sign in sign up
<<
Home , Archelaus (philosopher), Euclid of Megara, Ion of Chios, Myrto, Prodicus, Sophroniscus

SOCRATES

Information about the historical

Socrates was the son of , a stonemason, and Phaenarete, a midwife, from Alopeke, belonged to the tribe of Antiochis and was born circa 470 BC.

Young Socrates initially worked as a stonemason like his father. There was an old tradition that he had crafted the statue of the Three Graces that stood by the entrance of the Acropolis (Pausanias 1,22,8 and 9,35,7 – Comments on ’ Clouds 793) but like the rest of the information about the that we have from sources of his time, it is probably not true. Tradition has it that in his youth he showed interest in the Ionian physical sciences, which had become well known in and initially they may have aroused his enthusiasm. However, later in his maturity, he was won by physical . In ’s Socrates admits that he had been greatly impressed in his youth by the teachings of about the Mind (he was on friendly terms with , one of the students of Anaxagoras). In Epidimies of of (fr. 11 Blumenthal) it is reported that Socrates travelled to with Archelaus. Of course, this refutes what Plato mentions in that Socrates never travelled away from his city except when he took part in military expeditions of his city. One compromising explanation is that perhaps this journey of his had to do with the Athenian expedition to Samos in 441/440 BC.

As a historical figure Socrates is mainly known through the works of two authors of antiquity: Plato and . The former places him as the central figure of all his philosophical which have survived to this day (with the exception of the , but also in this the Athenian must be Socrates). This "platonic" Socrates’ philosophical struggle to define basic concepts we watch. Xenophon, who was never a student of Socrates, refers to him in his works , Oeconimicus and and in his, (but with its authenticity disputed) . Through his information he basically refutes the accusations against the philosopher as he presents him as a virtuous and good citizen. Xenophon's socratic books were written some time after Socrates' death.

The reasonable question, which arises for every researcher of the life of the great philosopher, is which of these two sources should be considered more credible. As is usually the case with issues that relate to persons who have marked the world history with their presence, the opinions differ: for some it is Plato who, as a student of Socrates, knows the philosopher better and understands his teaching but for others precisely this relations of Socrates with Plato makes Xenophon a more reliable source. In particular, it is a fact that Plato is an earlier source than Xenophon. It is true that he himself developed a personal philosophical theory, which he even altered it at least twice. It is, therefore, sometimes difficult to distinguish among Plato’s lines referring to Socrates which concepts belong to Socrates and which to Plato. On the other hand, one point in favor of Plato is the fact that, as a sophisticated philosopher and student of Socrates, he understood his teaching to a greater depth. Xenophon, on the other hand, must have drawn on previous sources, including Plato, but, according to some scholars, presents the true face of Socrates, whether or not he has understood the teachings of the philosopher fully. However, his presentation of Socrates as a peaceful elderly person who discusses in a "low" tone of ideological confrontations with his fellow symposiasts, as he presents him in his Memorabilia, remains rather simplistic. Researchers like Burnet and Taylor (representatives of the Scottish School) accept that Socrates is presented as he really was in Plato’s dialogues, which depict, at least, the intense conflict of the Socratic teaching with that of the of the time of Socrates and highlight both the philosophical personality and the moral consistency, as well as the method of his reflection that consists in the dialectic feature of the philosopher, known as "Socratic ".

Apart from these two basic sources, there was a rich literature on the personality of Socrates, which unfortunately has not survived to this day. Elements of this writing activity are the extant excerpts of reports by Phaedo, , Aristipus, and Aeschines. Still references to Socrates come from , who was only indirectly associated with the Socratic thought, but who attempted to understand the life and work of Socrates with his characteristic philosophical seriousness. We also have the works of later writers, such as (Philosopher’s History), Laertius (Lives of Eminent ), (About the Socratic Demon) and Libanius (Socrates’ Apology). The conclusion that is reached is that today we have a picture of Socrates which in some points is shaped by opinions and which is not always accurate. Besides, since antiquity and mainly from the comic playwrights - most notably Aristophanes in , but also in and in the Frogs - we have a multitude of mocking and distorted reports on Socrates, who - like every extraordinary and "out of the general atmosphere and times" personality - seems that he became annoying with his particular ways, and as a result every effort to be presented through similar reports proved “unfair”.

Let us first examine the information which derives from authenticated, more or less, sources. We know that the philosopher fought in the battles of Potidea where he saved the life in Alcibiades (431/29 BC), of Delion (424 BC), an of Amphipolis (422 BC) at the age of about 39,46 and 48 respectively.

