George Sevy

Alexander Izrailevsky
Philosophy 1000
11/20/2013
Socrates: A Catalyst for Western Philosophy
http://georgesevy77.weebly.com

What is there to say about a man who was well known for his courage and
outspokenness, combined with the wisdom to assert his methods of philosophy? These are
characteristics that made Socrates one of the most well-known western philosophers of human
history. From his lower class upbringing to his time spent as a soldier, to his philosophical
teachings that rivaled the Sophists. It is with a steadfast nature Socrates excelled in expressing
his believes combined with the uncanny ability to teach others by subtly showing them the
mistakes in their thinking. This trait gained him many friends but also many enemies, enough
so to inevitably cause his eventual demise.
Socrates was one on the only prominent philosophers that was not raised in a generally
wealthy family. In many ways this influences many of his attributes later in life, such as his anti-
materialism and focus on the things that truly matter. His father Sophroniscus was a sculptor
who earned a modest wage along with his mother who was a midwife. It was from his father
that Socrates gained his trade and worked as a sculpture early in his life. Later he married a
younger woman by the name of Xanthippe, a woman of legendary repute who is classically
associated with any woman with any ill temperament. His wife bore three sons Lamprocles,
Sophroniscus and Menexenus, with whom it is written that Socrates had little to do with their
upbringing as he was preoccupied with his teachings of philosophy to the citizens of Athens.
Later when he was of age Socrates served in the Athenian army as a foot soldier in three
campaigns, displaying courage and fearlessness in the face of battle and death to the extent
that he even saved the life of the general Alcibiades. For all of his outstanding traits to his
name there is one that did not grace him. Socrates is accredited to being described as
extraordinarily ugly, with bulging eyes and an upturned nose that Socrates himself would be
the first to poke fun at, stating that a sense of humility is essential to cleanse the soul.
Socrates was also a strong advocate against mixing philosophy with money. This
instantaneously made him an enemy of the Sophists or the scholars that taught philosophy for
profit, this and the fact that he was explicitly outspoken against the aristocracy, hating the way
that the wealthy presented themselves with arrogance. Because his beliefs he gained many
enemies in the government and was put on trial for corrupting the youth of Athens. Standing
as his own witness he expressed that he stood morally correct in his teachings and insisted to
never back down for his beliefs. Instead of choosing exile he agreed to be put to death, and by
the side of his famous pupil Plato he drank the poison hemlock that ended his life.
Socrates is implicit in his teachings towards the values of morality and virtuosity, but
there is much more contained in his philosophy dealing with the knowledge to attain these
perfections of character. The ability to interpret knowledge is something that widely describes
the foundation of the individual human character. In Socrates words humans are just animals,
but with one important difference, we have the addition of what he calls the psyche which
translates to a soul. It is the combination of our animalistic instinct but with an exponentially
discerning factor of our species. He believes that it is this psyche which allows us the critical
factor of self-reflection. This foundation of the human condition is what drives Socrates in his
teachings, wording a discussion in such a way that it forces the other party to reflect within
themselves and thus gaining knowledge in the process. The prowess that Socrates had in his
ability to teach through the student even became a process of interpretation that is still used
today, known as the Socratic Method. This method defines Socrates approach because it is
instrumental in the ability to stir up critical self-reflection among his peers showing them the
hypocritical nature of an argument that they would put forth. Examples of these
confrontations can be seen in the writings of his pupil Plato, who would feverishly write the
words of his philosophy. Often times it were the sophists that felt the most inclined to
challenge Socrates, such as his confrontation with Thrasymachus in Platos book Republic.
Thrasymachus was fully aware of Socrates methods, even bragging that Socrates sly approach
would not daunt him. But eventually after Socrates lured him into a false sense of authority in
the argument Thrasymachus had no choice but to angrily accept his own hypocritical notions,
even at the fury of his opponent. The method was also used in his social teachings to enlighten
his students of the invalidities of their ponderings. This method was used in combination with
the well-known approach known as Socratic irony. Socrates acknowledges a belief that he
knows nothing, but he has the awareness to know that he knows nothing. In fact he uses
himself as tool to invoke the thought of knowledge or wisdom, but was able to present these
answers in a way that made his pupils ponder the answer in their own thoughts. This unique
approach gained Socrates both many friends and enemies, but the fact that it held such
sufficient sway in their thinking proves that his insight was a remarkable characteristic.
The idea of Socratic irony can be discerned in one statement I know that I know
nothing. This immediately paradox notion Socrates states that no one but god has the power
of absolute truth, but since he has an understanding to not ignore this fact he believes that he
is essentially wiser than those who consider themselves the wisest of all. This confounding
notion became even more confusing when the Greek oracle at Delphi pronounced Socrates to
be the wisest man of all. Knowing that he knew nothing he pondered this fact and then
experimented with prominent Sophists. When he ascertained that the other philosophers were
arrogant of their wisdom, he confirmed the oracles answer because his humble denial of
ignorance made him wiser than those who didnt.
For Socrates learning is the constant goal in life. This lifelong education is essential in
building the knowledge we need in our path to morality. In opposition the most harmful factor
in affecting our morality is ignorance. As Socrates put it ignorance is the mother of all evil.
