International Journal of Political Science ISSN: 2228-6217 Vol.7, No 2, Summer 2017, (pp.67-77)

Socratic Hubris; a Way to Understanding Socrates Trial and Execution

Narges Tajik Neshatieh* Ph.D in Political Thought, Tarbiat Modares University

Received: 11 April 2016 ; Accepted: 12 Sep 2016

Abstract: There are several debates around why Socrates executed but none of them has explained why he executed at seventy. I think Socratic hubris can explain it. In fact, if we refer to “earlier Socra- tes” dialogues that cover life of Socrates from youth to seventy years, it is obvious that Socrates on effort to find and present a good life appealed to speech and used it to cross-examine Atheni- ans. However, through it, he acted hubris for many years. Socratic hubris, whether it was appar- ent and through explicit speech or hidden and through irony, ridicule, and exaggeration, was against Athenian shame culture and against every interlocutors who was examined. In other words, it was against aidos and put Socrates as “I” against Athenians as “Others”. Therefore, it could be considered a guilt and be punished, but since Socratic hubris was personal, and then gradual, he could be alive for about three decades and was executed at seventy.

Keywords: Socrates, Hubris, Aidos, Trial, Execution, Speech-act.

Introduction ings.(Laertius, 1972:40) However, Socrates One of the case studies in political philoso- himself added two other accusations that phy is Socrates. He lived seventy years and “old plaintiffs” had aroused: investigating because of his trial and execution- became the things beneath the earth, and making the perpetual and controversial. In fact, the trial weaker argument the stronger. (Apology, and execution has raised many debates and 18b) several Socratic scholars have argued about it Beside these reasons, the scholars explain and its “why”. If we want to explore the rea- other reasons whether they find in Socrates᾽ son(s) - answer (s) to “why”-, certainly, the speech in trial- defense- or before the trial. In most common and clear reasons are found on regard to the former, there are commentaries indictment. focus on the style and motives of Socrates᾽ The accusers brought an indictment defense with this general thesis that “Socrates against Socrates containing two accusations: speech was not intended to be a serious re- Corrupting the youth and not believing in sponse to his accusers. Instead, we are told, the city gods, but in other new spiritual be- Socrates was primarily interested in pro- *Corresponding Author’s Email: [email protected]

68

Socratic Hubris; a Way to Understanding Socrates … claiming the paramount importance of the of it .When we remember that Socrates was philosophical way of life and cared little or persecuted, condemned and executed at sev- nothing about securing his own acquittal.” enty, a basic question emerges: Why Socrates (Brickhouse & Smith, 1990: 38) The great was on the trial at seventy? All the reasons Hellenist Grote, Burnet, Taylor, and Allen that Socrates, indictment, and some scholar are some who take in above statement. For srefer, are old and if they had been acceptable example, Taylor believes that Socrates᾽ de- ones, Socrates would have been executed fense is more like “an avowal of guilt” and sooner than it. Even if we agree with reasons Burnt argues that Socrates “uses his time in depended on Socrates᾽ speech on the trial, the court to mock the ignorance of his prose- again we can’t forget that there were old rea- cutors and jurors.” (ibid,38-9) sons and thus the basic question sustains: In the latter (before the trial), there are Why Socrates was on the trial at seventy? Or some points connected to the relationship in fact, if the reasons for execution were old between Socrates and democracy. Although and related to many years ago, as old accus- he did not have any political teachings, Soc- ers said and some other evidences support, rates had companions who some of them why he did not executed much sooner? were anti-democratic- so-called tyrants or In response, my thesis focuses on Socratic oligarchs. e.g. Critias, Nicias, Charmides and hubris. According to that, Socrates hubris Alcibiades. However, the indictment does not was against Athenian aidos, and because his suggest that Socrates was prosecuted for his hubris was personal, and then gradual, not political views and his political associates, like Athenian aidos as a culture and public, these companions in the age of democracy he lived freely for many years. In fact, Socra- could mean hostility by itself. Vlastos, E. M. tes hubris puts him as “I” against Athenians Wood and N. Wood, Brickhouse, Smith, and as “Others” during about thirty years. Wallach attempt to explain political aspect of In order to understand Socratic hubris, I trial. For instance, Vlastos argues that Socra- interpret some dialogues that connected to tes was perceived in his time as an enemy of “earlier Socrates” i.e. Apology, Crito, Lach- Athenian democracy ,and that this provided es, Lysis, Charmides, Eutyphron, and show (but not the) motive for his trial.(Vlastos, how Socrates᾽ speech acts; but before it, I 1996: 25-45) Also, E. M. Wood and N. need to explain two concepts: aidos and hu- Wood refer to Socrates᾽ praise of oligarchic bris. Therefore, in a conceptual framework, I states such as Sparta and Crete and his criti- return to a historical background and describe cism of democracy.(Wood and Wood, the process of transforming two concepts by 1996:45-69)These theses are supported by the fifth century B. C., the age of Socrates. one evidence: one of three accusers was Ly- con, “a man of Socrates generation who had Conceptual framework become a democratic leader after the fall of Although hubris (ὕβρις) and aidos (Αἰδώς) the oligarchy of 411.” (Nails, 2006: 7) usually can be translated as pride and shame, But, if we pay attention to these reasons, in return to the ancient Greek, we find ex- we will find that they are partly convincing. tended meanings for them. Historically, we In other words, they can cover just a part of see roots of hubris and aidos in the creation the trial- before, after, or on the trial- not all myth. Hesiod in Theogony describes how