A man who participated in battles at this age cannot have been a "cachectic satyr", as Socrates was portrayed by some. Later, when we examine the moral teaching of the philosopher, we will return to the semiology of his appearance, and especially his poor manner of dress, as well as his "absent-mindness", which, as a common feature, was used to describe all the philosophers of the world since the era of the Pre- Socratics and especially Thales or Anaxagoras, and which was used to describe Socrates as well, when Aristophanes in the Birds cartoons him as a meteorosophist and an "out of the world "scholar. Probably Aristophanes at this point brings back to the forefront the cosmological and physical quests from the young age of the philosopher when he became a companion to the first Athenian philosopher Archelaus, a student of Anaxagoras, a relation confirmed by musician Aristoxenos and by , who calls Socrates a "student" of Archelaus. The truth is that we can not accurately detect the time when the shift to the philosopher's interests occured. Tradition, however, gives us the image of an elderly man with his attention focused on man and on the inside of his soul.

At this point it is sufficient to note that Socrates, when he participated in banquets and drank with his companions, managed not to lose his sobriety after the traditional wine-drinking, despite the fact that in his personal-daily life he abstained from drinking. Xenophon, at least from his part, gives us this picture of Socrates in his Memorabilia.

The fact that his outward appearance was not flattering is testified by different sources, while he accepted for his appearance the unflattering label of "Silenus". But this chubby man with the bulging eyes, the ugly nose and the thick lips “shone from head to toe” internally. One of the most prominent features of his personality was his ability to locate the "ridiculous". Anticipating the sentimentalism and the of his interlocutors, he was extremely tolerant of human passions, while he himself was a particularly abstemious person.

Nothing on him was an exaggeration. He did not provoke with an excessively "dirty" or too "sloppy" appearance or with an ascetic or antisocial behavior. He did not seek wealth, but he mixed comfortably in the circles of the Athenians and enjoyed the good companionship of rich and poor with the same developed communicative mood. What he "saw" in his interlocutor was the man, not his social status. He did not wish to be involved in , he was not interested in any kind of political power.

He was a member of the Council of 500 in 406-405 BC at least once and we also know that as a Prytanis in 406 BC, after the naval battle of Arginousae, where it was impossible to retrieve the dead bodies because of the rough seas, he had argued against the proposal that all generals be condemned to death for this serious omission, a proposal finally accepted to satisfy the mob (Plato, Apology 321, Xenophon, Greek 1, 7.15, Xenophon, Memorabilia 1,1,18). We also know of his resistance against the authoritarian regime of the "thirty" tyrants (Plato Apology 32c and Xenophon Memorabilia 4,4,3): In 404 BC four people and Socrates were ordered by the "Thirty" who wanted "accomplices" in the terrorism they had imposed on Athens, to capture Leo of Salamis to be executed. Socrates simply did not obey and went home. On the suggestion of , his former student, the Thirtiy "issued special measures to "silence" him (Xenophon, Memorabilia 1,2,31 and 4,4,3). Of course, we cannot know the original intention of the tyrants, that is, if they wanted to impose their terrorism on the general public and started with the "annoying" citizens, such as Socrates, or they were particularly concerned with the teachings of the philosopher. It is natural, however, that old Socrates’ students, such as Crito and Alcibiades, who belonged to the oligarchic side, came in direct conflict with the moral demands of their teacher and therefore started to consider him their political opponent.

The married life of the philosopher with , who bore for him three sons (Lambrokles, Sophroniscus and Menexenos), is also covered with a veil of "mocking fog", in which Xanthippe is portrayed as constantly disturbing the philosopher’s mental tranquility. Concerning his sons, Aristotle reports that they proved examples of degeneration from the characteristic constant conscience which prevailed in the family in which they grew up, to mental retardation and sloth. (Rhetoric 1390 b: "«Εξίσταται δε τα μεν ευφυά γένη εις μανικώτερα ήθη, οίον οι από Αλκιβιάδου

και οι από Διονύσου τον προτέρού, τα δε στάσιμα εις αβελτηρίαν και νωθρότητα οίον οι από Κίμωνος και Περικλέους και Σωκράτους»"). The information that there was also a second marriage of the philosopher with , the daughter of the Just, who was without any property, is mentioned in Aristotle’s On and Vices (cf. 93) according to Diogenes Laertius (11,25) but it is totally dubious information - as it is an opinion created after 300 BC - while it is explained semiologically as it literally links Socrates’ moral teaching to Aristides’ moral practice and may therefore derive from this very ideological affinity, as well as from the fact that Sophroniscus, the philosopher’s father, was a friend of the family of Aristides the Just.

