50

Socrates as the abstract This philosophical essay aims to Paradigmatic return to the , ask it anew, and make an attempt to find its possible solution. In the introduction, Figure of the author briefly discusses to genesis of the Socratic problem and Practical the basic methodological problems we encounter when dealing with it. * Further on, it defines five basic sources Philosophy of information about on which the interpretation tradition is Matúš Porubjak based. Then the author outlines two Department of Philosophy and Applied Philosophy key features of Socrates’ personality, University of Ss. Cyril and Methodius in Trnava aligned with the vast majority of Nám. J. Herdu 2 sources: (1) Socrates’ belief that he has Slovakia no theoretical knowledge; (2) Socrates’ [email protected] predilection towards practical questions, and the practical dimension of his activity. In conclusion, the author expresses his belief that it is just this practical dimension of philosophy that has been in the ‘blind spot’ of the modern study of Socrates which paid too much attention to the search for his doctrine. The history of philosophy, however, does not only have to be the history of doctrines, but can also be the history of reflected life practices which inspire followers in their own practices * This article was written under VEGA project No. 1/0864/18. I am thankful to Anna Pomichalova while reflecting on them. The author and Miroslav Pomichal for the translation of the therefore proposes to understand the first draft of this article. My special thanks go to anonymous reviewers and to Kryštof Boháček for historical Socrates as the paradigmatic many helpful comments and suggestions. figure of practical philosophy.

INTERNATIONAL ISSUE NO. 5/2018 Matúš Porubjak 51 Socrates as the paradigmatic figure of practical philosophy

Socrates is one of the most iconic philosophical thinking remains hidden and at the same time most controver- in the works of those who wrote about sial figures of the history of philosophy him? In the 19th century this para- from the 18th century to the present day. dox resulted in the so-called Socratic On the one hand, he is the most iconic problem, first formulated by Friedrich figure because the modern tradition Schleiermacher, and later developed by accepted the influence which had been many others. The question can simply attributed to Socrates by the ancient tra- be formulated as follows: who was the dition, particularly and , historical Socrates, so as to not con- both of whom have become the ancient tradict the principles that philosophers par excellence for modern called Socratic, and yet also inspired times. On the other hand, Socrates’ con- Plato to present him in his dialogues troversy results from the modern idea of in the way that he did?1 The aim of philosophy as a type of thought system our essay is to ask the Socratic ques- presented in the form of a text that can tion again, briefly look at the figure be critically examined. of Socrates in the context of Socratic The paradox to which this condi- literature, and make an attempt to find tion has led is obvious – what do we a possible answer. do with the ‘philosopher founder’ who did not write a single text, and whose 1 Schleiermacher (1852), p. cxlii.

INTERNATIONAL ISSUE NO. 5/2018 52

Socratic problem to the same subject, one of them must Socrates is not the only ancient philoso- be untrue. However, this does not nec- pher who wrote nothing. Among many essarily have to be the case. They may, others we mention , , for example, refer to another period of , or . We learn Socrates’ life, or to a different context in about them only through the accounts which Socrates addressed the particular and quotes preserved by their pupils, subject. Nor is it possible to unambigu- followers, commentators and critics. In ously assume from the consistency of order to reveal the views of a non-writ- multiple sources that they reflect the ing philosopher, these accounts need to view of the historical Socrates for the fol- be critically evaluated, and comparisons lowing reason: we cannot retroactively drawn. Our endeavour will lead to many guarantee the mutual independence of methodological problems. Why they are these resources, or their independence particularly conspicuous in Socrates is from another source used by the given owing to the fact that his name is con- authors but not preserved for us, or the tained in a relatively large number of general image of Socrates in the given genres of various texts which often offer time which did not have to correspond to very different images of Socrates. the views of Socrates himself,3 of which, This diversity is also caused by the by the way, Plato’s Socrates complains in fact that both classical and Hellenistic the Apology (18b–d). authors used to interpret a particular Eventually, similar problems asso- philosopher not as an individual his- ciated with the search for the historical torical person but rather as a represent- Socrates have prompted some interprets ative of a certain type of thinking and to believe that Socrates is a myth – a lit- behaviour which they either criticised erary fiction generated by a group of or praised from their position. Every- writers at the beginning of the 4th cen- one who tries to create a consolidated tury BC.4 Even if we reject such an picture of Socrates eventually comes across the question: ‘Do we judge our 3 Lacey (1971), pp. 367–368. conception of Socrates by what we find 4 A clear analysis of scholarly views on Socrates in the 19th and 20th centuries in the sources or do we judge the sources is given in J. Gajda-Krynicka (2006), by what we think we already know about pp. 36–49. According to her, Xenophon’s 2 version of Socrates is championed above Socrates?’ all by J. Brucker, H. Weissenborn, H. Arnim, Let us highlight some of the main H. Gomperz, A. Döring, L. Strauss, and methodological problems that accom- D. Morrison. F. Schleiermacher, J. Burnet, A. E. Taylor, C. Siegel, and H. Maier give pany the attempts to reconstruct the preference to Plato. K. Joel and D. Ross views of the historical Socrates. It lean towards Aristotle’s views. E. Zeller, G. Vlastos, W. K. C. Guthrie, U. Wilamowitz, might seem that if two sources about W. Jaeger, and A. Diés attempt to Socrates are in opposition with regard produce a synthesis. E. Duprée, out of all, sees Socrates most as a fictional character, while O. Gigon, A.–H. Chroust 2 Lacey (1971), p. 366. and E. Howald do not regard him as

