Among a common people there are differences. In the 5th century BC (500-400 BC), the Greeks were spread out in a multitude of highly developed village communities called city-states. Geography, tribal division, and diversity of economic and political interest contributed to the development of separate, self-governed Greek communities. This was for the Greek the best compromise between the conflicting values of order and freedom. A community which is too small is insecure and vulnerable; a community too large risks tyranny. For the Greek, the polis was both a Greek's city and his state. Ideally, Greece was to be a collection of sovereign city-states co-operating with each other. Instead, the history became one of strife and family feuds even to the point of war.

1. Athens: the cultural center of the Peloponnesians (see Thucidides, History of the Peloponnesian Wars).

2. Thebes: the religous center (see Sophicles, Oedipus the King, Antigone, Oedipus at Colonos)

3. Sparta: the military center (see Lycurgus, Plutarch's Parallel Lives)

4. Corinth: the commercial center (city of luxery, wealth, prostitutes).

BC

431: Outbreak of Peloponnesian war: Athenians marked by disunity

415: Athenians losing power after failed attempt to take over Sicily

411-410: Revolution of the 400 (led by sophist Antiphon)

404: Athens is surrounded by Thebes, Spartans, and Corinthians. After starvation and disease set in, Athens surrenders. Spartans rule after this, followed by the rule of the Thebes.

1. Aristocratic Democracy: Prior to 404 BC., aristocratic democracy was the form of government. In it the best or privileged ruled. E.g., the ruling class of four hundred in 412 and the Thirty in 404 BC. The Thirty were overthrown, leading to a period of restoration.

2. Egalitarian Democracy: The restoration period followed the collapse of the Aristocratic democracy in 404 BC. In egalitarian democracy, all individuals are equal; there are no class distinctions. Egalitarian democracy persecuted Socrates.

Between the age of the Poet Homer (mid-8th century) and the age of Socrates, the Greeks began a rational study of the natural and moral order. Moving away from tradition and authority (e.g., the poetry of Homer), the naturalists sought to provide non mythical explanations which appealed to causes in the physical realm to account for all natural phenomena. The result of the naturalist movement was the development of an alternative conception of the world, as well as a different method for investigating the world, both of which differed from the Homeric tradition. By the 5th century, strains within naturalism had led to a denial of common sense, to skepticism, and to a denial of morality. Rational inquiry faced the following dilemma: either show that naturalism does not have these results or that rational inquiry and the search for objective truth need not proceed on naturalist assumptions. (so the problem left for Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle).

Associated with naturalism is the movement called sophism. Sophists (hoi sophoi), the wise guys, were typically lawyers and politicans. They would teach the skills of persuasion or rhetoric to people for a fee. [Keep in mind that "success" in Athenian democracy depended on the ability to speak well, argue, and persuade in large public meetings. Although these skills were taught by Rhetoricians, the sophists represented a class of less specialized teachers]

1. Atheism: not a denial of the existence of deity as such, but a rejection of the traditional views of the gods.

2. Moral relativism: morality is not fixed; there is no absolute distinction between right and wrong.

3. Opportunism: success, money, and power - at any price.

4. Rejection of the traditional values: Ethical values concerning man's relationship with his fellow man.

5. Focus on the self and success: at any price, get ahead.

1. Plato (Apology, Crito, Phaedo, and Symposium): the Socrates of Plato is profoundly human and profoundly brilliant. He is the great metaphysician and analytical mind - the genius.

2. Xenophon (Memorabilia, Symposium): Socrates is the ethical teacher. He is treated with much reverence.

3. Aristophanes (the Clouds, a Greek comedy written in Athens in 423 BC): here we have a totally different view of Socrates. He is set up as a scapegoat. Socrates is presented as a SOPHIST.

4. Aristotle (several places): Socrates is a wise metaphysician.

1. Stone maker by trade

2. Spent time in military as a foot soldier and distinguished himself for bravery

3. Between the age of 35-40 experienced a religious conversion and was convinced that he has a divine mission to teach virtue.