Finally, what everyone knows about his life is the conditions of his death, after his trial and his conviction to death by drinking poison in 399 BC. Xenophon quotes the charges against Socrates in his book Memorabilia (1,1,1). Plato does the same in Apology (241), as well as Diogenis Laertius (2,40 where Favorinos refers to the charges as they were expressed by the court): " αδικεί Σωκράτης ους μεν η πόλις

νομίζει θεούς ου νομίζων, έτερα δε καινά δαιμόνια εισφέρων αδικεί δε και τους νέους

διαφ0είρων. Τίμημα θάνατος". (“Socrates commits offence because he does not believe in the gods the city believes in and introduces new gods and also he commits offence because he corrupts the youth. His punishement, death penalty”). The charges were filed with the archon king, written by Melitos, and were endorsed by the politician Anytos, who then had the rank of general and belonged to a moderate party the primary principle of which was the restoration of the "fathers’ " (Aristotle, Constitution of the Athenians, 34), while a third accuser was Lycon.

Another issue is the philosopher’s apologia in the trial, as the two Apologies written by Plato and Xenophon are certainly not reliable reproductions of the original apologia. There followed a series of "Apologies" (by Lycias, Theodictus, Phaseles, Dimitrios of Athens, Theon of Antioch, Plutarch, and even the rhetoric speech of Livanius). The fact that we do not have the philosopher's original apologia does not mean that it is true that Socrates remained silent, an attitude which, for reasons of impressing but also of promoting their own philosophical views the writers of the imperial times attributed, not convincingly enough, to Socrates.

Those who found Socrates guilty were 281, while 220 found him innocent. 300 voted for the death penalty and 201 against it. Socrates drank the hemlock poison a few days later because the execution of the sentence was postponed due to an Athenian mission in Delos.

Students of Socrates known for the philosophical theories they developed in the context of their own philosophical approach were, apart from Plato, Aeschines, Antisthenes of Athens, of Cyrene, Euclid of and others, who belong to the spirit of the various "Socratic schools".

Later there appeared several texts bearing the title of "Socratic letters" (letters by Socrates himself or his followers), but as it is known, they are much later writings. What we know now is that Socrates did not write any texts. His teaching was oral, but he also taught by his personal behavior, which was characterized by ultimate consistency.

Socrates and his time

The teaching of Socrates was something far wider than what we define today by the term philosophy, as it was never presented as a coherent philosophical theory. Nowadays, more than ever, the absolute tendency for assigning "specialties" and “fields of action” to everything seeks to attribute to each view a unique name so that it is easily classified in the scientific and, in general, the intellectual field. But in order to understand today what the teaching of Socrates expressed and what its value was, we need initially to comprehend the "surrounding atmosphere" in which it is was created and functioned. In this way we will be able to specify the aphoristic characterizations given to Socrates, either as praise or as accusations. Indeed, these views range from absolutely disparaging, as for example the characterization of "decadent" attributed to him by Nietzsche , to the absolutely positive, of which we know, that he was the greatest philosopher of all time, and other generalizations of similar meaning. In particular, Magalhaes-Vilhena ends up in his monograph on Socrates in the view, which later is also accepted by Brun, that the personality of Socrates remains always unknown.

If one looks at the whole of Greek history and in all areas of human activity, it is doubtful if one will find similar dynamics to those developed in the last third of the fifth century BC. in the intellectual thought of Athens. This dynamics had its origins in the middle of the fifth century BC. and in particular between the Persian Wars and the Peloponnesian War. This era is likened by Hegel and others to the Enlightenment movement of the eighteenth century and, in a "preposterous" and "ignorant of history" effort of naming it, is called Enlightenment. On the one hand, we have the generation of those who fought at the Persian Wars and considered bravery the highest ideal, a generation which perishes with the death of the last Marathon fighters. Let us recall here the typical for the era and extraordinary for himself, case of , the great tragedian, who, in his epitaph, considered his participation in the wars against the Persians more important than his works, if we accept that he had written in advance what he wished to be inscribed on his tombstone (Αισχύλον Ευφορίωνος Αθηναίον τόδε

κεύθει μνήμα καταφθιμένον πυροφόροιο Γέλα. Άλκην δ'ευδόκιμον

Μαραθώνιον άλσος αν είποι και βαθυχαιτήεις Μήδος επιστάμενος = This monument covers Aeschylus, the son of Evforion, of Athens, who died in the wheat fields of Gela. About his prowess testify, the Marathon grove and the long-haired Persian who came to know it well).