69

International Journal of Political Science, Vol.7, No 2, Summer 2017

Prometheus stole fire and wisdom from Olym- in cosmos or order of universe, which lays pus for the benefit of humanity- naked and de- gods beyond human, and similarly superiors fenseless human- against the will of Zeus, and beyond others. This hierarchy in the work of the eternal punishment which Prometheus Homer identifies the heroic or aristocratic would endure for these acts as inflicted upon ethic. Indeed, the Illiad presents a hero as a him by the judgment of Zeus. (Hesi- virtuous man, somebody who is privileged od,1966:507-616) Here, it is the first time that primarily due to ancestry. The Homeric hero hubris and aidos emerge. In fact, human needed is powerful, courageous, affluent and in gen- things belonged to gods, and however Prome- eral, superior. (Colaiaco, 2001: 91) There- theus engaged as a mediator and punished, it fore, everybody respects him. Otherwise, was the human who used divine property with- shame, the spirit of reverence, which held out permission. This act suggests human to en- man back from rash transgressions, would be ter realm of gods, participate in their skills, out- stained and a hubristic act appears. Saxon- rage sacred ones and violate divine order. In house well leads us to this point by focusing this context, disrespecting gods and sacrileging, on Thersites᾽ hubris. (Saxonhouse, 2006:1- means refusing aidos and exercising hubris, and 2)Thersites was not a noble but when superi- as Nietzsche says, it brings into being painful ors were deliberating about the siege of Troy, contrast between human and gods, the first he shamelessly entered and began to say his problem of philosophy”. (Nietzsche, 2006: 73) view. Then, Odysseus shouted athim and beat This contrast between human and gods is on his back by his stick. (Homer, 1978: II, completely opposed to archaic Homeric cul- 208-234) Odysseus reproached him because ture in which primitive man does not yet re- he did a hubristic act that was considered as gard himself as the source of own decisions an error (hamartia) in Homeric culture. (Co- and feels that he is bound to the gods; that laioco:94) development is reserved for tragedy.(Snell, It is necessary to note that in Homeric cul- 1982:31) Aeschylus, the father of tragedy, ture which is a great part of shame culture, shows that development (hubris) by The Per- action and social judgment is the key for sians that refers to Greece- Persian wars. In evaluate a man. In fact, in a shame culture, The Persians, Xerxes invites the gods' enmity praise and blame are sources honor (time) for his hubristic expedition against Greece in and shame (aidos), and highest good of Ho- 480/79 BCE; the focus of the drama is the meric man is enjoyment of time, public es- defeat of Xerxes' navy at Salamis but the de- teem. According to the Homeric code of feat is not simply due to power of Greece; honor, one was judged not by the internal According to Aeschylus, it had been ordained standard of intentions, but by results, .To and postponed until Xerxes᾽ brashness- hu- judge a man is to judge his action. (Ibid, 92- bris- did. Xerxes underestimated the will of 4) Then, hubris was considered as an error gods and decided on his own, namely did not since related to “action morality” and exter- acknowledge human boundaries. Conse- nal judgment. quently, gods angered and Persian defeat as a Establishing democracy, at least from the plight happened. (Aeschylus, 2014:369) time of Solon (6th century BCE), hubris was In the Illiadwe can see also aidos and hu- defined as a crime and any citizen could bring bris as an important matter between man and charges against another party, as was the case man. In ancient thought, there is a sequence also for treason or impiety. In contrast, only a