INTERNATIONAL ISSUE NO. 5/2018 Matúš Porubjak 53 Socrates as the paradigmatic figure of practical philosophy extremely sceptical interpretation, we of the writings of the historian and phi- can still see that the interpretation tra- losopher Xenophon – his Memorabilia, dition essentially agrees only on two Symposium, Apology, Oeconomicus, and facts: that Socrates was sentenced to a short passus in his Anabasis (3, 1, death at the age of 70 in 399 BC, and 4–5). The third group consists of Plato’s that he never wrote anything himself.5 Dialogues in which Socrates emerges as At least, he did not write down anything the main speaker.6 philosophical, given that Plato, in his Aristotle’s writings form the fourth (60d–61b), has Socrates say that group. Although Aristotle’s knowledge in jail he wrote the metrical version of of Socrates is only mediated, mainly Aesop’s fables and the hymn to Apollo, through Plato’s Academy, and his surviv- having been inspired by an ever-recur- ing work does not systematically address ring dream. him, his account is nevertheless valua- When looking for an image of the his- ble especially because Socrates’ name is torical Socrates, the textual tradition is usually mentioned in relation to some based on the following 5 sources of infor- philosophical problem or an attitude, mation. The first three are composed thus suggesting a possible fashion of of the texts of Socrates’ younger con- Socrates’ philosophical views. temporaries. The oldest of the sources, The last group of information sources Aristophanes, depicted Socrates in his includes a wide range of authors from comedies, above all in the Clouds, and via about the 5th century BC up to the 3rd brief referrals in the Birds and the Frogs. century AD. Among them are Socrates’ The second group of sources is composed contemporaries and pupils such as , Aeschines of Sphettus, a philosopher. Gajda-Krynicka (2006), , Phaedo of Elis, Simon pp. 58–60 herself joins this opinion, and ‘the Shoemaker’ of , and others. at the end of her study she concludes that Socrates was not a philosopher, since he The texts of these authors have been pre- offered no philosophical doctrine. The served in either a very fragmented way, current basic sources for the study of Socratic issues are the compendiums of or we only know of them from doxogra- Vlastos (1971), Ahbel-Rappe and Kamtekar phers, which is regrettable, as otherwise (2006), Bussanich and Smith (2013), and most recently Stavru and Moore (2018). 6 According to Vlastos (1991), pp. 46–47, 5 All doxographic tradition agrees on (1994), p. 135 these are principally the Socrates’ lack of writing. The exception so-called earlier (elenctic) dialogues is Epictetus who attributes considerable of Plato – Apology, Charmides, Crito, writing activity to Socrates (, Epicteti dissertationes 2, 1, 32). In this Euthyphro, , Minor, Ion, instance, however, we are probably Laches, , Republic I; then the dealing with a misunderstanding caused transitional dialogues – Euthydemus, by mistaking writings on Socrates with Hippias Major, Lysis, Menexenus, Meno; those by Socrates; cf. Lacey (1971), p. 366, to these he adds passages from the n. 1. The problem of authorship in ancient middle period dialogues: the speech of philosophical literature is most recently in the Symposium (215a–222b) discussed by Škvrnda (2017b). For the and the two bibliographical passages in trial with Socrates see Kalaš (2008). the Phaedo (57a–61c, 115c–118a).