On the other hand there is the new generation of the Peloponnesian War period with the relaxing of principles and the departure from the old morals and mindset. At the same time increases the power of the Athenian Alliance, which turned into an Athenian Hegemony, with all the force of the wealth of power and the consequent departure from "good" . Year 430 BC can be regarded as the culmination of the Athenian power, to be followed by its gradual decline. At such a transitional period, the catalytic presence of a charismatic personality such as Socrates is historically understood to have had a remarkable effect on his contemporaries and an indelible effect on the later generations. Apart from Jesus, who divided the world history into two parts with his presence, the only other equivalent is Socrates, who divided the history of philosophy into Pre-Socratic philosophy and subsequent philosophy. We are even more aware of the key and temporal influence of the personality of Socrates, since the object of his study, inquiry and reflection was the intertwined with the human existence and therefore timeless issues of (a) finding the logical meaning of human life – through the "Ontological" definition of primitive concepts and (b) the moral behavior of the intelligent human - mainly through the personal example.

Sophists

Objective reasons had pushed the young people of the Athenian Republic, who sought to be politically distinguished in the Assembly and in public speaking, to search for capable teachers of rhetoric who would teach them the precious art of persuasion and would arm them with the powerful weapon of imposing their personal opinion on the consciences of their fellow citizens. In this quest they were not interested if their opinion was of real value and if it would actually be in the interest of the city.

Their aim was not the truth but the seeming dominance through elaborate reasoning and high-level argumentation, which would make them be personally distinguished and would give them political advantage. In this quest of the youths of Athens, the answer was the Sophists.

Originally, the term “” was given to the worthy possessor of the art of persuasion, through the observance - or the ability of covered falsification - of the rules of reasoning. (The terms "figure of speech" and "figure of reason" were later created by Aristotle, but it was sophist who initially founded the notion of the form of speech as an expression stereotype. We could say he was the "technocrat", who designed the components of the rhetorical art.)

Sophists could teach the art of rhetoric for a fee to anyone who wanted to gain this skill. Over the years, however, it proved that the ability that certain persons acquired to change public opinion with their argument and not always to the right political direction – as it was always proven in retrospect - was a totally dangerous tactic and led the Athenian state to decline. However, the philosophical background of the Sophists was not the same for the representatives of the first period and for the representatives of the second Sophistic, which is rightly described as decadent. First of all, we need to realize the importance the movement of the great representatives of the Sophistic had for the advancement of philosophical thinking, since in philosophical quest, as well as in any cultural field, “parthenogenesis” does not exist.

The birthplace of the movement was the cities of Sicily, mainly Syracuse, from where the art of the opposites originated as an ability of forensic and political argumentation. The great sophists such as Protagoras, , of Ceos, Ippias of Ilia, Arasimachus, Lykophron each worked separately with common feature the formulation of theories that supported relativism and subjectivity.

Although the source of information for the most of the above is Plato, their main adversary, it is easy to see the philosophical value of some of their views. For example Protagoras, the theoretical founder of the Sophistic, was the one who basing - according also to Plato - his views on the philosophy of about the continuous flow, expressed views like the fluidity of reality, the constant change of things and their condition, and ultimately the absolute connection of the very essence of things exclusively with consciousness and the way that it grasps them. Views which are summed up in the empiric expression: "Πάντων χρημάτων

μέτρον ά ν θ ρ ω π ο ς " (“Man is the measure of all things”) This kind of views led the knowledge-theoretical philosophical quest to absolute skepticism. The result of such a view was the Sophists' view that the truth is subjective every time and therefore there is no criterion for checking the validity of human knowledge. Since truth is subjective, the one who knows the rhetoric art is capable of making "τον ήσσονα λόγον κρείττω"(“turning the weak point into a strong point”) However, sophists such as Protagoras, Thrashimachus and Antiphon developed views beyond the rhetoric regarding the notion of what is Right: Protagoras believed that the vindication of the most proficient rhetorician was politically reflected in the imposition of his views. Thrashimachus interpreted and extended this view by adopting the concept of the Right of the stronger, while Antiphon proceeded even further by giving priority to natural Right over positive Right.