70

Socratic Hubris; a Way to Understanding Socrates … member of the victim’s family could bring Plato, introduced soul as an independent part. charges for murder. Hence, the cases of hu- “Plato᾽s termpsyche, usually translated soul, bris was determined and related to the city often corresponds closely to the modern term (polis) and citizenship. “mind”… He argues that the body and the This relationship had been resulted from soul are distinct entities with different na- an economic crisis that a religious- moral tures, material and immaterial. This view is order and the rule of law were used to control often called “ Platonic dualism”. (Miller, it. As Colaiaco noted, during the seventh cen- 2009: 278) tury B.C., Greece was plagued by a severe Along with dualism, Plato is initiator of economic crisis, and as the poor were preyed “the tripartite soul” which is hierarchical: upon by the rich, Athens was threatened by rational part (logistikon), the spirit (thu- disruption that could be cured only by the moeides), and appetite (epithumetikon). (Re- rule of law and a new view virtue. This view public, IV) In fact, in the case of a just soul, came from Delphi: “Nothing to excess”. Also the rational part is the natural ruler and is Solon drafted a new law code designed to obeyed by the spirit and appetite. In this read- introduce more social equality into a city on ing, what is important to my purpose is that the verge of class war.(Ibid,95) hubris connects to the soul. One of the Pla- The new view of virtue and the new law tonic dialogues which is describing the rela- code gradually led to dismiss ancient aristo- tionship between the soul and hubris is Phae- cratic and hierarchic order. In democracy drus. While it discusses about love, Phaedrus some equality, i.e. equality of citizens was refers to hubris that is related to desires and governed. As a result, disrespecting for no- opposed to the rational part: bles and superiors did not mean hubris any- “We must observe that in each one of us more. Equal citizens had a sense of collective there are two ruling and leading principles, responsibility and were attentive to the good which we follow whithersoever they lead; of the polis. Therefore, shame defined in re- one is the inner desire for pleasures, the other lated to the polis as a whole. In other words, an acquired opinion which strives for the every citizen had to consider gaze of others. best. These two sometimes agree within us By establishing democracy, although aris- and are sometimes in strife: and sometimes tocratic hierarchy was dismissed, another one, and sometimes the other have the greater hierarchy replaced: hierarchy in the soul. power. Now when opinion leads through rea- This replacement was a change and transfor- son toward the best and is more powerful, its mation for the perception of hubris and aidos power is called sophrosone, but when desire .As a matter of fact, by the fifth century B. irrationally drags us toward pleasures and C., there were not any words equating to rules within us, its rule is called hubris. “soul” as a part for thought and feeling. For (Phaedrus,237d-238a) Homer, human was defined just as a body As we see, here, hubris as an excess is (soma) and soul (psyche) as a vital power opposed to sophrosoneor self-restrained that which leaved body at death moment. Then, related to the rational part of the soul; but there was not any foundational difference hubris itself arises from seeking pleasures or between body and soul. (Dodds, 1973:138) appetite, the third part of the soul that is infe- But classical Greek thinkers, Socrates and rior. Plato᾽s assertion on the rational part is