INTERNATIONAL ISSUE NO. 5/2018 54

they would most likely belong to the 18b–d, 19b–d; Xenophon Apology 14–15, most important sources of knowledge Memorabilia 1, 1, 11–16). Aristophanes’ of Socrates’ life and views. In the fifth choice of Socrates for a character in his group there are also all the later works comedy indicates at least the assumption referring to Socrates in any way. Of that Socrates had already been known to these, perhaps the most interesting texts a relatively broad audience who would are the shorter ones about Socrates, cre- associate him with ‘modern’ intellec- ated in the Roman period and during the tual extravagances (cf. Plato Apology so-called second sophistry, by authors 19b–20c). such as Laërtius, Libanius, Aristophanes’ Socrates combines , , , two main motifs – the examination of and Dion of Prusa. Let us now take the physical universe (physis) associated a closer look at the preserved images of with non-traditional religious attitudes Socrates individually. typical of some older philosophers, and the ‘both sides’ argumen- Socrates of Aristophanes tation. The Socrates of the Clouds is the The earliest text to mention Socrates is leader of a paid philosophical school the Clouds, Aristophanes’ comedy played called a ‘thinking-house’. We find him in 423 (and reworked a few years later – watching the sky from a hanging basket, cf. Nubes 518–562) when Socrates was while his pupils ‘fix their eyes so on the about 46 years old. It is the only text on ground’ to ‘seek things underground,’ Socrates written during his lifetime that with their ‘rump turned up towards the has been preserved in its entirety. The sky’ because ‘it’s taking private lessons faithfulness of Aristophanes’ image of on the stars’ (Nubes 186–194).8 Socrates is mostly categorically rejected Aristophanes’ Socrates devotes his by scholars. His partial rehabilitation time to astronomy, geography, zoology, was brought about by E. Taylor (1951), and grammatical exploration; he intro- Vander Waerdt (1994), L. Edmunds duces new deities while rejecting the (1986), A. Bowie (1993), and M. Mon- classical gods of the Greek Pantheon tuori (1981).7 as old-fashioned. At the same time he It should be noted, however, that teaches rhetoric, especially the way how Socrates’ contemporary followers took to outwit the inferior, i.e. unjust argu- the Aristophanes’ image of him seri- ment (hetton logos) over the superior, i.e. ously while opposing it (Plato Apology just argument (kreitton logos) as a means to win litigation. In the traditional 7 The last of these explores the possible history of philosophy, Aristophanes’ Anaxagoric background to Socrates’ Socrates could be characterised as views. In his recent dissertation, F. Škvrnda (2017a) gives an interesting a utilitarian eclectic, and a syncretist attempt at reconstruction of the historical Socrates on the basis of analysing the contemporary religious 8 Translation: B. B. Rogers; in Aristophanes and cultural background. I. The Loeb Classical Library, 1930.

INTERNATIONAL ISSUE NO. 5/2018 Matúš Porubjak 55 Socrates as the paradigmatic figure of practical philosophy of the older natural philosophy and meaningful only to the extent that they the new ethics of the , prone to are useful for everyday life (Memorabilia mysticism.9 4, 7). He has a circle of pupils whom he teaches for free. Socrates of Xenophon Xenophon’s Socrates is less ironi- The second group of sources tradition- cal in his treatment of others and more ally used in the search for the histor- ‘down to earth’ than Plato’s. The Elenctic ical Socrates includes the writings of Method (the method of counteracting Socrates’ pupil Xenophon of Athens. opponents’ opinions), characteristic of According to contemporary philosoph- the Socrates of Plato’s early dialogues, is ical historiography he was more of a his- used only as a preparatory stage; after- torian and a man of letters with a weak wards he makes no qualms about voic- feel for philosophy, which leads to the ing his own views. However, these are conclusion that he was unable (unlike not presented in the form of theories. Plato) to deeply understand Socrates’ Xenophon emphasises that Socrates had philosophy. Interestingly, however, in never promised to be a teacher of virtue the 18th century, Xenophon’s image of (arete); on the contrary, he called for his Socrates was still considered to be as pupils to follow the way he himself lived reliable as (or even more so than) Plato’s (Memorabilia 1, 2, 3; 1, 2, 17) and acted and a similar attitude was held by many (Memorabilia 4, 4, 10). authors of the Hellenistic and Roman Xenophon’s Socrates is a moralist periods, too. Of the earlier advocates of in the best sense of the word, a philoso- Xenophon let us mention J. J. Brucker pher who solves practical problems, and his Historia Critica Philosophiae, finds fitting examples from life, and who followed the line of his predeces- is always willing and able to provide sors;10 the contemporary ones include useful advice to which he even uses his D. Morrison (1994), L.–A. Dorion daimonion (cf. Memorabilia 1, 1, 4). It (2006), and M. A. Flower (2017). was not by chance that many Hellenistic Xenophon’s image of Socrates is philosophers and moralists considered almost the exact opposite of that of Xenophon’s style and his presentation Aristophanes. In religious affairs, of Socrates as the ultimate example of his Socrates holds traditional views writing and living. (Memorabilia 1, 3–4; 4, 3), refuses the practices of the sophists, is not con- Socrates of Plato cerned with the theoretical examination In the 19th century, the originally posi- of the natural world (fysis), and finds tive assessment of Xenophon’s account the studies in geometry or astronomy of Socrates changed under the influence of F. Schleiermacher’s work; he consid- 9 For Socrates as a “pythagorizing mystic” ered Xenophon a statesman rather than see Škvrnda (2015). 10 Cf. Montouri (1981), p. 22; Malusa (1993), a philosopher. In his view, Xenophon’s p. 229. intention was to defend his teacher from