This is why he accepts the ironic notion that he knows nothing of the truth of the world, his
acceptance of this fact brings him as close as man can, for we are not divine as god so the
absolute truth is subjective to us. Nonetheless it is our duty in the eyes of Socrates to be as
moral as humanly possible. A cornerstone of this principle is perfectionism, a belief that the
path to morality is to be the best and find perfection in all you do; a precursor to the belief of
Stoiesism to do your duty unconditionally.
The first step on Socrates path to arte is simply described as gnoti seanton or know
thyself. Our human capability of self-reflection allows us to find fault of character at an
individual level, the more we strive to cleanse the soul we find the inner path of morality which
builds individual virtue. The guidelines Socrates associates to this path could be seen in his drab
appearance, and his humble opinion of himself. As I mentioned earlier Socrates was never
incorporated with wealth, from his childhood to his later years where he would rather have
discussions of philosophy in the marketplace rather than work for material existence. Known to
wear nothing but a ragged toga and no footwear he implements his philosophy through his own
appearance. The foundation of this belief is worded by Socrates as to have no wants is divine;
to have as little as possible comes close. This anti materialistic view was something he played
on during his discussions, stating that he is in poverty because you do not mix philosophy and
money. Therefore he follows his own moral path and explains why it is more virtuous than that
of the sophists. The other part of his appearance that Socrates played on was his inherent
ugliness. He would be the first to make fun his appearance, applying his belief that one must
not only resist the impulse for material items, but also to be humble, and accept your
shortcomings because the body is of little significance compared to the mind.
In the end when Socrates was put on trial it was not only for being accused of corrupting
the youth of Athens, but also religious impiety. This refers to the fact that Socrates rejected the
polytheistic views held by the society of Greece at the time. Instead Socrates accepted the idea
of a singular all knowing, all powerful being. He even describes that his uncanny abilities to
administer lessons of virtue were gifts from the source of absolute wisdom known as god. It is
because these religious principles that Socrates questions his own wisdom, for if god is the only
being that has this absolute truth, men simply cannot believe that they are supreme beings.
Instead he believes any morality should be driven by this idea of god, that he is the moral
mission in life, and is the voice of our conscious.
At his trial Socrates used a steadfast belief that his works and teachings were at the
source of his morality. Even while his life was on the line he refused to beacon to those who
believe they have knowledge of truth; comparing his inability to retreat from the laws of his
country to that of retreating from a battle, even if your life is on the line. After his conviction
Socrates uncompromisingly drank the hemlock, calmly adhering to his notion that the body is
nothing but a vessel of little significance and that the realm of greater knowledge is something
to be rejoiced.
Despite the fact that Socrates is a singular character in history, there is another that
shares many interesting similar characteristics in personality and methodology, Albert Einstien.
Although not instantaneously thought of as similar in any manner, there are many reasons why
the eccentricities of these geniuses are carried on through the pages of history. The first
comparison is that of appearance, as I said before Socrates was not well known for extravagant
attire, often just an old toga. Einstein is similar due to his unkempt appearance as well, after
all how many pop culture references have been made on his wild hairdo. There may be cause
to argue that both were at such a level of intimate thinking that the idea of physical appearance
is trivial. Another combined characteristic shared by both is their demeanor. With his physical
attributes being a source of ridicule Socrates used the opportunity to show humility and humor
in describing himself. Likewise Einstein is known for his eccentric, playful, and some might say
childish nature. The combined personality traits of these individuals share a friendly and
likeable characteristic in their personalities, but with a hidden reserve for critical intellectual
thinking. Last is their ability to think outside the norm even at the disregard or even
disapproval of their contemporaries. Such is with Socrates monotheistic interpretation of god,
an obviously controversial notion in ancient Greece. Never the less he stood fast on his beliefs
and was capable of engaging subjects through this interpretation; it is the same with Einstein.
Although his theory of relativity seems commonplace now, but just think of the communal
reaction that such a revolutionary idea surely evoked in its day. Perhaps these were just men
before their time, or more realistically the geniuses that defined it. Both had the convictions
that what they were applying was the right focus, regardless of outside criticism.
To me Socrates was a man of the upmost convictions. His ability to live the lessons of
his philosophy is something I can admire. The modest approach in which he describes the path
to morality is something I try to incorporate into my own life. I believe it is the intimate process
Socrates describes as cleansing the soul that can affect the life and soul of any individual. With
the ability to accept ones own humility and approach life with modesty, I agree that anyone
striving to incorporate these aspects of morality is perfectly capable of gaining virtue. In
opposition I also enthusiastically side with Socrates concept that ignorance is the mother of all
evil stands as the perfect counterpoint to virtue, especially since these characteristics are just
as poignant now as they were in the ancient world. I believe this ignorance inhibits our ability
to infuse knowledge into our lives, and with knowledge being the source of morality it is still
very easy to see individuals who maintain an ignorance to the facts that are a determining
factor of our lives. It is these deep set notions of what makes up the fabric of humanity and
knowledge that makes the philosophy of Socrates relatable to me. Not to mention the iron
handed nature of upholding and defending his philosophy through his own life. These
convictions are what made Socrates a steadfast historical individual of western philosophy.
Bibliography
1) Soccio, Douglas. Archetypes of Wisdom: An Introduction to Philosophy.
Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. Print. 2013
2) Lecture Notes