my opinion. Throughout the text, Plato presents Socrates as a man of both relentless curiosity and an admirable ethical heroism.

* As to the rather facile side bar discussion that seems to have been present in earlier reviews in this forum (while noting the forensic evidence indicating that the worst of these comments was deleted): Given the full weight of the available evidence, Socrates' supposed bisexuality can add up to nothing more than idle speculation. As to his relationships with young men, it cannot be confirmed that they involved males that were considered to be below an age at which they could accountably assent--and even more importantly, IF any such relationships were of a sexual nature at all. Given the available accounts, arguments that these were NOT sexual relationships seem clearly more defensible than (slanderous?) accusations that they were. In other words, as regards this charge, we simply enter an arena of irresolvable facts and potential slander. Why go there?! What we CAN glean from the only extant accounts of Socrates' character is that he considered himself to be one who strove to consistently abide by the highest ethical standards, and that this is consistent with Plato's account here. As cited in Phaedo, these comments of Socrates' seem particularly relevant to this [particular slander]: ". . . true philosophers abstain from all bodily desires and withstand them and do not yield to them. . . those who care about their souls and do not subordinate them to the body dissociate themselves firmly from these others and refuse to accompany them on their haphazard journey; and, believing that it is wrong to oppose philosophy with her offer of liberation and purification, they turn and follow her wherever she leads."

Too many are put off by the perception that ancient, Greek thought is too highfalutin. Granted, some of it is tough sledding, but this is not. There are even some humorous moments along the way.