I am terrified of Plato and can't stand Socrates
Course in Humanities: Fortnight #1
Edit: I only noticed some very crude typos after the original publication.
I’m sorry this essay is late (it was supposed to be sent on Sunday evening instead of the middle of the night), but I had some technical difficulties.
Today I’m sharing my thoughts on the first fortnight of our adapted version of Ted Gioia’s Course in Humanities.
We will discuss:
a) Paintings by Jacques-Louis David.
b) Bach: The Well-Tempered Clavier (Book 1) and Goldberg Variations.
c) Plato’s tetralogy on the last days of Socrates (Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, and Phaedo) and the Republic.
Jacques-Louis David (1748 - 1825) was one the founders of French neoclassicism. He was influenced by François Boucher (Rococo) and Joseph-Marie Vien (classicism), but it was only in Italy, after participating of the excavation of Pompeii, that his style truly developed.
David was engaged in the French Revolution and arrested after the death of Robespierre. He then became head of Napoleon's art program and, when his regime ended, David had to leave Paris, spending his last years in Brussels.
Staying on theme, here is David’s rendition of The Death of Socrates (1787):
Pick any of his painting and you’ll see why he is so celebrated. The man could paint!
However, I must say that looking at his oeuvre as a whole left me a bit disappointed. Even when you ignore all the portraits (there are so many), his compositions feel repetitive. The way he places his subjects, their expressions and poses, the proportions and parallels start to get predictable.
But who am I to criticize or to say you should change a winning team.
Next: Music.
I believe Johann Sebastian Bach needs no introduction (if I’m wrong, please let me know – I’ll gladly write a profile on him).
On Bach’s The Well-Tempered Clavier (Book 1), I sadly can’t spend much praise. I don’t know if it’s because of the compositions themselves or the albums I listened to, but I felt nothing.
It was like joining a foreign language class and listening to recorded dialogue for practice – so neat and sterile it didn’t feel real.
On the other hand, The Goldberg Variations were very enjoyable.
Of the performers I listened to, I liked Glenn Gould the most. I can’t tell you he is the best pianist out there, but he made me feel his passion and vigor.
While music, like any other art form, can be appreciated for its intellectual and aesthetic components, I generally gravitate towards the emotional side of it. I like to “feel” what the musician is feeling during the creation or execution of a piece.
Now we move on to the main course: ancient Greek philosophers Socrates and Plato, his most famous acolyte.
Before we star, I have a confession to make.
Get your stones and penitence lists ready.
Drumrolls.
I can’t stand Socrates.
Or Plato’s rendition of him.
Since he didn’t leave any writings of his own, all we know is what his pupils and contemporaries say Socrates was like.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for the Socratic Method, I just don’t like the way it’s executed in the books.
Socrates’ style is too dramatic, theatrical if you prefer, and his brand of sarcasm and irony does nothing for me, which is strange considering some of my favorite books and films are satires (maybe I find him dull instead of funny?).
To me, and I have been reading Plato for a while, Socrates sounds like that boring great-uncle you meet at holiday season and must make an effort to talk to, despite the fact he clearly has a lot of knowledge and experience to share.
On the dialogues themselves, I would like to point out two main things, particularly for first time readers.
Socrates is more concern with his method of searching for truth and virtue (asking questions and highlighting inconsistencies in other people’s propositions and beliefs) than providing straight answers – that’s the reason why most of Plato’s early work, more influenced by his mentor’s ideas, usually ends in a deadlock (aporia).
Secondly, even though Plato keeps using Socrates as the main character of his dialogues, as he ages and his own ideas mature, his writing becomes more descriptive and prescriptive, showing us his point of view regarding matters of virtue, politics, art and so on.
SUMMARY OF THE LAST DAYS OF SOCRATES
Euthyphro
Socrates and Euthyphro meet by chance as they are both dealing with legal matters.
They ponder on the meaning of piety and whether Euthyphro, who is sure he knows the way of justice and pleasing the gods, should or should not sue his father for murder (he tied and confined an employee who killed someone and, while waiting for the authorities to tell him how he should proceed, the man died, probably due to negligence).
Note that Athens did not have District Attorneys or public officials responsible for representing the state or the people in criminal charges like we do today. Citizens could accuse one another through dike (one individual against another — private damage) or graphe (one individual against another on behalf of the city — colective/public damage).
The dialogue ends in aporia and we don’t know if Euthyphro will sue his father or not, but he leaves humbled by his lack of knowledge.
