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" (lllUrrr(Hiat. 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:<aggbratton r*rflfr nay be' ascri- critlcl-zes I would have had dlfflcttlty understandtng bed to Aristophanesl is,that he drove thts dialectlc and Clcero l 'endp Hegelrs turning polnt ln thoubbt. ,,lgl!. bltter but'it, cannot be said that inJustio I ; by Yhls represeni.ation, Ihdeed we mrst adr6re the There is a further lrornr in arv treatnent of the influencr of Socrates on orrraloogttt. HE-Idft .no nrltlnge but hls i and foliLonera set dorn records of hla nenci ic slde ln Socrates as being a negatJ-ve; aDd thou{tr contemporaries -- his and throughout the Later after his own way ln having presented it so forci- abllia and conversatlonsl -- history of thought philosopherg have reconstructed hls bly.n , , signiflcance. The records of hle conversatLons wsre onco The famour speech of Po\iclatesl The Accusation of Sos so that treats the Socrattc Conwrca- Kategor{a Snbr6tous, to rhich it is supposed that both numorous ArLstotle 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.