When Was Socrates True Politics

Kenneth C. Blanchard, Jr. “The Enemies of Socrates: Piety and Sophism in the Socratic Drama.” The Review of Politics. 62.3 (2003): 421-449. Print.

Niccolò Machiavelli, a Florentine philosopher and political aficionado from the 16th century and Socrates, a classical Athenian savant who lived during the 5th century B.C., are both judged as being forefathers to modern western political science and thought. The two great men both came from erratic epochs within their respective nations of Italy and Greece: wars, transitions of power, and domestic conflicts left their countries void of sustainable leadership and in desperate need of a brighter future. But despite being from equally hopeless times, their theories on how their societies (and ultimately, future ones) should function in order to prosper, are divergent. In this essay, I will argue that Socrates would

As a defender of civic virtue, the significance of obligation and authority of one’s representative government epitomizes the magnitude of respect that Socrates had for Athenian Jurisprudence, irrespective of the fact that he was prosecuted against. In the accounts of the Apology and Crito, there exists a plethora of evidence that demonstrate Socrates’s adherence of institutionalized authority. His loyalty of the Athenian State derives from his notion that the obligation to surrender to the law manifests a just society. One may ask, “how is it possible for a persecuted man to continue to profess allegiance to a polity that sought his trial and execution”? Though many would not have the capacity to sustain such integrity, Socrates had his reasons in

He proclaims that “examining both myself and others is really the very best thing that a man can do, and that life without this sort of examination is not worth living” (Plato 66). Socrates believes that the government will be able to change so that people who value goodness and truth would be in power. However, later in the Apology, Socrates contradicts himself when he explains why he has led a mostly private life, saying that “if I had long ago attempted to take part in politics, I should have died long ago” (Plato 58). Socrates believes “a man who really fights for justice must lead a private, not a public, life” (Plato 59). This goes against what he has been saying for the rest of the trial and demonstrates the unrealistic quality of the high standards to which he holds the government and leaders. If Socrates says it is dangerous for proponents of justice to live a public life, it becomes extremely difficult for politicians to be virtuous and morally good, since politicians live essentially their whole lives in the public sphere. It is not realistic for Socrates to believe that the government of Athens could progress so that good people hold the power, when he has shown that in his own experience and observations it is not safe for good people to hold public positions.

Socrates, a critic of Athenian society, is also known as a critic of democracy. “Athens is a democracy, a city in which the many are the dominant power in politics, and it can therefore be expected to have all the vices of the many” (“Socrates’ criticism of democracy,” Encyclopedia Britannica). Socrates claims that he did not want to take part in government because he feared imprisonment or death, which eventually became his fate. Socrates’ problem with democracy was his concern with the citizens who run the

In The Republic Book IV, pp. 130e-136d, Socrates sets out to prove that societal justice is analogous to individual justice. In order to substantiate the analogy, Socrates compares the individual and the city. As he previously defined, justice in the city involves the power relationships between the different parts of the city, namely the guardians, the auxiliaries, and the producers.

Socrates, at the other end of the spectrum, saw politics as a wasted venture for him because his life was devoted to a quest for knowledge. He stated his way of life, which conflicts with that of Pericles' model, to differ from that of the democratic system of Athens because he saw the government to be corrupt and the majority to not be just. Socrates did not bother to lead a life of servitude to the ideals of the state because he showed through his actions that an unexamined life without critical thinking was not a life at all. As is made clear by the admittance of Socrates himself, his defense plea is the first time he has appeared in a court of law, even by the age of seventy. Socrates' life was dedicated to the pursuit of further comprehension and debate with the Athenian people on the deeper issues of life, not to a court

Plato’s account of Socrates’ defense against charges of corrupting the youth and heresy, reveal the ancient teacher’s view of justice as fairness and support of rule of law. In the Apology, Socrates faces a moral dilemma: to either accept his punishment for crimes he did not commit or to accept the assistance of his friends and escape death by the hand of the state. His choice to accept death in order to maintain rule of law reveals his belief of justice. He beliefs his punishment to be just not because he committed the crimes but because his sentence came through a legal process to which he consented. By sparing his life, he would weaken the justice system of Athens which he values above his own existence. This difference between the two men’s beliefs regarding justice draws the sharpest contrast in their views of effective leadership and government.

