Descriptions:
Video Description
Socrates wrote nothing. So how much of the figure we know is real, and how much is invention? That puzzle is the Socratic Problem, and this first lecture in a three-part series from Academy of Ideas takes it head-on. We meet the four ancient sources that disagree about who Socrates was, and the modern scholars who divide Plato’s dialogues into early, middle, and late periods to separate the historical man from Plato’s own later system. The video shows why the quest matters: not to solve a dead academic puzzle, but to find what Socrates’ example still asks of each of us.
Full Video Transcript
In Plato’s Dialogue, The Symposium, Alcibiades, a friend of Socrates, announces,
Well, there is a lot more to be said about Socrates, but personally I think that the most amazing thing about him is the fact that he is absolutely unique,
for there is no one like him and I do not think there ever was or will be.
In this three-part miniseries we are going to look at the life and ideas of Socrates,
who is considered not only one of the most unique and influential philosophers,
but one of the most unique and influential human beings who has ever lived.
In this first lecture, we will investigate what is known as the Socratic problem.
In the second lecture, we will examine the life and character of Socrates.
And to conclude this mini-series, we will discuss some of Socrates’ most famous philosophical ideas.
To begin, we need to understand what is meant by the Socratic problem.
Louis Navier nicely summarizes the essence of it in his book on Socrates.
We confront in the end a problem, the Socratic problem as this is known,
one that can be stated in simple terms. Despite all our knowledge about Socrates,
little of substance can be affirmed without hesitation. Any traits associated with him,
any idea attributed to him, can be contradicted by producing passages from various sources.
Why does the Socratic problem exist? Like Confucius, Buddha, and Jesus, three other
towering giants of history, there are no writings by Socrates that have been passed down to us.
Many contend that the reason for this is because he did not write anything, but preferred to
philosophize solely by conversing with others. Philosophy was for Socrates a communal search
for wisdom, one that could not be conducted alone with ink and paper. In Plato’s dialogue,
The Phaedrus, Socrates explains his misgivings with the written word.
I cannot help feeling that writing is unfortunately like painting. For the creations of the painter
have the appearance of life, and yet if you ask them a question they preserve a solemn silence.
Because there are no writings by Socrates in order to address the Socratic problem and gain
insight into Socrates’ character and ideas, it is necessary to turn to other sources. There are four
main sources which are used in the attempt to paint a picture of the historical Socrates.
Aristophanes, a comic playwright. Xenophon, a soldier, historian, and deep admirer of Socrates.
Plato, Socrates’ student, and Aristotle, who was Plato’s student.
It must be noted that if all these sources put forth somewhat similar depictions of Socrates,
there wouldn’t be a Socratic problem.
The problem arises because, as Louis Navier pointed out in the passage quoted earlier,
each of these sources attributed to Socrates different traits and ideas,
leaving us in the modern age with the task of deciphering fact from fiction.
At the turn of the 20th century, many leading scholars approached the Socratic problem with disdain
and concluded that knowledge of the real Socrates, the historical man, is an impossibility
and that he will always remain a work of fiction to us.
Those who hold such a view contend that Socrates will always remain an unknown ex.
However, more recently scholars have moved away from this unknown exposition
and proposed that although the Socratic problem may never be resolved once and for all,
knowledge of the historical Socrates is possible.
Socrates was an enigmatic man.
It is held in the various sources we have on him in their differing depictions
are merely unveiling different perspectives of Socrates’ complex character.
Like pieces of a puzzle, we must pick and choose the appropriate information from each of the sources
and piece together a picture of the historical Socrates.
However, despite continued disagreement on the possibility of arriving at genuine knowledge of
the historical Socrates, most philosophers agree that the existence of the Socratic problem
does not in any way negate the significance of Socrates. Fact or fiction, he will always remain
a symbolic figure, one who we can turn to to find inspiration and knowledge in our own lives.
As A. W. Levy wrote,
The problem of the historic Socrates is, I believe, insoluble, but the quest to find the meaning of Socrates for ourselves is perennial.
While important information about Socrates can be derived from all the sources as we mentioned earlier,
for the sake of time we will briefly discuss only the most important source, that being Plato.
Plato wrote numerous dialogues, and in virtually all of them he utilized Socrates as the chief speaker.