However, similar formulation of views concealed a substantial breakdown of the new structure of the scientific and rational approach of reality, which the Pre- Socratic Ionian Philosophy of the sixth century BC. managed to express, leading the explanation "through " process to the explanation “through reason". On the moral level, ethical and political values of centuries were also meant to suffer the catalytic effect of philosophical relativism with the corollary of the social and existential nihilism. Gorgias, the author of "On The Non-Existence," represented the ontological and knowledge-theoretical nihilism with the extreme view that "nothing exists, and even if something existed, we would not be able to get to know it and even if we knew it we would not be able to teach it”. (B3: εν μεν και πρώτον ότι

ουδέν εστίν, δεύτερον ότι ει και εστίν, ακατάληπτού ανθρώπω, τρίτον ότι και

ει καταληπτόν, αλλά τοι γε ανέξοιστον και ανερμήνευτον τω πέλας). According to him, the only thing that can be taught is the rhetoric art which makes us able to persuade others of our views. It must finally be stressed that each sophist was a particular philosophical personality and that his teaching did not focus on a single and structured theory to which we could attribute the term “sophist philosophy”. It is rather a movement of anxious intellectuals who turned their attention from the cosmological interests of the past to man and to the study of his mental ability to grasp reality or not and express himself within it consciously and in an interventive manner. Their inspiration comes from the Theories of the Opposites of the Pre- Socratics and dominated the political and social milieu of their time precisely because it was appropriate for the promotion of their views for the reasons we mentioned earlier.

A common starting point for Socrates and the Sophists.

The Ancient Greek Enlightenment was the common frame in which both the Sophistic movement and the Socratic reflection developed. If we recall that the writings of Protagoras ended in the fire, and Socrates drank the hemlock poison, we can have an idea of what was happening in Athens at the time of Socrates. The Pre- Socratic philosophers such as Heraclitus or had already announced in a first approach the division of the unity of human intellect and knowledge. Others like criticized intensely the widespread belief in the divine, while in art, the first Lyrics were already winning in the hearts and minds of men the position that for years was held by the epic as the expression of the heroic ideal, of the physical might and the aristocratic morality. All this spiritual preparation led to the undermining of the historical assumptions of the past and to the discovery of new paths in mainly the philosophical – but not only that – quest.

The Sophistic movement, like the , started from the basic need to set philosophical questions that had not been set before, and not give answers to previous philosophical views. The protagonist in the anxiety that is hidden in such a quest is Man who has ceased to seek only the epistemological approach of the world or the answer to his cosmological anxiety, but attempts to turn to his "inner" soul and stop there to rearrange his worldview.

In a world that used to favor physical strength, war skills and moral prowess, in short the traditional moral values of the generation of Marathon fighters, the Sophists and Socrates come forward audaciously to renegotiate old and rather "obsolete" values such as intellectual cultivation, intellectual skills and their development. For sophists this development could be used within the framework of the Athenian State as social credit and political power and for Socrates it expressed the total essential foundation of a new morality: that of the conscious and "willing" ( which presupposes knowledge ) citizen. The subversives of earlier theories views of the sophists were to terrify the Athenians, with two dangerous symptoms accompanying them: first, the use of demagoguery as a political method, and second, the tolerance towards opinions which, for many years, were deceptive. Thus the common starting point of the Sophists and Socrates led his contemporaries to initially label him as much "morally lax" as the Sophists. This "curious" man, who constantly asked questions was initially considered rather quaint, then annoying and finally dangerous.

The differentiation of Socrates from the Sophists

The anthropocentric shift - in the philosophical quest - a common parameter of the thinking of the sophists and Socrates - should not create a false impression, so we ignore their fundamental difference. The greatest rival of what lay between philosophical reflection and free wordplay - as in the case of Gorgias - was Socrates, who attempted to base the knowledge of reality and the laws of morality on the truth, which was considered an objective and indisputable criterion. He is the great seeker, the "constant questioner," who has made the purpose of his life to trace the rules of moral behavior, not because a rational design requires its "technical" completion but because he is feeling this search as his primary duty, not only for himself but mainly because he longs to share it with his fellow human beings. It is a social morality that precedes the knowledge-seeking demand for the objective truth. On the contrary, according to the sophists, the "logical" rules are those that led to the consequences of moral relativism. The frugal and sloppy teacher had nothing to do with the luxuriously dressed sophists. They provided their knowledge of rhetoric art for a handsome remuneration, while Socrates’ teaching was free for everyone. Not only the philosopher did not ask for a fee for what he taught, but he felt it his duty to teach.

