Plato's 'Apology of Socrates'

I just read this for school, and I must say that as far as virtue and morality, Socrates is on par or beyond even Christ. Unlike Christ, he was not pretentious. Socrates was humble, even while gaining such renown that we speak of him over 2000 years after his death. His acceptance and welcoming of death, as opposed to compromising his values to save his life, make me examine my own virtue, if I have any to examine. I also find conversation with others to be much more enjoyable, now that I probe them to examine the life they lead and the opinions they have. I could go on, but I don't want to bore anyone. Any thoughts?

 

I'm assuming that you are referring to the Apology dialouge in Plato's The Trial and Death of Socrates. If so then I know what you are talking about. I own it and read it often. I would recommend it to anyone who is unfamiliar with either Plato or Socrates. I've noticed that I get similar responses from people when I question them about their morals and beliefs such as Socrates did. A lot of people get offended because they do not realize that I do this because I seek knowledge and wisdom. I don't do it for the sake of tearing down other's beliefs or trying to make myself look any wiser than them. Unfortunately most people do not see it that way, just as they could not see it that way during Socrates time.

 

People whom I question always seem to think I am trying to insult or offend them and their beliefs, when in reality all I am doing is trying to understand them through inquiry,

 

When the bible was rewritten at the time of the Emperor Constantine by the apostle Paul, could it be that they incorporated some of Socates' philosophy as well? Some scholars maintain that the New Testament incorporated three religions of the early Byzantine era and amalgamated them into one. If so it would have to be accessible to the worshippers with an accepted ethos that has tranversed through the centuries. Maybe the majority need to believe in something higher and that is why they retaliate when you investigate their credo. These are the same people that believe their god will be impressed by the $50 they gave toward the tsunami fund, for example. Maybe I'm being cynical. Socrates was a kind soul and would never use the same verbal poison the scorpion uses, albeit he died from hemlock. Wouldn't it be a finer world for all if mankind generally aspired to help one another, instead of just cosmetically contributing financially on the tad of a moment? Shouldn't we find salvation within ourselves for what we have used our higher level of conscience to achieve in our life, rather than expect to be lifted up into the clouds? Socrates opens a lot of doors, but we can't change people. All we can change is ourselves.

 

When I was studying Plato's texts, I was ready to dismiss Socrates as a badgering tool. Furthermore, I questioned the validity of his persona as indicated by Plato, seeing as Socrates didn't write shit down.

Of course, I was wrong. He sought truth and hoped others would do the same, not only in others but themselves especially. Also, the whole "I am the wisest man because I know nothing and I KNOW that I know nothing" thing is really intriguing. He taught us how to ask questions and think; he also taught us that death is a better outcome than renouncing one's beliefs.

But let's be honest, Socrates lived a long life with lots of hot sodomy- I'm sure that played a role in his decision to become a martyr figure.

 

Has anyone read anything other than apology?

Any of the greats?

 

i think i read the apology last semester for philosophy, or at least an abreviated version.

It was funny, in the middle of it, it clicked in my head that jesus was just a rip off of socrates.

 

Paul wrote his letters 300 years before Constantine. Since Paul's father was a Roman citizen Paul probably recieved both a Jewish and Roman education which would explain why he incorporated Socratic philosophy into his teachings. Socrates seemed to have better understanding of the true character of God than Plato,which would expalian why it might seem that Jesus ripped off Socrates.

There are two opposing theologies in Protestant belief. John Calvin's ideas were in a large part based on Platonic philosophy while Jacob Arminius' and the Wesley brothers' theology was in part based on Socratic philosophy. Unfortunately Calvinism is predominate in Protestant theology and has lead to the developement of Christian FundaMENTALism(emhasis on mental ). Right wing fundie types are overwhelmingly Calvinist. I'd have to get into a long drawn out discourse to throughly explain Calvinism vs. Wesleyan/Arminianism. Calvinism emphasizes God's authority and stresses doing what you are told and obeying those in authority over you and presents the world as being a hierarchy. In contrast Wesleyan/Arminian theology emphasizes Gods love and the equality of all people and individual responsiblity,( in other words no hierarchy). Methodist/Wesleyan and Seventh-days Adventist are some of the very few Protestant churches that teach this theology.

btw: John and Charles Wesley were pacifists and vegetarians.Cool huh?

 

I must have read it wrong, but thanks AT. Maybe the author meant that Constantine edited Paul's letters to re-write the bible used in the Orthodox church. I guess I'll have to back and read that bit again. It was from one of those Da Vinci Decoded books that have flooded the market. BTW, nice information.

 

It's well established that Constantine and the Catholic Church did a lot of "editing".ie the 2nd commandment which contains a prohibition against idol worship. Constantine and Augustine were Platonic in their philosophy and mixed alot of old pagan beliefs with Christianity.

 

i also read crito and euthyphro, crito was the most profound to me

 

Crito was just the doorway.

 

How could Constantine have "edited" the second commandment when the Septuagint was translated from Hebrew to Greek in the 3rd century BCE? They may have interpreted it differently, they may have selected certain gospel accounts and NT letters that conformed to their beliefs, they may have even excluded newer OT writtings (such as Enoch) but they didn't edit the OT.

But back to the original thread, I am not an expert on Socrates, or this book, but wasn't he forced to commit suicide for undermining democracy in Greece? I know that a few of his disciples attempted several failed uprisings where 1000s of people were killed. Doesn't sound too enlightened to me.

 

I was refering to the New Testament(i.e. what Jesus said). BTW I don't think Socs was very happy with the way democracy was heading. You only have to look around to what's happening today to understand how he felt

 

Socrates certainly did not commit suicide. The method of choice for execution in Athens at the time was drinking a poisoned glass of hemlock. His decision to die, to drink the hemlock, shows his respect for the principles of democracy.

Socrates would be hesitant to call modern America a democracy, I think. He was certainly happy with democracy, he was unhappy with how people used it. Reasonable and wise people, who valued the contemplative life, would not have had him killed. His critique was of the people, not of the institution.

 

You know what I mean. He committed suicide in that he administered the drink to himself.

He would probably call the US a republic. But his critiqe of democracy and what he considered mob rule has been used ever since by the elite to supress democratic sentiment. Sometimes there is such a thing as mob rule to be sure; however, by and large, democracy with respect for the minority is better for society and the individuals who live in them. Wise man rule is inbred. The view of many, no matter how untrained in government, will always be wiser and more adapt to change than that of a single person.

 

You are likely right. It seems true that the tyranny of the majority will always be wiser and more adapt to change than that of a single person.

But, Socrates (and myself) would likely argue that your ends are harmful. To be perfectly specific these two things:

are harmful. The first because a supposition of the untrained having an ability to be wise assumes that wisdom (understanding of truth in other words) is nothing more than majority opinion. The second because the notion that things must (or at least should) change assumes that Plato’s (thus Socrates’) entire theory of Forms is wrong. I mentioned earlier that the trial and death of Socrates (Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, and Phaedo) are only a doorway. It is supposed to be enough, that Socrates (a man that prized contemplation more than any other virtue one might have) was killed for being a philosopher, for us to see that the will of the majority (paralleled to the wisdom of your untrained) is harmful (because it killed Socrates) and that things (ie. truth) can not change.

Plato spends the rest of his life attempting to justify a system by which both of those things that you mentioned can be fixed.

Here you are trying to convince me that they ought to be prized again. Before you do that you ought to dismantle Plato’s arguments for the contrary.