Therefore, the problem which arises in Plato’s dialogues is this. Either Plato
was merely using Socrates as a mouthpiece to voice his own views, or the
ideas Socrates pronounces in Plato’s dialogues were the actual ideas espoused
by the real Socrates. A simple way to approach this problem would be to go
with the second option and claim that all the ideas which Plato makes Socrates
pronounce in his dialogues were the actual ideas of the historical Socrates.
However, this approach is largely seen as inadequate, for in Plato’s dialogues Socrates’ ideas do not remain static and uniform, but instead undergo a radical transformation from dialogue to dialogue.
This transformation is all the more troublesome because Socrates was executed by the Athenian state before Plato began to write his dialogues, and hence, if all of the ideas in Plato’s dialogues were indeed the ideas of the historical Socrates, one would expect them to remain more or less static.
This radical transformation of Socrates’ ideas has led some scholars, in an attempt to untangle the Socratic problem, to group Plato’s dialogues according to the views which he makes Socrates propose.
More specifically, some have suggested that a potential solution to the Socratic problem
can be found by grouping Plato’s dialogues into three categories, early, middle, and
late.
In the early dialogues it is maintained we are in the presence of the historical Socrates,
while in the middle and later dialogues it is held that we are increasingly in the presence
of Plato’s ideas.
To understand this suggested solution, it will be helpful to investigate some of the
central ways in which the ideas of Socrates transformed throughout Plato’s
dialogues. In what are thought to be Plato’s earlier dialogues, and hence
dialogues where it is believed we are in the presence of the historical Socrates,
Socrates’ main concern is with the examination of moral values, that is, he
engages in conversations with others in the hopes of arriving at a universal
definition of a specific moral virtue. For example, in Plato’s dialogue The
Euthyphro, Socrates says, Tell me, Euthyphro, what do you say holiness is, and what unholiness?
In these same dialogues, Socrates maintains over and over again that he is ignorant and has no
knowledge or wisdom he can impart to others. Despite the desperate search for the definition
of a specific virtue, these dialogues always end despairingly, with Socrates admitting that despite
all the effort he still remains ignorant. Then we must begin again at the beginning and ask what
holiness is, since I will not willingly give up until I learn.”
Another example of Socrates’ self-professed ignorance in this set of dialogues also displays
itself in his discussions regarding the nature of death.
In The Apology, he says,
“…to fear death is only an instance of thinking oneself wise when one is not, for
it is to think one knows what one does not know.”
Plato’s early dialogues are characterized by a concern with ethics, and in these dialogues,
continually professes his ignorance, he proclaims, I can myself bring nothing to light because there
is no wisdom in me. These dialogues can be contrasted with what are classified as Plato’s
middle and later dialogues. In these dialogues, Plato makes Socrates propound positive claims,
or in other words, claims stating knowledge, regarding the metaphysical nature of the
universe. It is in these dialogues that Socrates expounds what is now generally accepted to be
Plato’s invention, that is, the theory of forms. Another difference with the later dialogues can
be seen in Socrates’ changing attitude regarding the nature of death. In the earlier dialogues,
Socrates remained agnostic regarding what happens in death. In the middle and later dialogues,
he positively states that he knows the soul is immortal. In the Mino, he declares,
I have heard wise men and women talk about divine matters. What was, I thought, both true and
beautiful. They say that the human soul is immortal. At times it comes to an end, which they
call dying, at times it is reborn, but it is never destroyed. A good way to summarize the transformation
which takes place in the ideas Plato makes Socrates put forth in his dialogues is to turn to the words
of George of Lastos, who points out that while the Socrates of Plato’s early dialogues is solely a
moral philosopher, the Socrates of Plato’s middle and later dialogues is a moral philosopher and
metaphysician and epistemologist and philosopher of science and philosopher of language and
philosopher of religion and philosopher of education and philosopher of art. The whole
encyclopedia of philosophical science is his domain. So to conclude, the approach to the
Socratic problem we just discussed views Plato originally as a wide-eyed devout follower of
Socrates who, in his early dialogues, expounded the actual views of the historical Socrates.
However, over time he developed into a master himself, and in his middle and later dialogues,
used Socrates as a mouthpiece for his own ideas, expanding on Socrates’ ethical ideas by extolling
an all-encompassing philosophical system. This potential solution to the Socratic problem appears
to follow the natural course of events which takes place between a philosophical master and his
disciple, for as Nietzsche wrote, one repays a teacher badly if one always remains nothing but a pupil.
Source: Academy of Ideas