It is proper to evaluate philosophical ideas in their historical context because, like for technology innovations, their merit or value depends on the state of the art. Nowadays, nobody would bother to reinvent the wheel, but when the wheel was invented, it brought massive advantages to transportation and trade.
Socratic questioning, also known as the Socratic method, is not impressive today, when everybody has watched dozens of movies where defence lawyers cross-examine witnesses. Their sharp, logical questions are taken for granted. It is their job to contest misrepresentations, dispel doubts and find out the truth.
My appreciation for Socrates doesn’t rest on the strength of his debating skills. Nor on his unassuming, modest lifestyle, or his fearless confrontation with his accusers during the trial held against him in Athens in the year 400 BC.
All those aspects render Socrates endearing as a hero, but not admirable as a philosopher. His merit as a thinker can only be comprehended by pointing at prior philosophers, and to the extent that Socrates surpassed them all by miles.
A remarkable innovator
I must also mention the Ancient Greek economic context, which is not a trivial matter. It is easier to devote oneself to art or philosophy after having earned a fortune. In fact, it took still twenty centuries before we find, in history, independent artists and philosophers, earning a living outside royal patronage.
Socrates was neither a millionaire, an untouchable celebrity, or a protected influencer. He did have worthy friends, but none of them succeeded in deflecting the criminal procedure against him, nor in convincing him to flee Athens and go into exile.
What did Socrates do that no other philosopher had done until that moment? He asked endless questions about morality, justice, virtue and human behaviour, questions that nobody had dared to raise with such intensity.
And not only did Socrates ask questions, but asked logical questions; he tested unwarranted claims even if everybody else took them for granted; he requested others to prove their points even if they occupied powerful positions in Athenian society.
Cicero (106-43 BC) held Socrates in high regard precisely for this reason. Before Socrates, philosophy had been mixed or confused with theology; after Socrates, philosophy took off as an independent discipline, one that taught individuals how to live before death would send them to heaven or oblivion.
The historical context
The story of philosophy before Socrates only encompasses six generations. I mean, of course, Greek philosophy. I am not bringing Lao-Tzu and Confucius into the picture because their paths never crossed those of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.
Thales of Miletus (624-546 BC) was Socrates’ most ancient philosophical ancestor. He started to separate his investigations on physics from theological and mythical aspects, but didn’t go far. He also developed or gathered mathematical knowledge, for which he is still remembered.
Anaximander, born in today’s Turkey in 610 BC, speculated about the universe consisting originally of just one substance. I can only assume that Anaximander had met Thales and grown interested in abstract ideas. Nonetheless, he also never went far in his investigations.
Nor did Anaximenes, who died in 528 BC, arrive at useful conclusions. He posited that air is the one substance ultimately shaping the universe, but failed to offer any proof.
What about Pythagoras (570-475 BC)? Did he make a large contribution to philosophy? He made progress in mathematics, but other than that, his view of the world rested on numerology and purification rituals.
Heraclitus (535-475 BC) lived only two generations prior to Socrates, but his wisdom remained mystic and cryptic. Other than noting that the world is constantly changing, Heraclitus theorised that reality is composed of opposing elements, such as cold and heat, day and night, and so forth, and that they are all governed by immutable cosmic laws.
Parmenides (515-450 BC) could have been, physically, the father of Socrates. He was forty-five years old when Socrates was born. Thus, I can roughly place him in the generation that preceded Socrates.
In contrast to Heraclitus, Parmenides pointed out that things exist and continue to exist according to their nature. He came up with inchoate concepts similar to Aristotle’s potentiality and actuality, but made rather confusing statements about what he called “true reality” that is not apprehensible by human senses.
Original insights
I have not mentioned all Ancient Greek philosophers prior to Socrates, but the ones I have summarised suffice to furnish us an impression of the primitive status of philosophy. Socrates had no sizeable base to build upon. His insights about morality, the soul, justice, courage, happiness and the like are original.
The importance of Socrates’ contributions to philosophy, in particular ethics, cannot be overemphasised. I regard Socratic questioning as a breakthrough because, for the first time in the history of philosophy, a thinker began to apply logic to figure out what’s good and what’s bad.
Six generations had passed from Thales of Miletus until the birth of Socrates, but progress had been limited. Heraclitus was only two generations apart from Socrates: he could have been his grandfather physically, but mentally, he was still halfway enmeshed in mysticism.
Today nobody would waste time reinventing the wheel, but in terms of importance, Socrates invented the wheel, the road, the cart, and the signposts that lead to a better future.
People who are confronted with the Socratic method for the first time should not dismiss it as an old hat. If they place the Socratic method in its historical context, they should stand in awe at Socrates’ achievements, courage and determination.
If you are interested in applying rational ideas in all sorts of situations, I recommend my book “The 10 Principles of Rational Living.”