I I There le a large llterature qoneerned T"rtth the socratic ttr ! :--, r- ,- t .. .t,1. --^L1 ^- - - - The Influence of Socrates on PhilosoPhy. 1. problem. It ia iendered diiri.lcuJ-t ae a htrstorlcal - l,td. Jan. 196b becEuse so }lttle of the ancldnt mater{.al survlvee. ln St. Johnrs Colleg€r.Annapplise 31r eorpl€rbe -forn and the interprelation of the fragments ope devices which Socrates lntroduced into the ns dinersified posslbilitles., The testlmorry of on\r four One of, the phllosophy wae explained hls reputa- ancient writers ln in the context of compJ.eteworks- rpthod of lrotqr. He --* pronouncement Platoe XenpphoneArlstophanese, and Aristbtle. tlon for nlsdoml sanctlfled W the of the oracle that he was'the wiseat of nene by the dls- $tlstotle ras born af,tei the death of Socratesr and his Delphlc testlmony is ther"efore of littre historlcar rellabillt covery thab he alone recognized hts lrr lgnorano. tr-Ls plege ln the his;[ory of Arlstophanes ls crltlcall ,orrdefamatoryi plato and The lryny continues ln place Xenophonexposltorl agologists but, not in a phlloiopfryr he ls granted a pre-dffi.nent l-n thc ft". defa44lqrrfSditlon"4 1*ap apparently rc hlstory of the philosophy of the West; but there ls extensi-ve.1.-_ I llttle agreement concernlng what hts phtlosoptty waa'. (de Artstophanes-- 6louas (b23, 1I. th3 ff., 218, 2zS), Clcero caLled hlm the parent of phllosoplry Fln. Birds (hrh, rt. 1282;1553),Frogs (b6, i. rhir).-'- 2. L.)and the prlnce of phllosophers (de Nat. Dco. De Acad. I5). Hegel marrycenturleg (as well as other comip r,rditers-Eupolise Cratinusp DL- 2. J.67, and 1. rrnot flgure phi]ys, Annipsta). Aristophanesr pi6sentatlon of laterr called hLrn onJy a nost fuportant phi-losopt\y perhaps the nost 6ocrates as a teacher of Sclencee a paid teacher of ln the hlstory of -- phllosophy of antlqultyerr and sophisttc rhetorlc. Sinbe'these are contrary to the interesting tn the provldes hLe nFor a mental positlon stated by tlie PlAtonic Socratese thlre are a reason for Judgmentr ussally not taken as relLable hlstorlcal presentatlons turnlng-point exhlblted ltself ln hlrn ln the forn I OI philoiophlc thorght.nlIl9ll$Iltr" (Hiat.(lllUrrr Phll.rIlJI. I,L, )v4, Brrt Hegel does' ercpoundhis'presgntatlon (pp . te6.l3}) of PILLIOSOPflIC 381+) -Eue iI Hegel Cicerors conceptlon of Socratese roncluding (b30) rTher,e:Xenophon and Plato 'replled. tlon as a forrn of literature ta lrls Poeticse renarkLng i inltateg The later sophists. The pe*itatetlc Aristoxenus that there ls no name for ttrat form-6iFFwhlch -- b5r language alone and no cornmonnane for the nlme and thei tnformation from hls father Spithanrs adFfrEtory of Socratic Connersation. Socratest in hls youth violent, libidinousl inJuriousl i problem philosophy of Socrat€o Inay be treatj blgamouse usuriouse qncrhltivated. The of the ed l-n two ways. nay be treated as a hlptooclal b. The Apologetlc traditlon. 0f the nulnGrousmemorabirrila Tt i problem of rLdlscoverlng 'the nhtstorlciffiates or and dialogue6_;rm socratics onfy fragrnnts surrrrve and l" 4 philosophlc probLen of examining the Socratic probl-em beco,mesa problem of reconcilLng may be treated as a I questlons a reeuJ.t of Plato ard xenophon. schlelerrnacherp despite discrepancled the that have beei-ie[3?d lg as 1 questloning. inqufuy is con-l they were reporting the s,:re historical Socrates. br Socratest The hlstoflcaL I cerned wlth the parf, Socrates