Apology of Socrates
This is, as the name implies, Socrates’ defence in face of the graphe proposed against him — he was accused of corrupting the youth and not believing in the gods of the city.
It’s not a proper legal defense in any modern or ancient tradition.
Written as monologue instead of a dialogue, Plato portrays Socrates as the ideal philosopher, blessed by the gods (supposedly named the wisest man by the Oracle) and ready to die for his convictions. He definitely sounds more likable in this version than in Xenophon's Apology of Socrates.
Long story short, Socrates asked too many questions and pissed off the wrong people.
Crito
On Crito, Socrates explains why he won’t run away from prison, accepting the death penalty imposed to him. Basically, he says he respect the laws of the city (the veridict of judges must be followed) and he wants to reach the afterlife with a clear conscience, as a man who, despite being victim to injustice, remains just.
Phaedo
Probably written much later then the first three dialogues, Phaedo narrates the events of Socrates’ final moments and discusses themes like the immortality of the soul, which you’ll also find in another of Plato’s intermidiate works, the Republic.
The last (long) days of Socrates
As I said before, I admire the Socratic Method. I think guiding people to see the flaws in their own assumptions and beliefs is a much more effective method of teaching than giving them answers and expecting them to belive you.
However, the content of Socrates’ (Plato’s?) philosophy depends too heavily on the culture he belongs to.
In his dialogues, it’s is a given that the gods of greek mythology are real and so is the soul, neither of which can be proved.
In Euthyphro, the discussion of piety centers on what the gods expect from us and some absolute notion of right and wrong that derives from them and not from humanity.
Even though he acknowledges the possibility that there is no after life in Apology, he doesn't offer any definition for the gods, their goals and values, nor does he question his own personal beliefs, putting them to test like he does with everybody else.
In fact, he mostly just praises himself and claims the gods chose him to exercise this philosophy. I'm aware of the risk of sounding too harsh, but, had I been there, I probably would have rolled my eyes (boohoo, people don't like you) and urged Socrates to get a move on.
I would never vote to sentence someone to death, especially for being frustrating and inconvenient, but I get why they thought Socrates was annoying.
In Crito, we can find two manifestations of justice.
One of them is the justice system, derived from the legal system and used to uphold the law. In this sense, justice is following the norms that govern society and punishing those who don't, whether innocent or guilty from a moral stance.
I agree with Socrates on this. There is no point in having courts and judges if their decisions won't be respected. In a democratic society, this is precisely the reason why we must be very careful who and what we vote for.
The other manifestation of justice relies on Socrates’s religious beliefs of divine punishment and reward (different places for the just and the unjust at the Underworld/Hades), something that was coming out of fashion even in his days.
To avoid sounding repetitive, similar criticism can be made of Phaedo.
I’m wary of basing justice on some transcendental notion or being whose existence we can't test or even agree on. What will happen when people no longer believe in it? Caos.
To me, justice isn’t a virtue — it’s a human invention designed to facilitate cooperation and the perpetuation of society, sort of like money or borders.
When I look around the only constants and laws I see are the principles of nature. Maybe justice is the “survival of the most adaptable" and everything it entails.
In the end of the day, animals that behave “morally” (you can find altruistic behavior in whales; intelligence in octopuses; mourning in elephants; loyalty in canids; and gratitude in many species) only continue to do so if it helps or at least doesn't hinder survival.
That sounds pretty scary so it’s not surprising we would try to raise above it and use our ability of abstract thought to create some interesting concepts.
But how can we do it efficiently in the long term? Not by ideas I found on Socrates dialogues, but his Method might help us get there.
REPUBLIC
In the Republic, generally classified as one of Plato’s intermediate works, the philosopher speaks through his mentor, Socrates, proposing a theory of justice and his ideal city.
In Book I, which resembles Plato’s early dialogues the most, the stage is set by questioning what justice is and whether justice is superior to injustice. Most of this this book is dedicated to analyzing Thrasymachus propositions: a) justice as the advantage of the stronger, and b) the unjust are better off than the just.
Thrasymachus was known as a sophist. In Plato’s time, the term “sophist” usually described itinerant intellectuals paid to provide courses in various subjects, particularly rhetoric, which they used to persuade their listeners. It seems sophists did not have a unified doctrine or theory, but it’s hard to tell exactly what they were like since most of what we know about them comes from the writings of their critics (especially Plato and Aristoteles).
