Understanding the Influence of Socrates, Research Paper Example

Introduction

The continued importance of Socrates not only to the Western world, but to the world at large, is founded upon his overall initiation of a specific type of thinking that has come to be termed as philosophical. Although Socrates himself never wrote a single word, his devoted pupil Plato was the one who chronicled Socrates’ radical form of thought and thus the radical nature of his philosophy. It is by examining this very form that one comes to understand precisely why Socrates had such an impact on subsequent civilization. In this regard, it is possible to break down some of the key elements of this form, and then investigate them further, so as to understand where the impact of Socrates lies. It can be suggested that three primary strains within Socrates’ thought made him the influential figure he was to become. Firstly, Socrates initiated a radical style of questioning, which deliberately opposed all claims rooted in unfounded preconception and ultimately prejudice. In other words, Socrates did not accept any pre-given truths, but continually challenged them. Using modern conceptual terminology, we can suggest that Socrates was, in this sense, a radically anti-ideological and anti-dogmatic figure. Accordingly, a Socratic account of wisdom and truth can be said to relate in some manner to the performance of demolishing old presuppositions.

This leads us to the second reason as to why Socrates’ influence is so paramount. The Greek thinker introduced a new emphasis on the importance of logic and rationality. Socrates was able to deconstruct such presuppositions using purely logical principles, trying to surface contradictions and other paradoxes in an effort to show how something, that is declared to be self-evident, becomes much more complex upon further examination, and, moreover, may even represent a form of hypocrisy. Accordingly, we can understand the nature of Socrates’ philosophy in terms of his rational method and his commitment to a form of logic that is used in a critical manner.

Thirdly, these points inform Socrates’ particular relationship with society. As a result of his commitments to logic and rationality and his radical style of questioning that attempted to dethrone presuppositions wherever they may stand, the great Greek thinker had a tense relationship with various power structures in Greek society, such as the religious and political establishment. This is most clearly demonstrated in the fact that Socrates was put to death by the state for his practice of philosophy. Accordingly, Socrates’ philosophy creates a social environment in which those who possess political hegemony or any type of social hegemony must be continually questioned and made to account for their actions, to the extent that Socrates could be considered to be a fore-runner of both democracy and revolutionary movements that challenge the authority of a small, oligarchic elite which controls social power.

In order to develop, therefore, the nature of philosophy’s Socrates further, the following paper shall take a look at each of these characteristics of his thought in more detail. It is the nature of Socrates’ philosophy that is the reason for his historical significance; and the nature of this philosophy lies precisely in the three aforementioned characteristics: a commitment to questioning, a commitment to logic and rationality, and a commitment to democratic and revolutionary opposition to existing power structures.

Socrates’ Battle against Prejudice and Preconception

In his book Sophie’s World: A Novel about the History of Philosophy, the Norwegian writer Jostein Gaarder dedicates to Socrates a chapter within his unique tome that synthesizes philosophy and fiction. This is, of course, a necessary inclusion, when one considers the significance of Socrates within philosophical discourse and intellectual history at large. Yet Gaarder’s approach and interpretation of Socrates helps clarify the reasons behind his philosophical uniqueness. For example, Gaarder (1994) prefaces his chapter on Socrates in the book with a paraphrase of Socrates himself: “wisest is she who knows she does not know.” (p. 56) This remark is a synopsis of Socrates’ basic philosophical position and Gaarder thus underscores the importance of Socrates’ thought in terms of a notion of a radical questioning. Through the character of Sophie, this Socratic principle is unpacked as follows: “Wiser than who? If the philosopher meant that someone who realized that she didn’t know everything under the sun was wiser than someone who knew just a little, but who thought she new a whole lot – well that wasn’t so difficult to agree with.” (Gaarder, 1994, p. 59) With this clear synopsis of the basic Socratic approach, Gaarder, through Sophie, identifies the notion of the attack of presuppositions that is central to Socrates’ thought. In this account of Socrates, the Greek thinker is presented as offering a unique theory of knowledge, whereby the very point of knowledge is to question whether one has any knowledge whatsoever. What distinguishes Socrates’ philosophy as a clear “love of wisdom” – which is the meaning of the term philosophy in the Ancient Greek – is precisely this idea that knowledge is not the mere accumulation of facts. To say one actually knows something is a strange position from the Socratic viewpoint: his approach and his philosophical method is an attempt to attack this very position. From where does one gain these facts, from where does one gain these very ideas of truth? For Socrates to suggest that the wisest is the one who knows that they know nothing is to suggest that the wisest is the one who has radically criticized his or her preconceptions. In this regard, the Socratic approach of the critique of preconceptions and prejudices is itself a process – wisdom is not the collection of facts, much like one would collect or accumulate wealth – rather, it is an ongoing activity whereby the individual continually examines their own life. To paraphrase one of Socrates’ other famous phrases, this process is the same as the notion that “the unexamined life is not worth living.”