71

International Journal of Political Science, Vol.7, No 2, Summer 2017 so much that he believes every desire, which comparison to the body, and “he seems gen- prevails over the reason, is hubris. Therefore, erally to think that caring for our soul, and he explores hubris in different names and for ourselves, has everything to do with get- forms, from gluttony to love (eros). (Ibid, ting our beliefs straight.” (Rowe, 2011:204) 238a-c) On the trial, he reminds Athenians that the Now, hubris is not simply the same notion meaning of virtue has changed by him and as hamartia or disobedience against gods but happiness is related to care for the soul. He de- it extends to the interior of man. This reading nies validity of happiness introduced by heroic of hubris can lead us to Socratic hubris, the culture and declaims that he makes them happy action which refers to the interior, however, in real. (Apology, 36e) Socrates insists on it not in a weak meaning as above. when he says: “I go about doing nothing else than urging you, young and old, not to care for Socratic hubris your persons or your property more than for the Perhaps it seems strange that I claim Socratic perfection of your souls, or even so much; and I hubris- as an act which was led to his execu- tell you that virtue does not come from money, tion- is relevant to his efforts for good life but from virtue comes money and all other (Eudaimonia)- as an act for happiness of good things to man, both to the individual and himself and others. This effort has made to the state.” (Ibid, 30a-b) through speech and many Athenians who For Socrates Caring the soul is so much “neither their views nor their argumentative important that he advises it as a cure for the powers are uniformly bad” (Warne, 2013:8) body. In the Charmides, when he is asked to were its interlocutors. According to this, I present a medicine to treat Charmides head- will highlight Socrates speech in relation to ache, Socrates present scaring the soul, of the good life. This speech is included two course by focusing on virtue of temperance layers which both support the above claim, (sophrosone). He argues that “should not and of course, the essay᾽ thesis: surface or treat body without soul” and “the treatment external layer, and deep or internal layer. of the soul is by means of certain charms, and Although both of layers has oriented to the these charms are words of the right sort: by good life, the former deals with good life in the use of such words is temperance engen- general and the later engages in it in details. dered in our souls, and as soon as it is engen- In the following, they are presented. dered and present we may easily secure health to the head, and to the rest of the body Surface or External Layer also.” (Charmides, 156e-157a) In the surface or external layer which is quite Along with changing the virtue, Socrates clear and apparent, because explicitly points transforms aidos into a passion of shame of good life up, Apology is the best source in not caring the soul, an interior affair, that which Socrates᾽ speech is illustrative to his everybody from the noble to the many should hubris. Socrates on the trial through the consider it. While he interrogatively address- speech shows that he has violated ancient es Athenians and finds them blameworthy, order, namely, he practices hubris by present- Socrates acknowledges this transformation: ing a new way to good life. “not ashamed to care for the acquisition of As we know, for the first time Socrates wealth and for reputation and honor, when paid attention to the soul as a better part in you neither care nor take thought for wisdom

