We know for sure that Socrates existed because his trial and philosophical doctrines are reported by multiple sources. The historian Xenophon (430-350 BC) wrote a chronicle of the criminal trial against Socrates, and so did Plato (427-347 BC).
In addition, Xenophon wrote “Memorabilia,” which retells details and anecdotes of Socrates’ life. If we put those together with Plato’s dialogues in which Socrates plays the central role, we come to a substantial amount of material about Socrates.
However, not all sources speak positively about Socrates. In “The Clouds,” a play written by Aristophanes (446-386 BC), Socrates does not get a flattering role. He is depicted as a fool that comes up with a totally unrealistic scheme, something that cannot and will not work under any circumstances.
Historians, starting with Plutarch (45-125 AD) and Laertius (3rd century AD), have given a determinedly positive image of Socrates’ life and ideas. They praise him as a passionate truth-seeker, moralist, and example to imitate.
Christianity, by taking over some ideas put forward by Plato and Socrates, have placed them in a favourable light. Socrates’ death, inflicted by his own hand, was the most renowned of all deaths in Antiquity, until it was displaced, in terms of fame, by Jesus’ passion recounted in the Gospels.
Nonetheless, despite Socrates’ prestige and achievements, it behoves us to look critically at his philosophy of life. A critical analysis is needed, I am afraid, because a close look at the life of Socrates cannot help generate questions and controversy.
Controversial questions
If Socrates was such a great man, why was he profoundly hated by part of the Athenian population? If his philosophy of life was so effective, why did he end up committing suicide?
If Plato had addressed those questions on his own account, historians would have thanked him profusely; unfortunately, he did not go beyond providing abstract arguments that mirror the logic employed by Socrates.
I call that logic incomplete and categorise its conclusions as controversial because they led to a biased criminal trial against Socrates, a wrong conviction, a wildly exaggerated punishment and a refusal, on Socrates’ side, to seize the opportunity to flee.
The latter aspect, Socrates’ refusal to seize the opportunity to flee, is reported by Plato in his dialogue “Crito,” section 49a, in which Socrates said that “to do wrong is always wrong, even when one has first suffered wrong.”
Socrates had a definite understanding of the wrongfulness of the death sentence passed against him. To anyone who had witnessed the court proceedings, it was blatantly obvious that the charges had been exaggerated, that the verdict was unjust, and the punishment exorbitant.
An outrageous injustice
Unfortunately, Socrates did not seize the opportunity to flee because he regarded it as doing wrong to the Athenian judicial system. His philosophical argument comes into play, when he said that “we should not respond to a wrong by doing wrong.”
I find it hard to understand that Socrates cared to support the court system of Athens after he had been the object of an outrageous injustice. Are we contemplating the arguments of a wise person or a fool?
Why on earth did Socrates not seize the opportunity to flee, go into exile, and keep philosophising happily ever after? His argument that to flee would be to do wrong to Athens does not make any sense, since Athens, by wrongly sentencing Socrates to death, had already relinquished the right to be respected.
Socrates’ passive acceptance of a death sentence constitutes a precursor of Christianity, in particular of Jesus’ teachings that call for loving our enemies and turning the other cheek when wrongly attacked.
From that perspective, I can understand that Socrates was held in high regard by Christian theologians in the Middle Ages. Although Socrates had not invoked theological grounds for his accepting the death sentence, his behaviour was not far removed from Jesus’ acceptance to die on the cross.
Both had accepted to die although they could have escaped. Both had accepted to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of a higher power or a higher cause. Both had publicised the reason for their decision, and only met surprise or incomprehension.
Aristotle’s decision
When Aristotle (384-322 BC), after the death of Alexander the Great and the inchoate collapse of the Macedonian empire, found himself in the same predicament, he didn’t pay attention to Socrates’ arguments or example.
Instead of staying put to face a biased trial, Aristotle simply entrusted his business interests to Theophrastus, left Athens without delay, and settled down in a neighbouring city where he would be safe from political retaliation.
I must note that Aristotle didn’t hesitate to leave Athens and leave everything behind. He knew what was coming and it was not pretty to contemplate. Socrates, for a twisted reason, had accepted to commit suicide, but Aristotle had already rated the choice of Socrates as irrational.
The controversy around Socrates’ passivity in the face of a severe threat has polluted Socrates’ philosophy of life. If Crito had succeeded in convincing Socrates to break out of jail and flee Athens, I do not think that posterity would have judged the escape as wrong.
I regard it as profoundly foolish on the side of Socrates to compare the value of a man’s life affected by an unjust verdict to the value of Athens’ potential reputational damage if he had run away to avoid execution.
Aristotle had no qualms about running away from Athens. He had no problem inflicting damage to Athens’ reputation if that was necessary to save his life from biased prosecution. I can only endorse Aristotle’s choice and lament that the ethical controversy about Socrates’ life philosophy has died away.
If you are interested in applying rational ideas in all kinds of situations, I recommend my book “Against all odds: How to achieve great victories in desperate times.”