In this sense, we can begin to understand more about the etymological meaning of philosophy and what it entails: what does a love of wisdom mean? As Bob Wagoner points, out we may compare the concept of love with that of Socrates’ principle of knowing. Wagoner (1997) writes: “In the Symposium Socrates makes the surprising statement fairly early that “the only thing I say I understand is the art of love.” This is puzzling because in other dialogues Socrates always claims to know nothing.”” (p. 17) This apparent contradiction is explained by Wagoner (1997) as follows: “When we realize, however, that love is a lack, a desire for what we do not have, then it makes sense for Socrates to say that love is the only subject he understands. This is what a “philosopher” is – one who loves (seeks) wisdom because he does not have it.” (p. 17) It is thus the one who claims to know nothing that has a love for wisdom, insofar as love means that something is lacking. Hence, the common everyday example of love can clarify this point: when one is in love, they realize their own incompleteness as an individual subject. This means that one is truly in love when one needs the other more than they need themselves. Love is precisely the notion that one’s own individual and subjective existence is lacking without the other; the individual is not sufficient to cause happiness. The philosopher, as one who claims that he or she knows nothing, is thus to a certain extent in love with wisdom, as he or she realizes that wisdom is that which he or she does not have, and furthermore that, which he or she needs in order to be complete.

The prejudices and preconceptions that Socrates constantly attacks are therefore forms of knowledge that do not have any conception of love. Socrates needs to clear away these preconceptions, so that a more proper question for wisdom and truth can be formulated. Hence, Socrates’ approach seems to be initially constituted by exactly this notion that the one who claims to know something, in a sense, has no love for knowledge, and in this sense, does not truly understand it or dedicate him or herself to it. Knowledge is something that is in the possession of the one who claims that they know, and becomes something trivial. As Sophie herself notes, the one who declares that they know something, may in fact know very little: by declaring that one does not know anything, one is already a step ahead, since they have broken through all presuppositions, they have tossed all prejudices aside. Love is precisely this tossing away of prejudices that claim to be sufficient to explain and understand the world. The Socratic breakthrough lies in the understanding that the lack of knowledge is the foundation for acquiring true knowledge.

Socrates therefore most viciously attacks the opponent in dialogue when the opponent claims to know something. Examples of these offensives are, of course, numerous in Plato’s writings, but let us just cite one example from the Euthyphro. In dialogue with Socrates, Euthyphro states in regards to the question of what is pious the following: “What is beloved by the gods is pious, and what is not beloved by them is impious.” (Plato, 2010, p. 5) Socrates, with his critical method of deconstructing preconceived notions and faulty assumptions, endeavors to undermine Euthyphro’s account. Euthyphro definitively declares what he believes to constitute the pious, whereas Socrates, in contrast, attempts to demonstrate to Euthyphro the logical fallacy of his position. Hence, in this specific case, Socrates tries to show how Euthyphro’s view is incompatible with Greek polytheism. This is because this system has many gods with many different views of what is pious: “Euthyphro, it wouldn’t be surprising if in doing what you’re doing now – punishing your father – you were doing something beloved by Zeus but despised by Kronos and Ouranos.” (Plato, 2010, p. 6) The method of Socrates therefore does not attempt to say what the pious is, much like Euthyphro does. Rather, Socrates commits to the lack that is consistent with love and shows how Euthyphro’s own position is lacking. If Euthyphro says that what the gods value is pious, the fact that there are different gods with different conceptions of the world negates this thesis. It can be said that this is how Socrates’ philosophic method opens the way for truth and wisdom: by dispelling and deconstructing false knowledge, and by showing the lack inherent to such false knowledge, one can turn this lack into a positive foundation from which to seek out the truth.