72

Socratic Hubris; a Way to Understanding Socrates … and truth and the perfection of your soul?” something and what their judgment is, Socra- (Apology, 29e) Indeed, Socrates by this tes in response to the argument says: “But, speech not only is transforming the concept my dear Crito, why do we care so much for of aidos, but he again commits hubristic act what most people think?” (44d) Indeed, by also. He asks Athenians for the shame that saying this statement, Socrates shows not they do not consider until then. Therefore, it only neglect and even an opposition to Athe- is not surprising if they account Socrates᾽ nian norm, but also a gap or distance between speech, and speech repeatedly had been himself and Crito or all of Athenians. Such heard, shameful and they apply for the pun- an opposition is a hubristic act, but as we see, ishment. Socrates is alone in this action and even his However, there is a very important point friend, Crito, who has accompanied him to about the surface layer. It is true that Socra- the last moment of his life, is not in agree- tes᾽ insistence on the soul and transforming ment with him. This disagreement continues virtue, happiness, and aidos was somehow to the end of the dialogue, but even if we re- devaluating of respectful things for the polis, late it to the loss of philosophical mind for and thus a hubristic act and punishable, since Crito to understand Socrates speech about he did not had any schools or students (Ibid, relationship between the soul (psyche) and 33a) and even his friends and companions justice (Emlyn- Jones, C.,1999: 8-9)we were more close to the Athenian aidos, his should not forget that Crito as a close and old hubris was less public and more personal and friend (Apology,33e) after years, has not ac- he could be alive for years and talk about his cepted basic belief of Socrates, and then, beliefs; As if, he was an alone person without Socrates is alone. any subordinates. This point is more obvious in Crito. One Deep or Internal Layer day before execution, in prison, his rich In contrast to the surface layer, deep or inter- friend, Crito, who insists him to escape, nal layer is both vast and hidden. It is vast meets Socrates but he refuses. The argument because there are other sources in addition to of Crito is a clue to understand the reason of Apology, Charmides and Crito that we can refusing. Crito argues that if Socrates died, refer to define Socrates hubris. If we remem- many persons who did not know him and his ber that Socrates began to explore good life own well would think he could have saved after hearing message of the god of Delphi by Socrates if he had been willing to spend Chaerephon (Apology, 21a) and estimate this money, but that he would not take the trou- event before 430 B.C. (Guthrie, 1969:406), ble.(44c) It is clear that Crito as a good friend there must be many dialogues between Soc- is doing his best to save Socrates but the rates and his cross-examiners, and then, point is that his argument has not merely in- many sources. Of course, for my purpose, cluded in friendship; Crito concerns about dialogues (the sources) which are connected what “many persons” think, a key word that to “earlier Socrates” i.e. Crito, Laches, Ly- leads us to the opposition or Socratic hubris, sis, Charmides, Eutyphron, Apology. (Vlas- and of course, it’s being personal. tos, 1996: 136-148) are cases study. Although it seems natural to worry about About hidden trait in deep layer, I should how most people think about somebody or say that Socrates speech is not apparent to

73

International Journal of Political Science, Vol.7, No 2, Summer 2017 illustrate his hubris. In other words, there is a unable to determine the questions with which I layer in his speech, which indirectly refers to challenged him, but made a very distinct reply his hubris. Here, Socrates hubris has covered in order to conceal his difficulty.”(169, c) in irony, ridicule, and exaggeration and In Laches Socrates explores virtue of through making inters locator’s shame or courage. Here, in comparison with Char- making him, different from others becomes mides, Socrates is older because he has just clearer. While Socrates speaks to his inter- returned from Delium battle (424 B.C.) and is locutors, he appears their weakness and in- about 46, but his interlocutors (Nikias and sufficiency and indirectly, his own sufficien- Laches) are older than him and both eminent cy and differentiation. There are good exam- generals. However, the age, fame or position ples in earlier Socrates dialogues to witness of his interlocutors is not restraints for Socra- this kind of hubris. tes to act hubris. It so happens that Socrates In Charmides, a dialogue in which Socra- through putting stress on these things makes tes has just returned from Potidaea battle them ashamed. (432 B. C.),and thus he is under forty and As an example, after Nikias and Laches probably in the beginning of the way for failed in defining courage, Socrates not only searching good life by cross-examining, Soc- puts stress on his failing but also refers to his rates in dialogue with Critias not only acts disagreement about courage. He ironically hubris through ironic speech but he “hubristi- says: “I regard them as able to educate a man; cally” points out Critias᾽ shame. Indeed, for they would never declare their minds so when Charmides could not afford to define freely on pursuits that are beneficial or harm- temperance, Socrates replaces Critias by re- ful to a youth unless they felt confidence in ferring to his years and knowledge ironically: them I, except that I wondered at their differ- “but you, I expected to know, in view of your ing from each other.” (Laches, 186 d) years and your studies.”(162, d) We know, Socrates highlights his hubris by distin- on this dialogue, Charmides is educated and guishing himself as someone who has not had taught by Critias and as none of teachings of any teacher in this respect; While his inter- his educator about the subject is acceptable, it locutors despite having teachers, because is an irony to speak of “years and they are rich, they do not know what courage study.”Socrates᾽ ironic speech becomes more is: “I have had no teacher in this respect; and clear when Critias is not able to afford to de- yet I have longed for such lessons from my fine temperance, too. youth up. However, I have not the means to But Socrates acts hubris again while he pay fees to the sophists, who were the only points out Critias shame. Socrates although persons that professed able to make me a himself does not know any definition for complete man; and to this moment, I remain temperance, he uncovers ignorance and powerless to discover the art myself. But I weakness of Critias, and since Critias is very should not be surprised if Nikias or Laches proud of his knowledge, unveiling of his ig- has discovered or learnt it: for they have norance is arisen his shame and is considered more means at their command to enable from hubris: others, and they are also older, and have had “Since he usually contrived to distinguish time to discover it.” (186c) himself, he was too ashamed to bring himself This ironical speech is not something de- to admit to me before to company that he was tached from Socrates effort to pursuit caring

