Philosophers only have one product to sell: happiness; but it can take many different shapes, namely, individual happiness, social happiness, material prosperity and so forth. Socrates was not an exception, although he rarely used the word “happiness” in his debates.

Plato (427-347 BC) succeeded Socrates (469-399 BC) by a generation, and recorded in his works every aspect of Socrates’ ideas. Those range from epistemology, social organisation, the essence of friendship, courage and other virtues, and the proper behaviour of individuals in the face of social pressure.

However, morality is the only aspect of Socrates’ teachings that has reached a wide audience. Philosophy books frequently present Socrates as a moralist, as a man who sought the truth in spite of social pressure, opposition and criticism.

They portray Socrates as an admirable character, someone able to stay loyal to his convictions even in the face of massive opposition. In this respect, I can summarise Socrates’ ethics in one sentence: The best way to live is to seek the truth above all.

Caring for one’s soul

Socrates himself, as portrayed by Plato, employed the term “soul” far more often than happiness. He spoke passionately of caring for one’s soul as the measure for all virtues. He regarded the care for one’s soul as more important than anything else in life.

Plato’s work “Apology” consists more of a strong defence of philosophy than a defence speech in a criminal trial, although it chronicles the criminal prosecution of Socrates in Athens in the year 400 BC.

Socrates did not contest the facts during the trial. He spoke of his public debates as a normal practice of philosophy. It was not an excuse nor an expression of guilt in any way. Instead of contesting the facts, Socrates felt proud of them and explained why in great detail.

His accusers during the trial, Meletus and Anytus, affirmed that the facts constituted a crime. They charged Socrates with “impiety and corrupting the youth.” They regarded Socrates as a dangerous element that could destabilise Athenian society.

Socrates’ ethics led him to view the facts as virtuous, while Meletus and Anytus were trying to pass them off as crimes. In retrospect, it is clear that Meletus and Anytus were wrong, but they were counting on a biased jury.

Note that Plato’s and Thucydides’ chronicles of the criminal trial against Socrates are both titled “Apology,” but their use of the term “apology” simply means “defence.” It does not mean, as it usually does today, that the concerned person is sorry for what he has done, and that he promises not to do it again.

Socrates’ principal ethical ideas mean exactly the contrary. Instead of saying “I’m sorry that I asked so many inconvenient questions,” Socrates was proud of having done so and couldn’t conceive life otherwise.

Instead of seeking reconciliation with the accusers, Socrates stood his ground. He would not flinch. He would not concede even one millimetre of ground. He wouldn’t pretend to be sorry for having debated important people in Athens and proven that they were wrong.

The search for truth

Plato records in “Apology” a crucial statement by Socrates in which he states his ethical convictions: “I shall never stop practising philosophy,” he said, and then he exhorted the jury to “look for truth, wisdom, and care for their souls.”

I consider Socrates’ wording “to care for one’s soul” and the equivalent of “to seek happiness,” and his recommendations to the jury as his recipe for happiness. The priority is to look for truth and wisdom, and everything else is secondary.

On the next page of Plato’s “Apology,” Socrates restated his formula for happiness, this time using different words. He said that “the greatest good for human beings is to engage in daily conversations about virtue.”

Readers will find something missing in Socrates’ recipe for happiness: there are lots of exhortations to seek truth, wisdom, and the care of one’s soul, but only scant details about how to go about it.

Plato’s works include debates on dozens of subjects, but seldom end up in clear conclusions. It seems that, according to Plato and Socrates, the philosopher’s task is to seek truth and question everything, but with no obligation to deliver tangible results.

Knowledge is wisdom

Wisdom occupies the highest rung in Socrates’ and Plato’s ladder to happiness. Plato’s dialogue “Protagoras” affirms that “wisdom is the most powerful factor in human life.” Socrates and his interlocutor, Protagoras, are convinced that people will behave better and be happier if they acquired more wisdom.

A few pages later, Protagoras and Socrates agree that virtue is equivalent to knowledge, and that people who possess more knowledge tend to be more courageous. There is no doubt that Socrates’ key ideas about ethics consist of the equation wisdom equals virtue, which is followed by virtue equals happiness.

Was Socrates correct in his ethical prescription? No, he was on the right path, but his formula for happiness has more gaps than a serving of Gruyère cheese. Wisdom plays a central role in the achievement of happiness, but it is not the determinant factor, and certainly not the purpose of life.

Socrates himself demonstrated the failure or incompleteness of his own ethical prescriptions. He devoted massive amounts of time to debating people in the Athenian marketplace, but did not draw many actionable conclusions from those debates.

The only visible outcome of Socrates’ endless questioning is that it severely irritated some people. Socrates made enemies for no good reason, and later, those enemies took advantage of the criminal trial in 400 BC to get Socrates out of the picture.

What is missing in Socrates’ ethical prescription? What are the factors that he should have added to his recipe for a happy life?

Socrates was missing an integrated, complete definition of a virtuous life. I mean, a complete list of virtues to be practised, virtues such as courage, self-reliance, personal initiative, self-confidence, justice, fairness, benevolence, and so forth.

In history, a complete picture of an ethical system was not presented until Aristotle (384-322 BC) wrote his “Eudemian Ethics” and “Nicomachean Ethics.”

Unfortunately, Socrates was not there yet, and ended up paying a high price for this deficiency. Nevertheless, his vast contributions to philosophy remain admirable, and those have secured him everlasting praise by lovers of philosophy.

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.”