He does not believe in the gods the state believes in, but in other new spiritual beings (Pl. Apol. 24b-c)
His adversaries had charged him with not believing in the gods worshipped by the state and with the introduction of new deities in their stead (Xen. Apol. 10)
For he says I am a maker of gods; and because I make new gods (kainoi Theoi) and do not believe in the old ones (Pl. Euthyph. 3b)
The Athenian courts have often been carried away by an eloquent speech and have condemned innocent men to death, and often on the other hand the guilty have been acquitted either because their plea aroused compassion or because their speech was witty (Xen. Apol. 5)
Whether anyone else has caught him in a serious moment and opened him, and seen the images inside, I know not; but I saw them one day, and thought them so divine and golden, so perfectly fair and wondrous, that I simply had to do as Socrates bade me (Sym. 216e-217a)
I am glad that I have extracted that answer, by the assistance of the court; nevertheless you swear in the indictment that I teach and believe in divine or spiritual agencies (new or old, no matter for that); at any rate, I believe in spiritual agencies, as you say and swear in the affidavit; but if I believe in divine beings, I must believe in spirits or demigods; - is not that true? Yes, that is true, for I may assume that your silence gives assent to that. Now what are spirits or demigods? are they not either gods or the sons of gods? Is that true?
[Jury] Yes, that is true.
But this is just the ingenious riddle of which I was speaking: the demigods or spirits are gods, and you say first that I don't believe in gods, and then again that I do believe in gods; that is, if I believe in demigods.
At any rate, I believe in spiritual agencies, as you say and swear in the affidavit; but if I believe in divine beings, I must believe in spirits or demigods; - is not that true?
[Jury] Yes, that is true (Apology)
One thing that I marvel at in Meletus, gentlemen, is what may be the basis of his assertion that I do not believe in the gods worshiped by the state; for all who have happened to be near at the time, as well as Meletus himself,—if he so desired, — have seen me sacrificing at the communal festivals and on the public altars … For it has not been shown that I have sacrificed to new deities in the stead of Zeus and Hera and the gods of their company, or that I have invoked ill oaths or mentioned other gods. (Xen. Apol. 11, 25)
But you also, judges, must regard death hopefully and must bear in mind this one truth, that no evil can come to a good man either in life or after death, and God does not neglect him (41c-d).
I go to die, and you to live; but which of us goes to the better lot, is known to none but God (42a).
More generally, what we must not overlook is that religious beliefs were quite common among ancient philosophers, and it seems unwarranted to assume that they, and Socrates, were secret atheists. — Apollodorus
Who, pray tell, are these thinkers who assume Socrates was a secret atheist? — Valentinus
Of course.In any case, he seems to be holding some interesting and intriguing views, especially in the eyes of moderns who are unfamiliar with the religious beliefs and customs of Ancient Greece. — Apollodorus
Actually, I think this is (or was) a popoular idea that one readily picks up in secular academia. I can't think of any names, but thinking back of philosophy classes at school, we'd talk about most of the old philosophers as if they would be secularists, non-theists, as if they would be "the good guys". At the time, it was a theme to recontextualize the religious/theistic claims of philosophers and to dismiss them, gloss over them. It's how secular academia made Descartes into "one of us".Who, pray tell, are these thinkers who assume Socrates was a secret atheist?
— Valentinus
I don't know of any such thinkers. — Apollodorus
Therefore, if he was an atheist, he must have been a secret one. But I have seen no evidence to suggest this. — Apollodorus
Actually, I think this is (or was) a popoular idea that one readily picks up in secular academia. I can't think of any names, but thinking back of philosophy classes at school, we'd talk about most of the old philosophers as if they would be secularists, non-theists, as if they would be "the good guys". At the time, it was a theme to recontextualize the religious/theistic claims of philosophers and to dismiss them, gloss over them. It's how secular academia made Descartes into "one of us". — baker
Probably no actual theist ever defined theism as "belief in a god or gods", nor atheism as "lack of belief or disbelief in a god or gods". — baker
Too, Socrates was no friend to democracy and preferred "alternatives" :wink: to what he probably saw as a group of ill-informed, poorly-trained, peasants trying to make decisions on matters they had not the slightest clue about, a not too flattering description of democracy and also the Greek gods with all their endless quarrels. The greek religion, it seems, was just too democratic for Socrates' tastes if you know what I mean. — TheMadFool
My impression is that what he and Plato really attempted to do was to bring some order to the confused society and culture they lived in, and this implied some religious and political reforms. — Apollodorus
You could be right. However, if we are to judge Athenian democracy by the way they conducted their trials, with juries bought by the likes of Anytus, etc., then maybe Socrates had a point.