INTERNATIONAL ISSUE NO. 5/2018 56

criticism rather than systematically of Plato’s Socrates is the elenchos – log- interpret his views which he – unlike ical refutation of his fellow debaters’ Plato the philosopher – was unable to opinions, which he bases on exposing correctly understand.11 This attitude the contradictions in the claims they of Schleiermacher was accepted by the themselves offered. He often accents majority of contemporary scholars who his ‘ignorance’, says he has no knowl- even often radicalised them.12 edge and therefore he cannot teach any- The idea of Socrates as Plato’s great thing to anybody. He compares himself teacher, the founder of dialectics, and to a midwife in that that he himself is the father of modern philosophy was unable to give birth to thoughts, but born; an idea that would be shared, with he can help others to deliver their own greater or lesser amount of scepticism, thoughts; nevertheless, it is necessary to by most 20th century authors. Among examine whether the newborn are true the most influential works of the 20th (Theaetetus 150a–151d). century which attempt to reconstruct The mission of Plato’s Socrates is to the philosophy of the historic Socrates constantly explore himself as well as his on the basis of Plato’s dialogues is fellow citizens. He examines whether Socrates. Ironist and Moral Philosopher they take care of both their virtue and (1991). The author G. Vlastos – in con- souls, and whether they are really wise nection with the stylometric studies when they declare themselves to be dividing Plato’s dialogues into the wise (Apology 23b, 29c–30b).14 From early, middle and late ones – earmarks the modern perspective, Plato’s picture two types of Socrates the philosopher. of Socrates comes across as the most The first one is the historical Socrates philosophical, and the majority of con-

(SocratesE – Socrates Earlier), and temporary interpreters still find it the the other one is the Socrates of Plato most credible. At the same time, the mid-

(SocratesM – Socrates Middle). However, wifery of the Platonic Socrates is a good Vlastos’ model was soon exposed to seri- justification for the diverse and original ous objections of some academics.13 views of Socrates’ followers, including If we are to compare Plato’s and and Antisthenes, Euclid and Xenophon’s Socrates, then the former Phaedo. His constant denial of his own is more speculative and very reticent wisdom which could be transferable to in expressing his own attitudes. He is a tireless debater and an adroit thinker 14 In contrast to Xenophon and Aristotle, Plato’s Socrates admits to being interested who often casts doubt on dominant opin- in exploring physis in his youth (Phaedo ions. The typical and widely used method 96a–100a; cf. Diogenes Laërtius 2, 45; Adversus Mathematicos 7, 8; Academicae Questiones 1, 4, 11 Schleiermacher (1852), p. cxxxviii. 15), or to the fact that he studied with 12 Cf. Zeller (1877), pp. 100–101. Sophists (Plato Meno 96d, Charmides 13 Nehamas (1992), Nails (1993), Kahn (1996), 163d). This caused several scholars to McPherran (2011), Vasiliou (2013), and divide Socrates’ life into two phases; Prior (2013). cf. Vander Waerdt (1994), pp. 66–75.

INTERNATIONAL ISSUE NO. 5/2018 Matúš Porubjak 57 Socrates as the paradigmatic figure of practical philosophy someone else can serve as a major expla- (Metaphysica 1078b9–32). In agreement nation for his non-writing. In short, with Xenophon, Aristotle’s Socrates dis- Plato’s Socrates could be characterised regards the study of the physical uni- as a typical intellectual, ironist, sceptic, verse (Metaphysica 987b2). His Socrates and moral philosopher.15 used to ask questions and not to answer them; for he used to confess that he Socrates of Aristotle did not know. He would not refute the There is another source of information views of his opponents by putting for- on Socrates’ philosophy believed to be ward a different view and proving its credible: that of Aristotle who came to plausibility, but through questions and Athens about 30 years after Socrates’ answers he would show a contradiction death; he was familiar with not only in the claims made by the opponents Plato’s dialogues but also the dialogues themselves (Sophistici Elenchi 165b3–6, of other Socratics, as well as the period 183b7–8). of oral tradition referring to Socrates.16 Aristotle’s Socrates held the position In the body of Aristotle’s works, we find of ethical intellectualism and claimed (just) over 40 references to Socrates. that knowledge is a necessary and suffi- What is so valuable in his testimony cient condition for our conduct. For this is, inter alia, that he is clearly aware of reason, it is impossible to suffer from the differences between the historical acrasia (lack of self-control) – indeed, Socrates and the Socrates of Plato’s dia- once we learn what is good, we act logues. The reconstruction of the histori- accordingly; in other words, our poor cal Socrates based on Aristotle’s accounts decisions are exclusively a matter of our was attempted by O. Gigon (1947). How- ignorance rather than a drive of the irra- ever, most modern scholars understand tional parts of our soul (Magna Moralia Aristotle as a credible addition to Plato’s 1182a15–26; Ethica Eudemia 1216b2–9; picture of Socrates. Ethica Nicomachea 1145b23–27). From Aristotle tells that the historical a modern point of view, Aristotle’s Socrates devoted his attention to the Socrates can be characterized as a typ- moral virtues (ethikas aretas) and he ical moral philosopher, the founder of was the first one to seek their general analytical ethics, and a proponent of definitions, but unlike Plato, he never strong ethical intellectualism. regarded neither universals nor defi- nitions as existing in separation, i.e. Socrates of Socratics he did not postulate them as Forms The fifth (and the last) group of authors describing Socrates is, as aforemen- 15 We already find this form of under- tioned, a very diverse one covering standing the character of Socratic philosophy in the so-called Second and the period from about the 5th century Third Academy, which were known by BC until the 3rd century AD. It con- their development of scepticism. 16 Cf. Guthrie (1971), pp. 38–39, Suvák (2007), sists of other Socrates’ pupils (except pp. 14–15, n. 20. Xenophon and Plato) whose works