pJ.ayed ln the dlalogues either can be taken as baslc XenophonLs rellable beca I -,- I ln which he nas ln6Tved3 ptrtlosoplllrLlnqulry use he does not have the Lltebary polish or the phtl-osophi the ls I concerned with le perception of Platop therefore what he recordi can be the cont,lnulng dlalogue ln whlch latcr i philosophers engage ln questLons they attrlbute to hlnj Bearing on two aslncts of Socratest actlvlties in the lr.,fluence of Socrates on Philoaoptty 2 I !P the Platonlo dlalogues (J.) his aocount ofreading I '' wr the treatlse of A.na:cagorasin the Fhaedo and his diaa- | taken.as tthat Socrates said and dlde oretrsince he dld not ppolntnent rdth the sclentiflc rptE6-(e) Uf" argumen-l understand hls arguments hls account degrades htn to an ts from the concrete and hls fefutations of the Sophlai ordinary man nisreported ard misunderstood. Plato can phllosophJ-c lnslgltt to ap- tg. ",' i be re11ed on slnce he had the firll subtletyl Iro4p -- ln the Apolory aceuses hLs aecusers of preelgte the Socrattc argunents in thelr , confusJ,ng hh (1F:ffi[fi-teachers of science ana (2) H'Ith sophists. :;ffi;il' 3 : ;H,flTil"#:ffi*"ffi Eq*T#hi 4 N.B. tn the historiral $robldrn lt is necessary to e:cpl, riiJ-s""#r"-p"our"m"::.t: ls thus suttafly internringl€d T{ith ain away tlp contradictlon of, the iro1yl ln the phiLo- the Platbnic problem -- what shotrld be attrlbuted to , sophic problcn the lrony i1 fant of the rrcthod. Socrates and t of Plato ln the dlalogues ln wtrlch Soerates I lrorry in the history of the rbbpfatlcsrl apperrs. Hegel'again has hls own variant on these possLb nAnd 1. The Megarlan and ELean- Eretrlau schooLs. i llities (llfst Phll Ir lrfl+) I lf we lnqulre wtrether Euclides of Megara -- oldest of the puptls Socrates he (Xenophon) or Plato deplcts Socrates to us most fatth- I ^of I Eleatlc background. Pupll Eubulides lnvetrbi of many I ftrIIy tn his pe:'sonality and doctrLner there ls no QuestL- personallty and methodl the e:cbe of the dialectical argurBnts iheludtng the f,iar. I on that ln regard to hls Called erlstLcs -- reputattnn,for logic chopping. C"U na1 of hLs teachingl r.m nay eertalnlil receirrc from Plato ' nination Ln Dlodorus Cr,onus ahd hls pupll Philo of IarJ a satisfactory, and perhaps a mol€ cblmplete representatLo! issa. ttMatcrialn inrplieation and truth tables. I of what Socrates wag. But ln regard to the content of hls nstrlcttr polnt by the developnent Diadonrs as opposeA io Stbfc Chryslppus - | teachtng and the reached h1m ln lnplication. C.S.Plerce cholce betneen Elodorus I of thoughtl we have ln the naln to Look to Xenophon.n pnilo. -- problern phlloooph- .nb 1"4fu"w++h^ Ss; Lr),, I So far as the Socratic 1g concerned ' ers and historlans will contlnue to recount the story frony -- eontinuation of Socrates interest ln arg- I ' ument and refutation --rbut long seemedto be part I . silb} as merw var{.atlons as dranatlsts flnd for the of sophlstlc eristlc. Nori,esteersd as antlclpatlon I ,L'oTr6Tse of Anreus or hletorlans for the rlse of Athens i fqr.a ilarniliar itonic reasont od modern logic and its emancipation' ' from Aristotil{ ^ or the fall of Rome. And lan rlrb-IiC#ftilQ nar.