On Socrates and His Legacy, Part I.
This is important, because the central thesis in The Trial of Socrates is that Socrates is not merely an “antidemocratic” gadfly in Athens, but an arch-reactionary teacher of “antipolitical” doctrines. That is to say that Stone argued that Socrates and his followers rejected the concept of the self-governing “polis” itself, oligarchy as much as democracy, that men were a “herd” fit only for a shepherd, an absolute Homeric ruler defined by Socrates as “the One who Knows”. Stone argues, with accuracy, that Socrates disciples, despite differences in personality and philosophy, shared a common disdain for democratic politics and furthermore, that Socrates teaching repeatedly led to cohorts of aristocratic, pro-Spartan,”Socratified youth” who twice supported the overthrow of the Democracy. In short that Socrates was tried because his activities, his “examinations”, were ultimately politically subversive to the state in a time of danger and instigated civil strife.
This means, to judge Stone’s argument requires that we discern Socrates from Plato that in turn requires some expertise on Plato. This need to sift Platonic dialogues explains why both Johnson and Stone, despite Stone’s ability to work with the primary texts in the original Greek, turned to the scholarship of Gregory Vlastos for guidance. Vlastos was a seminal figure in the field of Platonist philosophy whose work is described by other scholars as “transformative” and having “a vast influence” who best parsed Socrates from his artfully prolix disciple. Because of Stone and Johnson, I have picked up what is regarded by many as “the best book on Socrates” – Socrates: Ironist and Moral Philosopher by Gregory Vlastos.
Vlastos, in this final book, ultimately came closer to Johnson’s position in the sense that some of what moderns find disagreeable in Socrates and what Stone criticizes in particular – the harsh antidemocratic edge – is more a product of Plato’s literary handiwork than the philosophy of the historical Socrates. Vlastos writes:
I have been speaking of a “Socrates” in Plato. There are two of them. In different segments of Plato’s corpus two philosophers bear that name. The individual remains the same. But in different sets of dialogues he pursues philosophies so different that they could not have been depicted as cohabitating in the same brain throughout unless it had been the brain of a schizophrenic
The early Socrates of the Elenctic Dialogues is the most genuine in the view of Vlastos.
End Part I.
Page 3 of 3 | Previous page
seydlitz89:
February 14th, 2013 at 1:09 pm
Very nice post Zen. Very much agree with your analysis of Stone’s take on Socrates. I would also point out Stone’s handling of Plato’s “noble lie” which we have seen enough examples of in our own times . . . Looking forward to Part 2!
J. Scott Shipman:
February 14th, 2013 at 3:17 pm
Excellent post, Zen! I read Johnson’s work last year and enjoyed both the brevity and the scope.
Curtis Gale Weeks:
February 14th, 2013 at 3:39 pm
What do you see as the primary motive (or purpose) behind any effort to “rescue” Socrates?
zen:
February 15th, 2013 at 5:54 am
Much thanks gentlemen!
.
Seydlitz – very true. There is a lot to admire in Stone’s work. He got a number of very important points right while constructing a picture of Socrates that is too one-dimensionly “political” and misanthropic to square with the fanatical devotion Socrates attracted from what was a glittering array of talented students and from a man whose reputation was built upon talking to everyone in Athens. Most Athenians were thetes or only marginally better off
.
Curtis – I have not made up my mind yet. That is probably going to be what Part III will be about.
seydlitz89:
February 15th, 2013 at 10:38 am
Zen-
“one-dimensionally political”-
Don’t follow. What Stone achieves is an adequate re-construction of the political context of Athens at the time of the trial. It was the contingent set of circumstance which set the stage for what happened, aided as Stone points out by Socrates’s own actions before the council. Politics in Athens at the time was all encompassing, hardly one dimensional. The one dimensionality is a current US attribute imo . . .
Johnson, while readable as you say, seemingly lacks the most important element that Stone excels at, an understanding of the language and its political overtones of the time.
L. C. Rees:
February 15th, 2013 at 8:28 pm
Victor Davis Hanson is fond of portraying Socrates’ as the world’s wisest non-com. This is based off an incident during the battle of Delium that Platonic Alcibiades retells in The Symposium (attributed to Plato’s middle period). This follows VDH’s “Western Way of War”, a a mysterious subterranean ch’i he sees (though others don’t) periodically bubbling up over the centuries to thwart cowardly Easterlings in fanatical face to face infantry battle. VDH likes Socrates so much that he almost elevates him to honorary raisin farmer. This is to be expected. Much of VDH’s “Western Way of War”, narrowly applied to classical Greece, is draws from his experience as a third generation raisin grower in the San Joachim Valley. As I’ve observed with the search for the “historical Jesus”, you tend to find the “historical Socrates” you brought with you, a continuation of your politics with the addition of some conveniently rearranged fragments from antiquity. If Socrates can be a fifth-century reactionary fascist, he can just as easily be a proto-neocon non-com. That is the Platonic ideal.
Derek Robinson:
February 21st, 2013 at 5:48 pm
I’m so glad to get that distinction, the elenctic dialogues as against that sour old crusty tyrant-wannabe who glares accusingly from the pages of Plato’s later books .. also known as (so my OED tells me) the aporetic dialogues, how wonderful! Thanks!