INTERNATIONAL ISSUE NO. 5/2018 58

have been preserved only in the form Most of the ‘minor’ Socratics were of fragments as well as references and critical of the ‘metaphysical’ specula- shorter texts dedicated to Socrates and tions of the Plato and Aristotle type. created in the Roman period and during Their exploration was mainly focused on the so-called second sophistry. Mod- matters of practical ethics. As an exam- ern commentators either ignored this ple of how the ‘minor’ Socratics under- group, or viewed it very suspiciously. stood Socrates let us mention Aeschines A partial change came about as late and his Alcibiades dialogue preserved in as the end of the 20th century, espe- a fragmentary form. Socrates implies cially thanks to Giannantoni’s collec- to Alcibiades that he has no useful tion Socratis et Socraticorum Reliquiae knowledge to teach him. Nevertheless, (1990). Research in this field is still in he believes that if he stays with him he its initial stages. Of the works devoted can make him a better person through to it let us mention at least the second his love. Finally, having brought him part of the collection edited by Paul to acknowledge his ignorance, he gives A. Vander Waerdt (1994), and the col- him a gift of the statue of Themistocles; lections edited by Rossetti and Stavru whenever he looks at it he will remem- (2010) and by Suvák (2014). ber his own imperfection by comparing Apart from Plato and Xenophon, himself to the famous general.18 there are about 12 other authors of the so-called Socratic dialogues whom Socratic problem again we know a little better, and the list of So who was the historical Socrates and the names of all the Socratics in the what philosophical position did he hold? Giannantoni Collection exceeds 70.17 Was he Aristophanes’ sophist, utilitar- And it is exactly these Socratics and their ian eclectic, and mystic? Or Xenophon’s so-called Socratic schools (in the mod- moralist? Or Plato’s ironists and sceptic? ern tradition sometimes referred to as Or was he Aristotle’s creator of ethical ‘minor’ as opposed to the Academy and intellectualism? Or the practical ethicist the Lykeion) who may play a crucial role of Aeschines and many other Socratics? in the quest for the image of the histor- Each of these images offers a Socratic ical Socrates and assessing his impact. doctrine, or rather a certain set of phil- The influence of many of them was enor- osophical attitudes that he adopted. At mous. The laterHellenistic mainstreams the same time, each of these images has either claimed their founders to have its own relevance and is defensible. It been Socrates’ direct pupils (the Cynics seems, however, that the philosophical of Antisthenes and the of thinking of these many ‘Socrateses’ is Aristippus), or they vehemently avowed themselves to Socrates’ legacy (academic 18 Fr. VI A 50–53 (Giannantoni), Suvák (2007), sceptics and stoics). p. 23. The similarly anti-theoretical philosophy of Antisthenes is most recently analysed by Suvák (2017), see 17 Cf. Clay (1994). also Zelinová (2016).

INTERNATIONAL ISSUE NO. 5/2018 Matúš Porubjak 59 Socrates as the paradigmatic figure of practical philosophy impossible to combine into a consist- claims that “a man who really has ent image of one and only Socrates. spent his life on philosophy is steadfast This has led many interprets to claim when he is about to die and optimis- that Socrates was not the author of any tic…” (63e10–64a1), hence “…those who philosophical doctrine and therefore engage with philosophy in the right way he cannot be considered a philosopher. are practicing nothing else but dying However, it resulted in a paradox – the and being dead” (64a6–8).19 Although non-writing philosopher propelled the ensuing discussion is “theoretical” many of his contemporaries and follow- and “metaphysical” in many aspects, ers into philosophical writing, teaching the end of the dialogue clearly aims at and living. practical point, as Kohen rightly notes: But if we look back once more at “Indeed, rather than using his final the authors discussed in our essay, we breath to utter some sort of profundity can discover two important features of that would followed blindly as Socrates’ Socrates’ personality. The first one is true and final teaching, Socrates instead the claim that Socrates believed that he direct his interlocutors back to the had no (theoretical) knowledge; this unresolved argument they have been claim is unambiguously corroborated having about the soul’s immortality”.20 by Xenophon, Plato and Aristotle, and This is the final echo of Socrates’ claim neither is it dismissed by other Socratics. in Apology, that “the unexamined life is The only exception is Aristophanes not fit for a man to live” (38a6–7). Nei- whose Socrates is inundated with vari- ther profundity nor theory, but certain ous doctrines (which can be understood way of living (and dying) is what should as comic hyperbole). be considered most. The second feature is that of Socrates’ Another example is the Republic, dia- predilection towards practical ques- logue famous for the “Platonic” tripartite tions and the practical dimension of immortal soul, theory of the state, using his work. This feature is most evident geometry and great metaphysical allego- in Xenophon, the ‘minor’ Socratics, ries. However, closer look on dialogue and the Hellenistic tradition. Socrates shows, as Rowe suggests, that the - of Plato’s “early” dialogues, albeit more sophical, literary, and rhetorical style sophisticated and more sceptical, also is not so different from Plato’s “earlier” deals primarily with practical questions, one and that the Republic continues with while Plato raises no doubts of the power and importance of his activities. 19 Translation: Ch. Emlyn-Jones, W. Preddy; Moreover, practical dimension of in Plato I. The Loeb Classical Library, 2013. Socrates’ character should be clearly 20 Kohen (2011), p. 72. Kohen’s article gives identified in Plato’s “middle period” more arguments to show how the Plato’s dialogues too. Most obvious example is Socrates, especially of the Apology, Crito and Phaedo, “is carefully crafted to serve the Phaedo. At the beginning of the last as a new model for heroic behaviour that discussion with his friends, Socrates ought to be emulated” Kohen (2011), p. 46.