4. 406 BC Socrates was a member of the Athenian Senate

5. Responsible for educating Alcibiades and Critias, right wing aristocrats and enemies of the democracy.

6. Socrates refused to join with the Ruling Thirty in the arrest and murder of Leon of Salamis. Knowing that their demise was immanent they tried to incriminate as many citizens as possible. Socrates refused to follow them in the breaking of the law. (404/403 BC)

7.Brought to trial in 400 or 399 by the leaders of the restored democracy.

1. Exhortium: an introduction to get the crowd with you. (pp. 24) 17a-18a

2. Narration: filling in background information. (pp.24-25) 18b-22e

3. Proposition: The central thesis.

4. Division: Explaining to the crowd what will be covered.

5. Confirmation: The giving of proofs or arguments.

6. Refutation: anticipating possible objections and answering them.

7. Peroration: Conclusion, summarizing of main points.

1. The Religious Charge - Atheism: (a) A rejection of the traditional beliefs about the gods and (b) the introduction of a new theology in its place.

The traditional Athenian theological views were heavily anthropomorphic - human qualities were predicated of the gods. For Socrates, the gods were perfect, good, just and true, thus very different from humans. Socrates was also perceived as introducing new gods or a new god (there is some question as to whether Socrates was a polytheist or a monotheist).

2. The Moral Charge: (a) Sophism (i.e., the advancement of moral relativism) and (b) corrupting the youth.

Although Socrates was no relativist, since he questioned the traditional values he was accused of sophism. Socrates asserted that one should not accept what comes down in tradition without first analyzing and understanding it. Only then will its acceptance have a rational basis. Believe because it is rational to do so.

3. The Implicit "Guilt by Association" - a Factor?

The fact that Socrates had had anti-democratic companions (e.g., Alcibiades and Critias) also aroused suspicions, a kind of guilt by association. In the aftermath of the overthrow of the Thirty in 403 BC, the restored democracy was anxious to unify Athens and so they granted amnesty for supporters of the Thirty. One consequence of this was that opponents of Socrates could not legally attack and charge him with conspiracy and sedition merely because of his associations with enemies of the democracy. In fact, Anytus was the chief advocate of the amnesty movement. Nevertheless, reading the Apology one gets the sense that an unspoken reason, a deep distrust in Socrates as a potential threat to the restored democracy, looms large as a reason for the guilty verdict.

1. Socrates and his interlocutors share a common view that it is important than the young be as good as possible.

2. Those who have knowledge of the laws (i.e., jurymen, members of the council, members of the assembly, and the audience) educate and improve the young.

3. All Athenians, except Socrates, improve and do not corrupt the young.

4. Socrates interjects - Meletus's argument assumes that, in general, the majority improve and the minority corrupt. Does this work for horses?

5. Socrates reasons thus: With horses and all animals, it seems that few improve them, the majority corrupts them.

and then ad hominem: and YOU Meletus...when have you sought to help the youth????

1. Socrates makes a distinction! The distinction between willingly corrupting the youth and unwillingly corrupting the youth.

2. Either I corrupt the youth willingly or unwillingly. If I corrupt them unwillingly, then I am not guilty under the law. It is necessary only that you instruct me privately. But you have not done that! (ad hominem) If I have willingly corrupted the youth willingly, then I am guilty under the law. But have I really willingly corrupted the young??????

3. Response: Yes, you have taught them to follow other gods.

1. Meletus has said (agreed) that Socrates corrupts the youth by teaching them not to believe in the gods of the city but introduces new divinities. (p. 29, 31)

2. Socrates asks for clarification.

Does Meletus wish to say:

[A] Socrates believes in no gods at all.

or

[B] Socrates believes in some gods, but not the gods of the city.

3. Socrates charges Meletus of contradiction or jesting.

Meletus then says that Socrates is guilty of [A], in which case Meletus appears to contradict himself: Socrates both believes and does not believe in gods.

4. Socrates argues by inferential analogy to his theism.

Socrates then argues (by analogy)

Argument 1

He who believes that there are "human activities" believes that there are human beings

Therefore,

He who believes that there are "divine activities" believes that there are divine beings.

Argument 2

Divine beings are either gods or children of the gods.

But if there are children of the gods, then there are gods (just as children of men entail there are men - second analogy).

Therefore, if one believes in divine beings one believes in gods.