Socrates’ second argument is an attempt to show that Callicles admiration of courageous men is inconsistent with the view that all pleasures are good regardless of their source or the character of those who experience them. Socrates provides the example of cowards in war, who are pained by the advance of the enemy and rejoice upon their retreat by at least as much as the courageous (498a5-ca). Therefore if pleasure is good then the coward who is happy by the enemy’s retreat is as good as the courageous, something which Callicles doesn’t want to portray as he believes the cowardly and foolish are bad. In the end Callicles is forced to admit a distinction between good and bad pleasures and this distinction in turn allows Socrates to condemn contemporary Athenian politicians for ministering to the pleasures rather than the welfare of their people. From that point on Callicles so disgusted by the outcome only replies to Socrates in a formal manner thereby allowing Socrates to engage in a lengthy monologue in which the choice between philosophy and a public life is examined in the light of conclusions already established.9 Socrates argues that contemporary statesman are like poets pandering to the pleasures of the masses however Callicles thinks this only sensible for the ‘”leviathan” will kill you if you don’t humour it.’10 Callicles may well have been right in asserting that Socrates would be at the mercy of anyone who chooses to kill or injure him however immunity from

Socrates was a former infantryman, having fought in three campaigns during the war with Sparta, so it is no surprise that he believed justice should not be invoked by the citizens’ pleading. He

The idea of sacrificing the needs of the individual Athenian for the benefit of everyone in Athens was at the core of the inner workings of its democracy, thus, a distinct privilege was placed on engaging in the political atmosphere. (Of course, said privilege of voting and serving on juries was only afforded to male natural-born citizens, but that is beside the point.) “Our public men have, besides politics, their

This paper argues that Socrates makes a plausible case for justice. Socrates raised two main questions in the first two books of Plato’s Republic, what is justice? And why should we act justly? Thrasymachus and Glaucon both have different and more negative views of justice than Socrates. Throughout books one and two, Socrates, Glaucon and Thrasymachus go back and forth discussing the definition and application of justice in society. He starts his discussions with Glaucon and Thrasymachus by stating simply, “What is justice?”

Thrasymachus, angry at the discussion between Polemarchus and Socrates, claimed that he gave a better definition of justice. Justice, he says, “is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger” (book 1, p. 338c). However, Socrates did not clearly understand his idea of justice, Thrasymachus then goes on to explain his statement by asking whether or not Socrates is aware of tyrannical, democratic and aristocratic governments in some cities, he asks: “Don’t you know that some cities are ruled by a tyranny, some by a democracy, and some by an aristocracy?” (book 1, p. 338d), this acts as a leading question for what Thrasymachus later further explain his idea of justice, he explains:

A “Machiavellian government” is one that takes violence into consideration when obtaining a leader position as well as a means in maintaining structured citizens. In contrast, Socrates does not speak of means in obtaining this form of leadership, however, he speaks of devoting his life to wisdom and spreading knowledge on pure ‘goodness’ among humans. Socrates shows little interest in a governmental system that is comprised of citizens who fear their leader, but instead, citizens and rulers who respect and strive for a common good among all.

The nature of politics is one in which individuals are striving to make the best possible decisions with the mental tools they have. Political leaders who can moderate themselves and have the ability to maintain their composure in the midst of heated moments is what constitutes a mark of great virtue. In the play “Antigone” by Sophocles, the leader Kreon is depicted as a tyrant leader who sees himself differently when he has to face the consequences of choosing power over his own son’s wishes. According to Aristotle, what makes a person a good citizen or leader is whether they have the virtues of moderation, justice, and prudence. The implementation of these virtues in political events allows for individuals to act in a reasonable and wise manner as they make decisions. Following from Aristotle’s view of a good leader, Kreon does not posses the essential characteristics that would have aided him in his immoral endeavors. Thus, Socrates would be a better leader than Kreon because of his possession of virtues and self-control.