74

Socratic Hubris; a Way to Understanding Socrates … the soul and good life but it is obvious that by quire a good that is necessary not only for his means of it, he uncovers weakness of any- father, neighbors, and Athenians, but for the body whom interrogates and puts himself Great King [the king of Persia].(209e- 210a) against others. Of course, beside of irony is Although he acknowledges to use these ex- other means by which Socrates unveils latent aggerated examples to discover what is the things and acts hubris; Socratic hubris is hid- friendly and what is not, and in order to hunt den in his exaggerations, too. Lysis is one of Lysis (218c), as Alan Scott says, Socrates the cases in which we can show it. (ostentatiously and arrogantly) charms Lysis In Lysis where Socrates, “an old man by philosophy and exaggerates his capacities; among youths” (223b), searches nature of As if his interlocutor achieves his ambitions friendship, from the very first statements of just by his assistance. (Alan Scott, 2000:141) dialogue makes uncovering. He unveils love- Euthyphero which relates to few days be- ly relationship between Hippothales and Ly- fore the trial, is another earlier Socrates dia- sis. Although this kind of relation was usual logue that is a case for representing of So- amongst Athenian men, it seems, to fall in cratic hubris. In this dialogue, Socrates is love for Hippothales means to depend and to before Euthyphero, a religious young man need to other that he does not want to uncov- who thinks he knows what religiousness is, er before an old man. Therefore, as Socrates and thus, he is very proud of himself; But asks him to name his beloved, Hippothales Socrates cross-examines him and shows hu- feels shame and blushs. (204b) bris against current perception of religious- Of course, Socrates does not pay attention ness. Here we deal with several signs of hu- to his blush and continues to unveil his “los- bris: irony, ridicule, and exaggeration. ing” the heart: “I know you are not only in Above all, irony and ridicule support the love, but also far advanced already in your hubris. Socrates, from the first, ridicules not passion,” (204b) But the main point here is only young Meletus who has claimed that he that Socratic hubris underlain in an exaggera- knows who corrupts Athenian youth but tion. In fact, Socrates relates his discovery to young Euthyphero who claims to know reli- a divine donation and says; “… there is one giousness.(2b-3d) He ironically asks Eu- gift that I have somehow from heaven, - to be thyphero to accept him as a pupil and teach able to recognize quickly a lover or a be- his knowledge: “Then the best thing for me, loved.” (204c) my admirable Euthyphero, is to become your We can easily relate such a discovery to a pupil and, before the suit with Meletus comes sophistication that old people have; or even on, to challenge him and say that I always we can know this statement as declaring a thought it very important before to know guess but when old Socrates presents it as a about divine matters and that now, since he divine gift, as a “one” gift, it seems an exag- says I am doing wrong by acting carelessly geration. and making innovations in matters of reli- Socrates speaks exaggeratedly again some gion, I have become your pupil. And “Me- lines later. While he is interrogating Lysis letus”, I should say, “if you acknowledge that about relationship between to be happy and Euthyphero is wise in such matters, then be- to do everything he likes, Socrates pretends lieve that I also hold correct opinions, and do that Lysis in conversation with him will ac- not bring me to trial; and if you do not