Socrates’ Emphasis on Logic

It is clear, however, that in this method of deconstruction and showing the faulty logic of various presuppositions and prejudices, Socrates nevertheless employs a very consistent and rigorous methodology. That is to say that Socrates’ approach is fundamentally logical and rational. But what do these terms of reason and logic mean in the Socratic context? If we consider Gaarder’s (1994) reading of Socrates from his aforementioned Sophie’s World, the author describes Socrates’ conception of reason and logic as follows: “(Socrates) believed in the existence of eternal and absolute rules for what was right or wrong. By using our common sense we can all arrive at these immutable norms, since human reason is in fact eternal and immutable.” (p. 83) In order to flesh out this particular interpretation of Socrates’ views on logic and reason, let us connect them to the previous point about the love that is at the heart of the philosophical approach and the attempt to criticize those who claim that they know. If Socrates believes that wisdom is a process because our love for wisdom is always a sign of our lack of wisdom, which means “that the only thing one can know is that one knows nothing”, how can Socrates be certain of the validity of human reason and logic, and how can he state that there are eternal and absolute rules? Is this not an example of him knowing something, despite his claims to know nothing? This apparent contradiction is part of the radical newness of Socrates’ philosophical approach and method, and thus is indicative of his historical importance. Logic and human rationality can reveal the gaps in the logic of others. But this, at the same time, is a testimony to the pervasiveness of logic. Logic is everywhere when we attempt to formulate a thought. The point for Socrates is to bring to the surface this hidden logical structure that some times individuals are not aware of. Thus, going back to our previous example from the Euthyphro, Euthyphro’s attempts to define what the pious is always takes the form of dogmatic claims. Euthyphro merely asserts that he knows what piety means, constantly changing his definitions when placed under interrogation by the rigorous Socratic method. Hence, Euthyphro begins to assert in the dialogue in question that if something is pious it is “loved by all the gods.” (Plato, 2010, p. 8) This is how Euthyphro will attempt to reject Socrates’ previous deconstruction of his argument. But even this new definition is subject to the rational sharpness of Socrates’ logical razor. Socrates once again twists and turns Euthyphro’s own words, as he commits to the infallibility of logic and reason in rooting out contradictory presuppositions. For example, Socrates reduces Euthyphro’s definition of piety to love. Since, for something to be pious, for Euthyprho, means that it is to be loved by all the Gods, we have to understand what being loved means. As Socrates says: “then if the pious were loved because of being the pious, then the beloved would be loved because of being the beloved, and again, if the beloved was beloved because of being loved by gods, the pious would also be pious by being loved.” (Plato, 2010, p. 9) Socrates’ twisting and turning logic tries to show the insufficiency of what Euthyphro claims to know. Socrates intends to show that Euythyphro’s position is inconsistent, and it is precisely logic that allows him to make these claims. Socrates’ logic and reason seem insurmountable, and therefore one can begin to understand why Socrates values the method of logic. This is because logic and reason can destruct every possible argument and position; and because it possesses this power, there must be something essential to it. At the same time, Socrates’ unique use of logic and reason does not attempt to make any definitive claims about what is piety, but rather show the lack that underlies any positive definition of things. By exposing this lack to the light, Socrates is able to once again maintain his philosophical position of love, precisely because love is defined in terms of such a lack, and therefore love is defined in terms of an endlessly pointing outwards to something else. With this new usage of logic and reason by Socrates, one can begin to understand his particularity as a historical figure and, furthermore, his continued influence on the historical periods that followed him. History after Socrates, and particularly, in the period of the Enlightenment and the Renaissance, began to take over themes of classical Greek and Roman culture. One of these crucial themes emphasizes the power of reason to de-mythologize all other accounts of nature. For example, the Enlightenment can be interpreted as a response to the dogmatic claims of the Church that dominated the Middle Ages: these dogmatic claims were not found in reason, but rather in a blind faith. The Enlightenment sought for more rigorous answers to these questions of nature, which the Church could not sufficiently answer. We can understand a movement such as the Enlightenment therefore as the direct realization of the promise of Socrates and a continuation of his legacy: presuppositions and blind issues of dogmatic faith are not enough, and reason is that, which shows the lack in these explanations. Once again, knowledge is not merely the preponderance of dogmatic claims, but to truly know something means to admit that one does not know, and thus slowly attempt to deconstruct the web of preconceptions that surround us. The fact that logic and reason are able to so effectively perform this act is a testimony to what Socrates would call its eternality; and it is precisely Socrates who introduced into the world this application of logic, rationality and the resources of the mind.

Socrates and Political Power

Certainly, a philosopher who continually confronts and challenges the preconceptions of the society in which he or she lives is a dangerous citizen from the viewpoint of the state and those who hold political power. This is because it is arguably the very nature of these political powers and states to continually perpetuate prejudices and preconceptions in order to secure their power. Exposing the fraudulent logic of these foundations of power is a direct revolutionary act, and we can thus begin to understand Socrates in this regard as a revolutionary whose weapons of choice were logic, reason and the mind.