INTERNATIONAL ISSUE NO. 5/2018 60

those ideas that surface and dominate which they can find a worthy place”, as the so-called “Socratic” dialogues, ideas Ferrari brilliantly pointed out.24 There such as the virtue is knowledge, that is no room to go deeper in Phaedrus or a just person will harm no one and that further to other Plato’s dialogues; how- no man goes wrong willingly.21 The very ever, it is hard to find a single one where “Socratic” topics such as justice, good, a certain way of living and thinking and education are discussed throughout plays no role. the dialogue, and according to Rosen the Apart from Plato “later” dialogues, Republic “is not a treatise on politics but the most theoretical impression is a dramatic portrait of people conversing probably given by Aristotle’s Socrates, about the connection between justice although even his Socrates has no the- and the good”.22 The city-soul analogies oretical knowledge. And when Aristotle repeatedly raising a questions on human describes Socrates as the first person character and the way of living. Finally, to look for the general definitions of at the end of the Book IX, when Socrates moral virtues, he actually makes him abandons the question whether the city the founder of the part of philosophy they have been founding and discussing which he calls practical. In this case, not could exist or not, he concludes that it is even Aristophanes is an exception; in “a model up in heaven for anyone willing the Clouds, Strepsiades attends Socrates’ to look and if he sees it, found himself lessons for purely practical reasons (to on it” (592b1–3).23 We are back “down to get himself rid of debt). And although earth”, being asked to create our lives he himself fails in learning – because here and now in certain proper way. of his ineptitude and conservatism – his Another “middle” dialogue, the son does succeed, which eventually leads Phaedrus, should be profitably read as to a tragicomic end of the play. Indeed, a dialogue on education, since both rhet- Aristophanes’ Socrates can also be pri- oric and philosophy have an educational marily grasped as a (a)moral philoso- function and leads the souls to different pher dealing with practical issues. way of living. The well-known critique of writing (274c–275e) does not imply Conclusion that any written text is in fact useless; When Homer, in the second Book of “only that it should not be written (nor Iliad, invokes the sisterhood of Muses read) without awareness of the danger to reveal the names of the leaders and of writing, together with the sense that the number of ships fighting under Troy, what ultimately matters is neither writ- he says that they (the Muses) are omni- ing nor speaking but the way of life in present and omniscient, while we mor- tals know nothing except through kleos, 21 Rowe (2006), p. 20. and we have no real knowledge (Iliad 22 Rosen (2005), p. 2. 2, 485–486). I think these verses are 23 Translation: Ch. Emlyn-Jones, W. Preddy; in Plato VI. The Loeb Classical Library, 2013. 24 Ferrari (1987), p. 221.

INTERNATIONAL ISSUE NO. 5/2018 Matúš Porubjak 61 Socrates as the paradigmatic figure of practical philosophy spot on, regarding our position on the of philosophy” when speaking about Socratic problem. Unlike Homer, how- Socrates? When in Plato’s Phaedrus ever, we have no access to Muses who Socrates is asked whether he think the would reveal the ‘truth’ about Socrates. mythological story on Boreas abduc- What has ensued after Socrates is kleos – tion of Oreithuia from Ilissus is true, he in both meanings of the word; kleos as answers that it would not be odd to him rumour or report, and kleos as fame or to doubt it and give some reasonable glory. Why should we not understand interpretation. However, then he would the legacy of Socrates as reports and need a lot of spare time to interpret all rumours left behind by Socratics, their other mythical stories and creatures. followers and critics, on the actions of But he never had time to do it for the their hero? The reports whose task is following reason: “I am still incapable to inspire (or caution) their contempo- of obeying the Delphic inscription and raries and next generations to do similar knowing myself. It strikes me as absurd acts, and follow a similar way of think- to look into matters that have nothing to ing and living. do with me as long as I’m still ignorant Such an idea does not have to be of this respect… I investigate myself absurd as long as we are aware of what rather than these things, to see whether P. Hadot points out in his Philosophy I am in fact a creature of more complex- as a Way of Life (1995): that the entire ity and savagery than Typhon, or some- Greco-Roman tradition sees philosophy thing tamer and more simple with a nat- foremost as practical in its goals, as a way urally divine and non-Typhonic nature” of life.25 I think that it is exactly this prac- (229e5–230a6).26 tical dimension of philosophy that was in Of course, this does not mean that the ‘blind spot’ of most modern study of Socrates considered mythical stories Socrates, which focused too eagerly on or reasonable interpretations worth- the search for his doctrine. less. Socratic tradition shows him open But how we should understand to discussing any topic and searching such thing as “practical dimension any reasonable explanation. But such doings cannot be properly conducted