*r I his fe[owbitizens condernnedidGdeath and ne make his brffrdhnqhd;lt FodtrddGdonnstr irsnurrrlvrthdrtTrrttFrry"rttrE( I Justification into a basls for philosophlesl on the I evldence they have left. PBhedo of Ells and Mene$entrsdf Eretrla. (Latter desp- | teachers of the Schools of Plato and Xenocrates as well I fn tracing the history of the influence o! Socrates there a.c CYrenaJ-cs. ,r, r I ls no need to deterrnine wnat ueffita ls i r 2. Cynics -- Antlsthenes conceived hineelf as thefreal I rather what phllosophers think they derSve from Socrates. spiritua-l heir of Socrates. ,' I Chlef interest not to reconstruct what may have happened I Polenic against Platol'dnd platonic ideas -- only the I in Athens ln the-fifth centuryl but in the continuing lndividual has real e:dstence. Each thlng has its lnfluence today and lts applicatlon to present philosophl< OWn natlF. problems. . f Clnlc ideal -- self-reliance and physlcaL endurance Begln therefore ulth nhat Aristotle aald for ttte reasol' too Happlness -- independepce and freedom from needs ard that makes hi-n unrel-j.able for history -- he canp passions. Life of mendirCancy. late to have krrqfii Socratea but he knew the Socratlcs. Dlogerres of Sinope. , , He mairestwo statements about Socratest (1) that he turnec Influence on tte mora]-'doctrine of the Stolcs. from the study of nature to the study of ethics, (Z) trrat he was the first to becomelnterested Ln unl-rrcrsal defin- 3. The Qrrenalcs, Aristippus of, Cytene. (acquainted ltions withn ffOtagOfSSr/Protagoras.) , , and inductlve argurents. Knowledge valuable because of practlcal utllity. Dr rl j ctcerontenwreiCof td. fon rrooaronof socrat€' * ,**'"" of socrateaon. phrloeoptv. 3. ard subEtltutton.of hls orn four stagr ssquenceln i lrhlch Socrates dotFnstlatea th€ ldentlty of the obJEctl D6rJbtssd n th€natlcs beceuqoit dld not |rk r,hat t! lv€ ad tlB oubJoctile the urd.versal erld _tbe partl- I berF'fictaf. erd hrtIlrfirft pgrflfal lnrestlgatlon $lthout cular rhtch hls predece€so!€' hEd rdss6d. (I.38L-9) i obJoct or l.sluo. I v Refutat,ion of the nolddr hiptories of philosop$."(38?I End of action,pLeasure. Necessity of relata nThusnlbu! Judglng *rncnrrrr& lEk Socrates/SrincipJ-eSocrates/princiy'J-esocrates/prinslpl€ ists that nan naD hastrs toio dlnddlna'i cfaa; i lve lhs'valucs of dlfforsnt gooai art in5or- flqrlrolt hlrBeltlxLi|selr bothDoth thetlls eM'ofehd'of hlshLs agtlonEaqtlonE and. thetho end 6nd of Ij r,rnts.- TblE JuqglFntJud$Fnt r! oun to dadonl.lBdon (phr6nesh,(pu6neifi, tbe vodd' and tlust attaLn truth, ttbbush b1nse1f. TT!€ en-f_ pd.Diogenes ttrree steps -- Ion- ii' that the others are that 9ti11 less than I.n pq4lans established natural phllosophy; Socrates ettrlcs; _Concgptof Dfeld p. 2. Age of distinctions is gonei FJeto dialeetlc. (Arlttotle had sald that Socrates the System t oveicame it. Socrates the slnple rise man -bbl s first lnterested ln untyersal definitionsl ard i nho e:qrressed ffi the d,istinction between what he ato applled deflnitions to things beyond e:cperlence) J un&rstood and nhat he did,r,not urderstand. tlon of the irony'ln the hlstory of Chrlstlan p. 99 n. Soratlc method -- appllcatton of lnfinite abs phllosophy in the West. Based on rrork of Arnbrose end . tlon to the most concrete case. Augr:stine. (f) T\ro sources -- Clcero and Rtretoric -- Finally his cmr€nt on irbrly, the thene ue have been foll Arnbrose De Offlclis MLnistrorurl Augustlrn Da docirlna n[hat ing p. 120 it was $ocrat,es who introduced iro4p Chrlattanae (e) p:.ato and dlalectlc. Clty of Godl pJ-atonli into the world gave'rthe and bahf its nalpr that hls irony philosophlc schematlsm to orgardze Ghrl.stl_an doctttne i