75

International Journal of Political Science, Vol.7, No 2, Summer 2017 acknowledge that, then bring the suit against aneum. (36d). Also, He who formerly had him, my teacher, rather than against me, and spoken about his specific power, “something charge him with corrupting the old, namely, divine and spiritual” (31d), after hearing sen- his father and me, which he does by teaching tence of dead, presents himself like a superi- me and by correcting and punishing his fa- or, as a companion for few other superiors. ther.”(5a-b) (41b) finally, he goes to a place better than Socrates throughout the cross-examining others place. repeatedly appeals to ridicule and irony, but it is interesting that the very repeating this Conclusion kind of speech, forms exaggeration. Indeed, In reference to “earlier Socrates” dialogues, it while Socrates several times ironically refers is discernable that Socrates about three dec- to Euthyphero᾽ knowledge and presents him- ades before the trial had started to call Athe- self as a pupil, exaggerates in his interlocu- nians to a good life which suggests caring tor᾽ knowledge and his own ignorance. He by soul and its virtues. His speech replaced ma- artificial humility not only calls Euthyphero terial virtues like nobility and heroic with as a teacher but more skillful than Daedal us spiritual virtues; a speech-act, which was op- in making words walk.(15b)But basically posed to sham culture and aidos; then, it was Socrates through this artificial humility that understood as hubris. is the same exaggeration, acts two works; Nevertheless, an important point that ex- Firstly, he unveils Euthyphero ignorance and plains why Socrates was alive many years weakness and forces him to think himself despite of his hubris is to be personal Socrat- about meaning of religiousness instead of ic hubris. It means: repeating gods current stories, and it is just 1) Socrates did not establish a the time for Euthyphero to become desperate school, party, or any other institu- “But, Socrates, I do not know how to say tions by or through which spoke and what I mean. For whatever statement we ad- acts against the polis; He was a lone vance, somehow or other it moves about and person who started a dialogue with won᾽t stay where we put it.” (11c) anyone and discussed about good life Secondly, he differentiates himself from and virtues, but through speech, he Euthyphero, and since this differentiation has acted hubris. In other words, he by covered in irony, suggests a converse situa- irony, ridicule, and exaggeration tion: Euthyphero is a pupil and Socrates is a shamelessly unveiled weakness of teacher; A situation that shows a distance his interlocutors that it could arise between them. Similarly, Socrates as lone their anger, hatred, and revenge. person opposites Euthyphero as representa- Therefore, Socrates through speech, tive of Athens in religiousness subject. which is apparently fine and light, Although Socrates on the trial continues acted brashly and roughly. In addi- this kind of speech, he uncovers his differen- tion, of course, since this act at the tiation. In Apology, we see, he after hearing first place was just speech, not an ac- verdict of guilty considers himself different tion, and addressed a interlocutor, not and instead of punishment that every guilty the whole city, had gradual effects person has to suffer, requests the remunera- and late reflection. tion, i.e. the privilege of being served in Pryt-