He likened himself to an "annoying gadfly" (= oestrus), which tried to keep his fellow citizens alert and protect them from the demagogues who tried to distort the truth - especially from the Sophists and their followers. Perhaps here may be detected one of the main causes if his subsequent conviction, when the Athenians, following the abolition of the regime of the "Thirty", attempted to find a "scapegoat" to prove the supposed power of the rising Athenian Democracy: Socrates had always opposed this peculiar demagogic movement, which in modern Greece is called populism and which seems to be a permanent disadvantage of the Republic, or at least of the regimes that call themselves so. Unlike the Sophists, Socrates endeavoured to create the type of the Athenian citizen, who, as his first concern, would not seek to impose his opinion on the consciences of his fellow citizens, but who would be mainly concerned with the distinction between what was right and what was wrong, using the objective truth as the only criterion. In this way he would not be "easy prey" of the sophistic casuistry and he would never become enemy of his own city, since any kind of self-interest was out of his intent. The teachings of Socrates were at antipodes with the teachings of the Sophists.

Of course this attitude of Socrates, who at the places where the Athenian gathered, did not cease to open serious topics for discussion, in his personal way, constantly asking questions and checking every "self-evident" answer, was certainly annoying them. After a while, when perhaps his consistency and his overall behavior impressed them, they would start thinking about the meaning of his questions. But eventually what seems to have prevailed was the tendency of many people not to wish to trouble themselves with certain issues. And when a fellow human being, who has no official authority but volunteers to awaken them attempts to be a "loudspeaker" of the inner voice of their consciousness, they feel outraged with him and are ready to get rid of him by any means. However, if we combine the tremendous impact that Socrates had on his contemporaries and his posteriors with the fact that he himself did not write anything, we are led to the logical conclusion that what he was concerned about were the most crucial and fundamental aspects of the human nature and behavior and therefore remain extremely timely for so many centuries, while a similar kind of influence only in the founders of great religions has been observed. In the case of Socrates, however, the tool for the whole of his quest was not some kind of faith, but the “right reason”, with the unique - and perhaps contradictory - starting point of this quest being his "demon".

The Socratic demon

One of the points on which the testimonies about Socrates converge is that of his mystical and wider religious pursuits. Aristophanes accuses him of, as a physicist and cosmologist, being “impious” and of having created a personal faith. In The Birds he portrays him chairing an "impious" secret session. From this biased criticism it is easy to conclude that the truth is that Socrates was not, of course, an unbeliever but a conscientious believer. It is reasonable that a man of his philosophical beliefs (which originated in the Pro-Socratic philosophy) could not accept the image of the unethical and foolish gods that the mythology of his time presented. However, urged by his strong tendency for respect for god as the ruler of the world and by his respect for the customs of the city, he observed the religious ritual of his time. Apart from the reasonable indications of the existence of the Divine - among which the power of natural laws – Socrates taught that he himself had a personal perception of the existence of the Divine from various "signs" given to people, such as dreams and oracles. Although he was familiar with the teachings of the Orphics and the Pythagorians, he did not appreciate the usual Orphic mysteries, according, at least, to Plato's testimony. Characteristic of the high importance that the philosopher attributed to the concept of God is the prayer he suggested that people should say: "Give us what is good". This was enough, as God knows better than us what is good. Plato mentions the strange ecstasies the philosopher fell into, one of which lasted for twenty-four hours, during which Socrates was unable to talk.

As regards this particular and personal "sign of the Divine" of Socrates (Apology, Plato 39e-41c), the sources mention the same facts: Socrates claimed that since his childhood he heard an internal voice on certain occasions - most of which could be considered everyday situations - which was simply averting. This inner "demon" gave him predictions about good and evil and without prompting him to do anything, it showed him what to avoid. It never told him what to do, only what not to do. This new and completely personal inner perception of the demon was another reason for his opponents to add more accusations against him including that of impiety. This inner "demon" was the intimate voice that was not identical to the intuition of other people, nor was it a mental disorder - as it was suggested - indiscriminately in different cases - and it was always averting. Therefore, this internal voice was not correlated with possible monomania or obsessions of the philosopher nor did it lead him to dangerous actions. On the contrary, his "credibility" was verified each time. The paramount philosopher of the right reason therefore believed in this enigmatic inner warning voice that accompanied him in his life, thus verifying that what seems to be “beyond reason” does not contradict reason but complements it.