was pecisely -- the close reserrlg wtrich began by shuiting three scienee ard the tr{-ntty. U^r^ b : hinself off fron nene by shutt:i.ng himself in nith hirnseLf Scholastlc rplhod -- L2th centur1r tno par4s (1) refrrtati ln order to be etpqnded in thb Deltyl began by shutting lon of contrary argumnt -- rhetorLc (canon 1aw)e arrl hls door agalnst (2) men and naking Jeri of those rsho stood construction oi sequentlal doctrine -- dlalecU-c. outsidep in order to talk in,secrets -- who troubles hinself about that?tt Eternal truth relat d Revolt against scholastlclsm in the Renalssancee two to exi.tlng an indhridual, sources -- (f) Cicero and rhebbrLc -- ClceronianJ.sne and (2) tt,fhe (Z) Pragmatism. Deweytr Stgnlflcance of the tfre^Plgtonisgr of the Acade4y of Flprenc€ -- Ficino. Problem of Knowleagen (Chicago 189?) p. 6 rIf the Socra-; 1r, 5+.*.uvc+.. ttknofl tic 0ommard, ttryselfen runs agalnst the dead wall- cf; @posltlo-n betcean Utllltarlanlsm ard ideqllen in the inability to eonduct this knowledger sonnone mrst take i rdneteenth centurxr. (r) uflr in on uberti-;ie lrre nethod upon hinself the dlscovery of how the requisite knowleaee, of C5-cero -- exarrina the argument of f,ourepponent more carefully thafir your orrn, (2) ,.t \ Hegel. Refutallon of the ll att q^vl-,.e1r- q {ffl,-i* ui .{d*^,*&*4-, lua.afr-ta Socrat lc dialo gues of Pla t o. I s t at6'1Effi'efts' l.[.'tBfn]4 The Influence of Socrates on Philosophy lr. of oir tno polnte. "- Q:$Igp_[" knowledge.. 1. Ethi_csrg.e_e_{_tgday-t.o u.ring.:mffi down from the may- be 6btainel...tr I€av"ns and iltJthe homeJ il;:&verybody does p. 7. rln two short generatlons the divorce of philoso- practlcal philosop[y except "fthe academlc philos phy from llfe, the lsolation of reflectlve theory from s -- ln spite of the revolts of 190ors. Reason ald.- practical conductl has completed ltself. So great ls klealedgs as--{e-!emln4pts. .e-{,hunaag-g!}pni-tr,e the irorgr of history that thls sudden and effectlw unexamlned llfe not woryth livlnfjr but the exarnined ogt,omewas the result of the atterpt to make thought life tends to mount bAck into the clouds of creedse the instrument of aeblonl and aetlon the manifestatlon sectsp and dj-alects.'lr!r.y..,,.i',.,9'y* of the trrth reached ln thlnklng.n b. Virtue and the other grts. The othen slde of p. 19r rrThus the SocratLc period recurs; tnrt recurs with parador of virtue as, knonledge. Agreenents of tfre *.qt**tto'-nf:rU deelened neanlng of the intervening x tnrth and the diversltles of acti.ons. Socratie weary years of strugglel confusi0nr and cmfllcte ln the patient nission -- every,'man,knowswhat he is doing ( growth of the recognltlon of the need of and €onnrr1poetse artLlans) but ruhenqudiloned does speeific nethods of tnterogation.rr' trWll1lam not know. C*".^t.k a+,L{,*&{rru- pftFlfty-one Jrears laterl Jarnesr Morals and lr-J Itt----^r- ...... ---.-':2. Unlversal definitionl'end'lnductive-rr '.-...... "...."...--,arzument. /' .lulten Bendars: It ls lilot Pragnatlsn Tha ls Qppqrtunlst a.Iilntn 6Feffivliig et truth. rS/-'-\tf9h9). Crltlctzes Bendats phrase Socratlc-Christlan b. Method of refuting 1.thp arguments of opponents. and lts posslble meanlng. nln arry cBS€p lt is pertlne- Tend to paradoxinal contradiction t$rrlctls whidr nfi to state thd, on the face of known factse those reaches its high point ln the use of reason in who stlll assert the riglrts and authorlty of crttlcal thtrics. (a) ldads to dognatisn r*rlch pilaces systenatlc examination of all recelved teachi;EF€ philosophy in contrrdverslal sltuation. (b) leaC bellef from any source -- anonlTiE6ffiragnatlsts are l not to exarni-natlon of other arsrcnts to test numbered in the flrst rank - harn tbe prlor .'