Any quick glance at contemporary society shows the presence of preconceptions that structure how we look at the social world. For example, in the realm of politics there is a consistent structure of Democrat vs. Republican. Upon first view, everyone thinks they know what these parties stand for. In the case of the democrat, they stand for a more socially responsible system that by extension calls for a bigger government, whereas for the Republicans, the objective is a call for a smaller government that constantly brings to the mind of the public the danger of government intrusion in our lives, however, at the cost of not establishing a more socially democratic state. Certainly, these are some of the basic positions that this two party system gives us. But what if we look further into this situation, like Socrates, and deconstruct the situation to reveal that there is no essential difference between the two parties? For example, both parties played their role in the current economic crisis, both parties waged war abroad. When we begin to question these preconceptions, we begin to use the methodology that Socrates brought to life in Ancient Greece, a gesture which solidified his historical importance.

And this is why it becomes possible to understand why Socrates is precisely a revolutionary and democratic figure. In respect to democracy, he is a democratic figure exactly because he questions presuppositions. Such presuppositions allow for a certain type of government to form: for example, the presupposition that existed in South Africa, which stated that apartheid was the best system. And by questioning these presuppositions, what is simultaneously created is a more democratic space, because one is questioning the legitimacy of the authority of those in power, and thus forming a broader and more inclusive dialogue based not on some predetermined superiority or difference, but rather upon a base of logic and rationality in which anyone can take part. And precisely by challenging power, Socrates shows himself to be the model of a revolutionary thinker. In the “Editor’s Preface” to The Cambridge Companion to Socrates, Donald R. Morrison (2011) phrases this idea very vividly: “Socrates was a revolutionary. He revolutionized the intellectual method by searching for rigorous definitions of concepts such as “courage” and “justice.” He revolutionized values by arguing that what matters most to human happiness is not money or fame or power, but the state of one’s soul…He was a spiritual revolutionary…unjustly condemned to death, he refused his friends’ offer to break him out of jail.” (p. xiii) Morrison’s remarks clearly indicate the far-reaching extent of Socrates’ revolutionary life. His conceptions of justice and his use of method were entirely new; moreover, the nature of his philosophy led him into a direct confrontation with conservative and everyday values. Socrates is a political rebel, since he opposes the system through his very act of questioning. Accordingly, following Morrison (2011), Socrates “was a revolutionary who began a tradition” (p. xiii) precisely because he showed individuals how they may question authority and power. Socrates’ constantly challenges the legitimacy of both those who hold power and the ideas that hold power in people’s minds.

Conclusion

Both the uniqueness and the significance of Socrates are thus demonstrated in the wide-ranging nature of his contributions. Socrates did not only provide the template for a style of thinking, but consequently, according to the radicality of this style, a template for action. Socrates’ method firstly attacks the so-called “sophists”, who claim to understand and grasp what is true. Socrates does not perform this critique by merely asserting his truth against the truth of the opponent. Rather, he places himself inside the position of the opponent and de-constructs their logic, showing the inconsistency of their position. Accordingly, Socrates shows us a new way of how to perform a critique of our society. This way is the means of logic, which is constitutive of all our concepts and ideas. Socrates uses logic in a manner whereby he uncovers the illogical foundations of seemingly logical positions. That this method is so effective demonstrates the far-reaching extent to which logic and rationality structure our lives: by mastering this structure, therefore, one masters their own existence. Hence, it becomes clear why Socrates is important for the third point mentioned: such a form of empowerment clearly becomes dangerous to those who hold power. It is in this sense that Socrates is a revolutionary figure, since with his unique use of logical method he shows the lack of logic behind the ideas of those in power. This is therefore a threat to their hegemony. At the same time, Socrates, by showing this particular way of life and existence, creates a democratic space, because such a form of thought is available to all. The nature of Socrates’ philosophy lies precisely in this threefold radicality.

References

Gaarder, J. (1994). Sophie’s World: A Novel About the History of Philosophy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, Inc.

Morrison, D.R. (2011). “Editor’s Preface.” In: D.R. Morrison (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Socrates. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Plato. (2010). Euthyphro. San Francisco: Creative Commons.

Wagoner, R.E. (1997). The Meaning of Love: An Introduction to Philosophy of Love. Westport, CT: Praeger.