76

Socratic Hubris; a Way to Understanding Socrates … 2) Socratic hubris could not be University of California Press. public and Socrates was alone in his Emlyn- Jones, C., (1999), “Plato: Crito, Edit- hubris. It means that firstly, his ed With Introduction, Commentary speech, which was in contrast to and Vocabulary”, London- Bristol: norms of Athens, could not act like a Classical Press. means to unity. Not only Crito who Guthrie, W. K. C., (1969), “A History of was an old friend but also youth like Greek Philosophy”, Vol.III, United Critias, Alkibiades, and Lysis were Kingdom: Cambridge University not united with him to stand against Press. traditional values and virtues. Sec- Hesiod, (1966), “Theogony”, trans. by West, ondly, Speech of Socrates automatical- M. L., USA: Oxford University ly created distance between him and Press. others. However he had said he just Homer, (1978), “The Illiad”, English Trans. knew that he did not know, when he by A. T. Murray, Vol. I, Cambridge, began to speak and unveiled others Massachusetts: Harvard University weak points, as if he knew much things Press. and was different; specifically when he Laertius, D., (1972), “Lives of Eminent Phi- examined some people like Eu- losophers”, English Trans. by Hicks, thyphero who claimed to know or R. D., Vol. I, Cambridge, Massachu- when he directly referred to his special. setts: Harvard University Press. Consequently, Socrates as “I” lived both Miller, Fred. D, (2009),“The Platonic Soul”, beside and against of “Others”. His hubris in Benson, Hugh H. (ed), A Compan- did not show mercy anybody but Athens suf- ion to Plato, USA: Wiley- Blackwell fers it for a long time because belonged to a Publication. lone person who his speech was not effective Nails, Debra, (2006), “The Trial and Death of in short time. Socrates”, in Ahbel-Rappe, S. & Kamtekar, R. (eds), A Companion to References Socrates, Malden: Blackwell Pub- Alan Scott, Gary (2000), “Plato᾽s Socrates as lishing. educator”, Albany: State University Nietzsche, F. W., (2006), der Geburt der of New York press. Tragodie, Persian Trans. by Monajj- Aeschylus, (2014), “The Persians”, Persian em, Roya, Abadan: Porsesh. Trans. by Kosari. Abdollah, Tehran: Plato, (1977), “Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Ney Publication. Phaedo, Phaedrus”, vol.1, English Brickhouse, T. C.& Smith, N. D., (1990), Trans. by Fowler, H. N., and Great “Socrates on Trial”, Oxford: Claren- Britain: Loeb classical Library. don Press. Plato, (1967), “Laches, Protagoras, Meno, Colaiaco, J.A., (2001), “Socrates against Euthydemus”, vol.2, English Trans. Athens: Philosophy on Trial”, New By Lamb, W.R.M., and Great Brit- York and London: Routledge. ain: Loeb classical Library. Dodds, E. R., (1973), “The Greeks and The Plato, (1975), “Lysis, Symposium, Gorgias”, Irrational”, Berkeley and Los Angles: vol.3, English Trans. by Lamb,

77

International Journal of Political Science, Vol.7, No 2, Summer 2017

W.R.M., and Great Britain: Loeb sessments, vol. 2, London and New classical Library. York: Routledge. Rowe, Christopher (2011), “Self- Vlastos, G., (1996), “Socrates”, in Prior W. J. examination” in Morrison, R. Donald (ed), Socrates: Classical Assess- (Ed), the Cambridge Companion to ments, vol. 2, London and New Socrates, Cambridge: Cambridge York: Routledge. University Press. Warne, Cristopher, (2013) “Arguing with Saxonhouse, A. W., (2006), “Free Speech Socrates: An Introduction to Plato’s and Democracy in Ancient Athens”, Shorter Dialogues”, London and Cambridge: Cambridge University New York: Bloomsbury. Press. Wood E. M. & Wood, N. (1996), “Socrates Snell, B., (1982), “The Discovery of the and Democracy: A Reply to Gregory Mind in Greek Philosophy and Liter- Vlastos, The Historical Socrates and ature”, New York: Dover Publica- Athenian Democracy”, in Prior, W. J. tions, Inc. (Ed), Socrates: Classical Assess- Vlastos, G., (1996), “The Historical Socrates ments, vol. 2, London and New and Athenian Democracy”, in Prior York: Routledge. W. J. (Ed), Socrates: Classical As-