25 The practical dimension of Socrates’ without concerning what they are for thinking is also highlighted by Jan Patočka us, how they could help us to live the (1991), who sees his philosophy in a ‘life good life. Such heritage should be recog- plan’ (p. 125), or ‘style unity of the life’ (p. 147). For the differences and similarities nized in many Socratic writings and also between Patočka’s idea of ‘care of the inspired later Hellenistic philosophies soul’ and Foucault’s idea of ‘care of the where “physics” and “logic” are worth self’ see Hladký (2010), pp. 149–154. For the difference between the care of one’s to be studied because they help us to see self and the knowledge of one’s soul see where we are placed in the world, how Hobza (2009). For the hypothesis that some of the early Greek lyricists should be considered as forerunners of practical 26 Translation: R. Waterfield; in Plato: philosophy, see Porubjak (2018). Phaedrus. Oxford University Press, 2002.

INTERNATIONAL ISSUE NO. 5/2018 62

do we perceive it, and how do we think. and doctrines, but also the history of However, final goal of such studies is reflected life practices which inspire fol- “ethics” – the way of life. No matter how lowers in their own practices as well as complex all those philosophies were and reflect on them. From this point of view, how much they differ each other, finally we could perceive Socrates’ philosophy as they were trying to answer the same the mission of a certain (philosophical) “practical” question of how to become type of life lived to inspire his contem- better friend to ourselves and to each poraries. They, afterwards, each in their other, and how to live milder, calmer, own way, initiated the entire ensuing and happier life to reach . tradition. Consequently, the historical Without the figure of Socrates, whoever Socrates could be interpreted as the par- he really was, such philosophical tradi- adigmatic figure of practical philosophy. tion is hard to be imagined. I leave it to the reader to decide whether Thus, the history of philosophy does the Socratic problem is cracked open by not only have to be the history of theories such an interpretation or not.

INTERNATIONAL ISSUE NO. 5/2018 Matúš Porubjak 63 Socrates as the paradigmatic figure of practical philosophy

references

Ahbel-Rappe, S., Kamtekar, R. (eds.) (2006). Flower, M. A. (ed.) (2017). The Cambridge A Companion to Socrates. Oxford: Black- Companion to Xenophon. Cambridge: Cam- well Publishing Ltd. bridge University Press.

Bowie, A. (1993). Aristophanes. Myth, Ritual, Gajda-Krynicka, J. (2006). “Kwestia sokratej- and Comedy. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- ska”. In: V. Suvák, (ed.) Sokratika I, Prešov: versity Press. Prešovská univerzita, pp. 33–61.

Bussanich, J., Smith, N. D. (eds.) (2013). The Giannantoni, G. (1990). Socratis et Socratico- Bloomsbury Companion to Socrates. Lon- rum Reliquiae. 4 vol. Naples: Bibliopolis. don: Bloomsbury Academic. Gigon, O. (1947). Sokrates, sein Bild in Dich- tung und Geschichte. Bern: A. Francke. Clay, D. (1994). “The Origins of the Socrat- ic Dialogue”. In: P. A. Vander Waerdt Guthrie, W. K. C. (1971). Socrates. London: (ed.) The Socratic Movement, Ithaca and Cambridge University Press. London: Cornell University Press 1994, Hadot, P. (1995). Philosophy as a Way of Life. pp. 23–47. Spiritual Exercises from Socrates to Fou- Dorion, L.–A. (2006). “Xenophon’s Socrates”. cault. Basil Blackwell. In: S. Ahbel-Rappe, R. Kamtekar (eds.) Hladký, V. (2010). Změnit sám sebe. Praha: Pa- A Companion to Socrates, Oxford: Black- vel Mervart. well Publishing Ltd. 2006, pp. 93–109. Hobza, P. (2009). “Já mezi péčí o sebe a po- Edmunds, L. (1986). “Aristophanes’ Soc- znáním duše”. In: A. Havlíček, J. Jinek rates”. Proceedings of the Boston Area (eds.) Platónův dialog Alkibiadés. Praha: Colloquium in 1, OIKOYMENH. pp. 209–230. Kahn, Ch. (1994). “Aeschines on Socratic Ferrari, G. R. F. (1987). Listening to the Ci- Eros”. In: P. A. Vander Waerdt (ed.), The cadas: A Study of Plato’s Phaedrus. Cam- Socratic Movement, Ithaca and London: bridge: Cambridge University Press. Cornell University Press, pp. 87–106.