THEREFORE: the charge of atheism is unsound 

1. His disciples wanted him to get a lawyer to defend him.

2. Socrates was a genius and so easily misunderstood.

3. He had to explain his divine mission, after refuting the charges made against him.

4. He had to face a belligerent crowd and jury.

1. A fortiori Argument: If I am justified in carrying out human orders, then all the more I am justified in carrying out a divine order.

2. Abstract Disjunctive Argument: Either Death is annihilation (eternal sleep) or fulfillment (awaking to fullness of consciousness). "This I believe" says Socrates, referring to the latter.

3. In pre-Christian classical literature (e.g., Homer) death was a dark, damp, swamp-like place (Hades, or the underworld). Socrates challenges this view by asserting that since the gods are good, there can be do such place of sorrow and anguish for the dead. Nothing evil can come to those who practice virtue.

4. State after death depends on the choices we have made and what kind of human being one is at the time of death.

1. The Search for Definition

The central focus of Socrates' philosophical method is the search for a logos (or definition) of a concept, where the concept is contained in an interlocutor's assertion. Socrates carries out the investigation erotetically (by the asking of questions). Such interrogations are designed to generate self-examination and critical reflection.

2. Importance of Definition to Socratic Philosophical Analysis

When we analyze <T-ness> we are analyzing an abstract reality signified by the term <T> and the concept <T-ness> (not just a term or concept). So the Socratic focus on definition is not a mere verbal matter but it is a matter of uncovering a standard of Tness which we can consistently maintain and which is about entities which are real.

To analyze <T-ness>, then, is to give an account (logos) that:

*applies to all things which are T

*applies only to those things which are T

*pinpoints what makes a thing T.

It is through this method that we come to possess knowledge as opposed to mere true belief (for knowledge is true belief with a logos). Socrates assumes that he and his interlocutors are often in possession of true beliefs about many matters, but what each lacks and what the object of Socratic inquiry is, is a knowledge that their beliefs are true (the difference between getting a right answer to a problem in mathematics vs. knowing why one's answer is the right answer). This is what Socrates calls episteme. The main step toward achieving this end is one of conceptual clarification, a process which helps us amend and improve our beliefs, to do our best to make sure that we have true beliefs and know why they are true.

3. Socratic and Sophistic Methods Contrasted

Socratic method: philosophical, concerned with truth through rational argument.

Sophistic method: rhetorical, concerned with persuasion by making the stronger argument weaker and the weaker argument stronger.

(cf. the language used in court of law and political campaigns in the contemporary American culture)

1. Interlocutor makes an assertion involving a concept, Tness (e.g., goodness, justice, etc) [Euthyphro 3E-4E]

2a. Socrates asks the Interlocutor whether he agrees that "all T things are alike in being T". Every T thing has the characteristic of Tness that enables a person to recognize it as being T and to distinguish it from being a non-T thing. Tness is a unitary characteristic, common and peculiar to all T things. [Euth. 5C-D]

2b. The Interlocutor accepts this.

3. Socrates says: "You can distinguish things which are T from things which are non-T, so you know what Tness is. If you know what Tness is, you will be able to tell me what it is. So tell me!." [Euth. 5A-D]

4a. The Interlocutor then gives some examples: "Tness is something like a, b, c, d; each one is a T thing.

4b. Socrates objects that this does not answer his question. He wants to know what the single thing Tness is. He does not want a list of many T things. [Euth. 5E, 6A-D]

5a. The Interlocutor presents a definition of the form: "Tness is that which U, V, W, and X." or "A thing is a T thing if and only if it is U, V, W , and X." U, V, W, and X are taken to be the individually necessary and collectively suficient conditions of Tness. [Euth. 6D-E]

5b. Socrates proceeds to draw inferences from the definition and claims that it leads to unacceptable conclusions. (much is made here of the argument form modus tollens: if p, then q; not q, therefore, not p.) [Euth.7E]

6a. The Interlocutor puts in another definition. [Euth. 7A-9D]

6b. Socrates repeats the move in 5b.

AND SO ON UNTIL. . .

4. The dialogue (typically) ends in aporia with Socrates saying something to the effect that we really need to do a lot more work on this problem. Aporia means that there are equally compelling reasons for asserting a proposition and denying it. We usually end up suspending judgement. [Euth. 15C-16A]

© Michael Sudduth 1996