But I’m not sure Socrates was quite as “undemocratic” as he might seem. My impression is that what he and Plato really attempted to do was to bring some order to the confused society and culture they lived in, and this implied some religious and political reforms. How undemocratic these were is of course debatable. — Apollodorus
I thought Socrates' antipathy towards democracy was no secret. If memory serves, he was more in favor of wise kings. The so-called Philosopher King was a notion he invented and his student Plato developed further. — TheMadFool
And I invite all other men likewise, to the best of my power, and you particularly I invite in return, to this life and this contest, which I say is worth all other contests on this earth; and I make it a reproach to you, that you will not be able to deliver yourself when your trial comes and the judgement of which I told you just now (Gorg. 526e).
I thought Socrates' antipathy towards democracy was no secret. If memory serves, he was more in favor of wise kings. The so-called Philosopher King was a notion he invented and his student Plato developed further.
— TheMadFool
In Plato’s Gorgias, Callicles suggests that society should be ruled by intelligent and courageous men irrespective of other virtues like self-control and righteousness, and invites Socrates to join his group.
Socrates replies by inviting Callicles to join him in his belief in righteousness and divine judgement in the afterlife:
And I invite all other men likewise, to the best of my power, and you particularly I invite in return, to this life and this contest, which I say is worth all other contests on this earth; and I make it a reproach to you, that you will not be able to deliver yourself when your trial comes and the judgement of which I told you just now (Gorg. 526e).
The concept of philosopher-king has been much misunderstood. I think the idea was to train philosophers to rule wisely. This is what it really boils down to, wise and just rule, in accordance with the established standards of ethical conduct based on the four virtues (self-control, courage, prudence, and righteousness), etc., and a proper legal system.
But you are right, it may be described as a utopian vision and it is doubtful that Socrates and Plato intended to implement everything exactly as discussed in the Republic. Still, Greek rulers tended to be more democratic that those of Persia or Egypt, for example. — Apollodorus
There are two options available:
4. Make all citizens philosophers (power distributed and knows how to govern)
OR
5. Philosopher-King (power concentrated and knows how to govern)
I can't fathom why he chose 5 over 4. Any ideas?
Speaking for myself, there's the practical issue of making every citizen a philosopher vs making only one person, the king, a philosopher. The latter is doable but the former is a pipe dream. — TheMadFool
Either (1) philosophers become kings in our states or (2) those whom we now call our kings and rulers take to the pursuit of philosophy seriously and adequately, and there is a conjunction of these two things, political power and philosophic intelligence, while the motley horde of the natures who at present pursue either apart from the other are compulsorily excluded, there can be no cessation of troubles for our states, nor, I fancy, for the human race either (Rep. 473e-d)
Even so, the fact remains that the philosopher-king isn't actually a king with hereditary privileges. Au contraire, the philosopher-king is simply a person given the responsibility of running the government for as long as possible, physically and mentally. That means the word "king" in philosopher-king is equivalent to what in US democracy is "president." — TheMadFool
Not exact equivalent but close.
The Greek term "basileus" did not necessarily mean hereditary ruler. And in some cases, the basileus was a member of a group of tribal chiefs.
Socrates’ philosopher-king would be elected from among the military caste. The (US) president is elected from among the political class (consisting of people with legal or business background).
Another difference would be that Athenian voters were male citizens with military training. So, practically, the military voted for one of their own.
In any case, it seems that Socrates wanted a ruler who was wise and just, and it shouldn't prove too difficult to find one if you have a pool of suitable candidates. — Apollodorus
Not exact equivalent but close.
The Greek term "basileus" did not necessarily mean hereditary ruler. And in some cases, the basileus was a member of a group of tribal chiefs.
Socrates’ philosopher-king would be elected from among the military caste. The (US) president is elected from among the political class (consisting of people with legal or business background).
Another difference would be that Athenian voters were male citizens with military training. So, practically, the military voted for one of their own.
In any case, it seems that Socrates wanted a ruler who was wise and just, and it shouldn't prove too difficult to find one if you have a pool of suitable candidates. — Apollodorus
So what were they? The primordial armchair philosophers? I'm being both ironic and not.I tend to doubt that they sought political power for themselves. Socrates was the antithesis of politician and he was an old man. I think the basic idea was to influence society, including the political classes, through education, though Plato may have liked to see himself in the role of advisor to political leaders. — Apollodorus
I doubt a few men can have such influence, so I'd look for another explanation.The main point, though, is that they succeeded in popularizing philosophy.
So what were they? The primordial armchair philosophers? I'm being both ironic and not. — baker
I have had this from my childhood; it is a sort of voice that comes to me, and when it comes it always holds me back from what I am thinking of doing, but never urges me forward. This it is which opposes my engaging in politics (Apol. 31d)
I doubt a few men can have such influence, so I'd look for another explanation. — baker
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.