Customer Reviews

Socrates: The Great Philosophers (The Great Philosophers Series)

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

 

 

I had planned to purchase this book as a readable introduction to Socrates for an un-philosophical friend. I assumed that A.G., as a student of philosophy as well as a journalist, would have written a short and witty introduction to Socrates, suitable for a novice. But after reading some excerpts (at www.btinternet.com/~socratic/) I realized it was filled with dubious assumptions and serious errors.

To the latter charge. A.G. says that he is relying on Plato's Apology, because the "Socrates of Plato's Apology is the only Socrates there is, or has been for nearly all of the history of philosophy." This is simply false. Xenophon, a contemporary and friend of Socrates, also wrote an Apology for Socrates, where he discusses the surrounding events in (arguably) more reliable detail than Plato does. Xenophon also wrote dialogues of Socrates, and his famous "Memorabilia" or recollections of Socrates's life and deeds is another ancient source of information on Socrates. Now, one does not need a Ph.D. in philosophy to know about Xenophon. Any first year student in ancient philosophy or classics could tell you what I'm telling you - that's what makes A.G.'s omission so serious.

Regarding dubious assumptions, A.G. states about the Apology that there were "reasons to believe that in this work Plato tried harder to represent the real Socrates than he subsequently did elsewhere." What reasons, exactly? There is no way to tell in what respects the character "Socrates" in Plato's dialogues is like the real historical Socrates, let alone at what points Plato "tried harder" to represent him accurately. This is a particularly disingenuous claim for A.G., because he thinks Plato is the only source on Socrates - so what exactly is he comparing Plato's representation of Socrates to? After all, if the only information you have about a historical figure comes from one source, how do you know at which point your source is telling the truth? This same problem crops up continually in A.G.'s attempts to distinguish Plato from Socrates.

A.G.'s treatment of Plato is also misleading. Instead of making some aspects or arguments of Plato's dialogues accessible, A.G. paints a sketch of a math-obsessed elitist. It is irresponsible to focus exclusively on mathematics in expounding Plato to a novice, because no one is sure how much Plato took from Pythagoras. As for A.G.'s exposition of the "theory of forms," I invite anyone to compare it with its original sources in Plato's Republic, Timaeus and Parmenides or with almost any other introduction to Plato. Although the primary texts are difficult, their very difficulty ought to suggest how facile A.G.'s exposition is.

Where Plato is an elitist, Socrates is made out to be an "egalitarian" who "would have had little use for Plato's Forms or the rare skills needed to find them." Really? Plato was a pupil and follower of Socrates, so I'm only guessing that Plato's wacky ideas may have come up once or twice. Given their relationship, and Plato's reverence for Socrates, it is far more plausible that the two had more in common than they did to divide them. And again, where's the evidence? You won't find much serious scholarship that draws the sharp distinctions between Plato and Socrates that you find in A.G.

In sum, this book is written in clear, accessible and forceful prose, but these same qualities mask its serious flaws. From what I've read, I think it's a grossly misleading introduction to Socrates. There are far better introductions on the market - like those of Plato and Xenophon - so your money is best spent elsewhere.

Three substantial excerpts from the book, plus more information, are available online at http://www.btinternet.com/~socratic

Everyone knows Socrates. After all, he appeared in "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventures" (though viewers of that film will learn nothing about him except how to mispronounce his name). Other popular shows, such as Saturday Night Live, have also spoofed the redoubtable endlessly questioning gadfly of Greece's Golden Age. Without doubt, Socrates has probably made more appearances in mainstream culture than any other major philosopher. Doubtless his personal eccentricities contribute to this eternal personality cult. But what of the "real" philosopher? The mythical Socrates remains more generally famous for his willful drinking of hemlock in 399 BC than for any ideas or philosophy he expounded. His story is an impressive one. Unfortunately, we only know of this man from the sources of others. As far as the historical record shows, Socrates wrote nothing. He therefore remains a nebulous mystery accessible only via a circle of the few contemporaries who did write about him. This short 58-page book discusses these sources, and attempts to crystallize, as far as possible, Socrates' true philosophy.

The book starts with a somewhat romanticized view of the unsightly sage by referring to him as "philosophy's martyr." Though exaggerated and slightly misleading, Socrates did accept his hemlock on principle. After a short account of his bizarre behavior, related by troops who served with him, and a hilarious "beauty contest" dialog, the text dives into Socrates' trial as depicted in Plato's "Apology." Of all surviving accounts, Plato appears as Socrates' most dedicated devotee. In this famous trial, the restored Athenian democracy accused Socrates of defiling youth and disrespect towards the Gods. His response comprised less than legal brilliance: he claimed that he had helped Athens by his endless questioning and discoursing. Consequently, the state should provide him with free meals for the rest of his life. The court ruled for the death penalty. Socrates accepted his sentence and refused opportunities to escape. Was he afraid? Well, according to Plato he reacted to his verdict with the statement: "to be afraid of death is only another form of thinking that one is wise when one is not." In other words, why fear something we know nothing about? So he passed into principled history. The text gets controversial when it accuses Plato for using Socrates as a mouthpiece. After all, we only have Plato's side of the story, not Socrates'. So who knows which ideas were Socrates' and which Plato's? Only speculation exists. Nonetheless, the text refers to the other sources we have of Socrates, namely Xenophon, Aristophanes, and Aristotle. These present such disparate views that collating them into one perspective presents challenges. The text summarizes Xenophon's depiction of Socrates, quoting Jonathan Barnes, as "a stuffy old prig." Aristophanes satirizes Socrates and Aristotle only knew of him through Plato. If one wants to compare Socrates to Jesus Christ, one can do so by the equally various and conflicting interpretations history has bequeathed. Comparisons really end there.

Regardless of the difficulty of extracting the "true" Socrates from his follower's writings, the book attempts to delineate "Socrates' theory of human life." Most of this comes exclusively from Plato. In short, this theory includes: look to the soul's welfare (good actions right the soul, wrong actions hurt it); avoid doing wrong at all costs, even when facing death; don't return evil for evil (turn the other cheek); do good for yourself out of care for the soul, not purely out of altruism; the benefits of "goodness" are not readily apparent as are the detriments of evil; become a "skilled craftsman" in how to live. Scholars would obviously dispute this distillation (they dispute everything, it's their job), but it nonetheless provides a groundwork for further study. The book also covers Aristotle's criticisms of Socrates (i.e., that he confused knowledge and practice, namely, we need to know how to be virtuous, not merely know what virtue is) and Socrates' distorted legacy through the Cyrenaics and Cynics. Overall, it provides a good introduction to the sources, difficulties, and ideas of one of philosophy's giants.

It's short (54 pages), but that's alright since there's only second-hand accounts of Socrates anyway. Anthony Gottlieb makes the most of this space and you end up with a pretty good idea of how Socrates viewed life and intellectual inquiry, as well as the distinctions between his philosophy and that of Plato and other followers and critics. Since he is the first significant philosopher, he's worth understanding, and this book will not consume much of your time.

Socrates was important as a cultural figure who showed other people how to be a philosopher. Much of this entertaining account talks about Socrates' lifestyle and personality. There are amusing little vignettes, such as how Socrates fended off the homosexual advances of the much younger Alcibiades, who later became a traitor to Athens.

The book emphasizes that Socrates did not advance his own positions as much as he criticized those of others.

Now that I have read this shorter work on Socrates I feel prepared to move on to longer works on Plato and Aristotle.