.*- clafoi 6-n-ils own but to refutatlon r*rfch makes examinat to the title rtfollor'rcrsrt of Socrates.ll tlon of other vleds'than oners ordnurutec€ssarf,o IronJr of_ oul J&. under thesb two headings -- applicabJ.e Make two polnus from thls survey of tbe lnfluenne of So- -to the problerns of philosophlr. crates from his tlrp to the preselrt. 1. Contacts of cultureb and, diversity of vafues 1, This is a contLnuoug phllosophlc ldr*rf lnfluence 2. Advancement of sciQnce ahd knowledge, and lt ls properly SoE?ETfcli-Jffebt seemsuperflclal 1. Contacts of cultures. ' n lJ as lf it npant that agtrph:!]osophy night c1aln g,,lt f,rom-socrat€$r\ms the condluslon lf rludUlse Socrates rethod of midwjrfer! for rnrtual understand *heritage '' ing. Instead of broadqninf by stu{ylng other cultur.es yJ6s' problem ls treat as an hLstorlc problen -- the than oners ornnas one irould biological speciese work varlous Soeratics dld not agree ln ar5r doctrLne: on the assunption that eadh man developes hi,s own cult Llttle ln eommonbetween Klerkegaard and lbw5ly. ure and values But viewed as a phllosophLc problemr they dld engage fnetead of holdlng qp rtsrors to each others faee ln a philosophlc. enterprlse whlch enrployed the tocr C/n*11rl tc+L connon new problerns !o ,tqr.n phllosophlc lnqulry atic meth66. tn new dlrections an{ to new applieations. 2. Ttre irony of our tfum, ln lCnowledgeand actlonr d 2. Advancement of sclence and latowiledge. calls for a vlgorous use of the nethod beyond those Teaching and recognltlon tndt we do not knqw. ACn"rr""t" inltlated at tle begtnning of the centur5r. rrknow-howrr I nt of knowledge -- co4veying to undeveloped the nattonse lnterruptdd frbrn time to time b b5r insistencc T t"y" -tracea hlstory al.ong tqo ilnes luggestea'Uy that they have an anqient wisdom. Teach othQrs techno' Arlstotle. There re mairy othdr llnes augge5ded by Iogy and- +Eft"rrtrgr industry anC learn from them Yoga other Socratics which ntght ltlenlse be tracedp but they ' would tend to focus on a few central pointsp do and Zen hrddhisa/ ' ; as the i The ldf,luence of Socrates on Philosophy 5. i

/ Instead, with the experLence of lroqp whlch seto them in opposltione try to comblne ttp two Socratlc endeavors of Dewey and Kierkegaardt (f) Oerrey -- retrn to critlcal questlons of accepted belie{s as a }ray of appJylng reflective theory to praetlcal conduct. (2) Kterkegaard -- aek cr.i-t,lcal questlons of accepted nodes of actlon ar a nay of dlscoverdng truth ln oneself; wlthdrawn from lrn. Philosophy enters the narket place by flndlng lts problene ln the llfe, and artse and lnqulrtes of nen. It nakes Its contributlon by lifblng thco€ probLens fron thelr concr€te partlcularlty to dlecov€r the untrnrsal in them. ft needs to r"enened frequently because the refirtattons of f;{ltlclsn may lead lt to lndeterrninacles and relatl- vis'lie and the gLlrupees of tnrth nay lead lt to dogna- tisns and absolutlgms. The S is thd our dogna- tisms have becornerelativlsns on a worLd acal,e aud our relativisns have becone dognatlsns r+ithin the co4pess of partlcular branches of knowledge and particular local connntrnltLego