What Is Philosophy? Who Is Socrates? and How Does Socrates Demonstrate and Represent Philosophy?

Elissa Foley        

September 18, 2015

PHIL 2010

Socrates

        What is philosophy? Who is Socrates? And how does Socrates demonstrate and represent philosophy? Plato’s 4 Parts on Socrates is my introduction to the field of philosophy. The character of Socrates, through Plato’s portrayal, directly influences my initial interpretation of the field.

        To address these questions we must establish the character of Socrates. It is appropriate to first acknowledge what Socrates did, and what the people who knew Socrates thought of him. The plot follows the premise that Socrates was accused of two indictments. The first accusation was that, “Socrates does injustice and is meddlesome, by investigating the things under the earth and the heavenly things, and by making the weaker speech the stronger, and by teaching others these same things” (66). The charge is that Socrates is corrupting the youth with his absurd ideas. Socrates explains himself by stating that his encounters with the youth consist of the boys eagerly watching as he sought out men and questions their wisdom. He then goes on to publicly embarrass the men by proving that they know nothing. The second indictment, charges, “that you do not believe in gods at all” (76). Socrates does not respond by declaring that the accusation is false and that the truth is that he believes in the gods. Instead, Socrates seems to avoid a definite answer and rather talks in circles about the subject, arguing that by association with the things that he knows and believes in, he must believe in the gods. The trial comes to an end as the jury votes that Socrates is guilty and that he will be sentenced to death. What does the result of the trial say about Socrates? Although the guilty charge was a close vote, it serves as a measurement that more than half of the people did not care for Socrates and further, they felt that he was corrupting the children, did not believe in the gods, and therefore deserved to be sentenced to death. My first response is whether to side with the jury or if I should feel bad for Socrates? Is he the culprit or the victim? If I were on the jury would I have voted for or against Socrates? What would it mean for me to vote on whether someone deserved to live or die? And under what rationale does someone deserve to have his or her life taken?

        My second response to Socrates’ character goes further as to analyze both his actions and his ideas. Does he believe in the gods? And if so, does Socrates believe in the same Gods as the rest of the people? Or does his reference to ‘God’ indicate that he believes in a type of polytheism? He does not give a definitive answer to the question of whether he does or does not believe in the gods, yet he constantly refers to his relationship with God. “I have been ordered to practice this by the god” (85), states Socrates in relation to his examination of other men and their claims to wisdom. I find Socrates’ claim of a link to a higher power, arrogant. He illustrates himself to be seen as better then everyone else, as a ‘chosen one’ that answers to the gods. His assertion facilitates his justification that he can do whatever he wants and that he thinks he is untouchable. Socrates explains that, “whenever someone does not seem to me, I come to the god’s aid and show that he is not wise. And because of this occupation, I have no leisure, either to do any of the things of the city worth speaking of or any of the things of my family. Instead, I am in ten-thousand fold poverty because of my devotion to the god” (72). Socrates does not teach for money. While some may find this noble and respectable, I find it dishonorable, for he earns no money to take care of his family. He seems to again use his ‘devotion to the god’ as an excuse to disregard his responsibilities. His public assertions that certain powerful men are not wise do not serve anyone except his own indulgence.  It does not seem that the people think he is doing them a service, and certainly the men in question are not amused. Socrates’ rationalization for why he needs to confront these men is, “I am wiser than this human being. For probably neither of us knows anything noble and good, but he supposes he knows something when he does not know, while I, just as I do not know, do not even suppose that I do” (70). Socrates’ ‘claim to fame’ is that he says that he knows nothing. I find this statement infuriating and slightly condescending. I do not fully believe this claim and I do not think that he believes it either. If Socrates knows nothing then what does he talk of. My frustration with this claim can be linked to my frustration with Socrates’ inability to come to any conclusion. He talks in circles and goes on tangents without concluding with a definitive answer. Therefore, maybe my frustration clouds my judgment of his claim that he knows nothing. Is it possible that he truly does know nothing and that is why his arguments and speeches have no conclusion?