Socrates questions Thrasymachus, highlighting inconsistences and flaws in his arguments, but still doesn’t reach his own definition of justice (aporia) and the remaining members of the party keep on talking.
In Book II, Glaucon asks Socrates what kind of thing justice is (something that is good in itself; good both in itself and for its consequences; or good only for its consequences). Socrates places justice in the class of things good in themselves and for their consequences.
Glaucon also proposes, mostly for the sake of discourse, (a) people seek justice because they believe suffering injustice is worse than doing it; (b) people act justly because they need to (LOTR fans will probably recognize the story of the ring of Gyges, which makes him invisible and allows him to get way with his nefarious deeds); and (c) the unjust person with the reputation for justice (no consequences) is happier than the just person with the reputation for injustice (undeserved consequences).
Adeimantus goes a step further by arguing that the reputation of being just is better than being just (it allows to reap the benefits of being perceived as just while taking advantage of others).
It’s after these provocations that Socrates, to defend justice, begins to conjecture an ideal city – a quite terrifying utopian (dystopian?) city-state ruled by philosophers.
Book III – VII give us a view of Socrates’ (actually Plato’s) ideal city, which is rigid and controlling (one could say eugenic), and ideal ruler.
Kallipolis allows no freedom of speech or religion – in addition to the use of propaganda, the content, form and use of poetry and music are to be limited by the state’s needs and interest. Education is to be closely monitored and used to test the citizen’s loyalty and aptitude (they are divided, with no consideration to personal choice, in three social classes: rulers, auxiliars/soldiers and producers).
The ruling class, called guardians, would have no personal property, family ties and romantic relationships – they are to be supported by the city and share “spouses” and children.
While I applaud Socrates for saying natural differences between men and women are not relevant when it comes to ruling the city, his lottery system of mating and allowing the best guardians to have sex with multiple partners to increase the likelihood of passing their desired characteristics on, followed by the practice of keeping parents from knowing who their children are, makes my stomach turn. The citizens of Kallipolis sound like cattle to me (it also makes me wonder what the hell are we doing to animals).
After proposing collective or societal justice, Socrates addresses individual justice, which comes from the structure of the soul (a healthy or well-arranged soul produces just behavior) and describe the virtues of the ideal ruler, who, no surprises there, is a philosopher — according to him, they know best as their purpose is the search of the truth.
In these books, we also get so see how the theory of Forms is used to justify the city and its rulers, but it’s in Book VII we find the famous Allegory of the Cave.
In a nutshell, the Allegory of the Cave is about the philosopher’s education, going from a position of ignorance (the shadows we see on the wall, also know as the Physical Realm) to knowledge of the Forms (perfect concepts that transcend time and space and exist in the Realm of Forms).
In Book VIII, Socrates describes the four types of unjust regime (timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny) and unjust individuals. No power to the people in his worldview, they don’t know what there’re doing.
Book IX focuses on the tyrannical individual and Socrates attempts to prove the just are happier than the unjust. Lastly, Book X returns to the matter of poetry, the soul (particularly its immortality) and consequences/rewards of justice.
As you can probably tell, I would not like to live in Plato’s city. Whenever I tried to imagine it, it looked doomed to failure.
Plato’s excessively rigid, idealistic nature and his assumption that everyone is better off living according to his imaginary ideal of justice simply baffles me.
When he says that people will be happy by living a “just” life and occupying the roles society says are most suited for them, he seems to ignore not only the complexity of human nature and behavior, but a lot of good things we worked so hard to create, like art.
One could argue that I overestimate personal freedom or that is not strictly necessary for establishing a prosperous society, but I cannot fathom happiness without it – and the history of revolutions seems to concur for people tend to dislike being to be told what to do or how to live.
At least Socrates, in the early stages of Plato’s writing, was willing to admit he didn’t know instead of prescribing a philosopher’s a power trip.
What do you make of Plato’s Republic?
I found this so interesting and appreciate the amount of time spent behind reading Socrates, wow! I have a number of opinions on every point but something that stood out to me the most was Kallipolis. You’re right, this would be an absolute failure of a city, I don’t know how someone could go on a quest to discover justice and actually end up imagining a dictatorship LOL. “Citizens don’t know what they’re doing”… sounds like the original idea behind Hitler’s work? or every communist or fascist society known? So fascinating. I’m starting to see why Socrates was killed… it’s extreme but maybe the people did know what they were doing there.
Honestly I don’t have the background to understand all of this but I still love reading them and collecting little bits of information 🌸