INTERNATIONAL ISSUE NO. 5/2018 64

Kalaš, A. (2008). “Sokrates – vzorný občan, Nails, D. (1993). “Problems with Vlastosʼ Pla- alebo rozvracač aténskej demokracie?”. tonic Developmentalism”. Ancient Philoso- Filozofia 63(1), pp. 2–17. phy 13, pp. 273–291.

Kohen, A. (2011). “Platos Heroic Vision: The Nehamas, A. (1992). “Voices of Silence: On Difficult Choices of the Socratic Life”.Polis Gregory Vlastosʼ Socrates”. Arion 2(1), 28(1), pp. 45–73. pp. 157–186.

Lacey, A. R. (1971). “Our Knowledge of Patočka, J. (1991). Sókratés. Praha: SPN. Socrates”. In: G. Vlastos (ed.), The Phi- Porubjak, M. (2018). Praktická protofilozofia losophy of Socrates: A collection of critical Tyrtaia a Theognida. Trnava: FF UCM. essays, N.Y.: Garden city, pp. 366–390. Prior, W. J. (2013). “Socratic Metaphisics”. Malusa, L. (1993). “Renaissance Anteced- In: J. Bussanich, N. D. Smith, (eds.), The ents to the Historiography of Philoso- Bloomsbury Companion to Socrates, Lon- phy”. In: G. Santinello (ed.), Models of the don: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 68–93. History of Philosophy I. From Its Origins in the Renaissance to the ʻHistoria Philosoph- Rosen, S. (2005). Plato’s Republic. New Hav- icaʼ, Dordrecht: Springer Science & Busi- en & London: Yale University Press. ness Media, B. V., pp. 3–65. Rossetti, L., Stavru, A. (eds.) (2010). Socrat- McPherran, M. L. (2011). “Socratic Reli- ica 2008: Studies in Ancient Socratic Liter- gion”. In: D. Morrison (ed.), The Cam- ature. Bari: Levante. bridge Companion to Socrates, New York: Rowe, Ch. (2006). “The Literary and Phil- Cambridge University press, pp. 111–137. osophical Style of the Republic”. In: Montuori, M. (1981). Socrates. Physiology of G. Santas (ed.), The Blackwell Guide to a Myth. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben. Plato’s Republic. Blackwell, pp. 7–24.

Morrison, D. (ed.) (1994). The Cambridge Schleiermacher, F. (1852). “On the worth of Companion to Socrates. New York: Cam- Socrates as a philosopher”. In: W. Smith bridge University Press. (ed.), ΠΛΑΤΩΝ: The Apology of the

INTERNATIONAL ISSUE NO. 5/2018 Matúš Porubjak 65 Socrates as the paradigmatic figure of practical philosophy

Socrates, The Crito and part of the Phae- Taylor, E. (1951). Socrates. Boston: The Bea- do with Notes from Stallbaum, Schleier- con Press. macherʼs Introductions, A life of Socrates, Vander Waerdt, P. A. (ed.) (1994). The Socrat- and Schleiermacherʼs Essay on the Worth of ic Movement. Ithaca and London: Cornell Socrates as a Philosopher. London: Taylor University Press. Wanton and Maberly, pp. cxxix–clv. Vasiliou, I. (2013). “Socratic Irony”. In: J. Bus- Škvrnda, F. (2015). “Sókratés v starej attic- sanich, N. D. Smith, (eds.), The Blooms- kej komédii”. Ostium 11(1). bury Companion to Socrates, London: Škvrnda, F. (2017a). Sókratova filozofia v kon- Bloomsbury Academic 2013, pp. 20–33. texte gréckej náboženskej tradície. [Disserta- Vlastos, G. (ed.) (1971). The Philosophy of tion] Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského. Socrates – A collection of critical essays. Škvrnda, F. (2017b). “Platón ako Pseu- N.Y.: Garden city. do-Sókratés? Niekoľko poznámok k prob- Vlastos, G. (1991). Socrates, Ironist and Mor- lematike autorstva filozofického textu al Philosopher. Ithaca, New York: Cornell v antike”. Ostium 13(4). University Press. Stavru, A., Moore, Ch. (eds.) (2018). Socrates Vlastos, G. (1994). Socratic studies. Cam- and the . Brill. bridge: Cambridge University Press. Suvák, V. (2007). Sokratika: Štyri štúdie k sókra- Zelinová, Z. (2016). “Kynická paideia alebo tovskej tradícii myslenia. Prešov: FF PU. Antisthenés medzi Odysseom a Sókra- Suvák, V. (ed.) (2014). Antisthenica Cynica tom”. Filozofia 71(2), pp. 107–118. Socratica. Praha: OIKOYMENH. Zeller, E. (1877). Socrates and the Socratic Suvák, V. (2017). Antisthenés. Štyri štúdie. Pre- schools (transl. O. J. Reichel). London: šov: Vydavateľstvo Prešovskej univerzity. Longmans, Green, and Co.

INTERNATIONAL ISSUE NO. 5/2018