I tend to run away from any philosopher that preaches the cultivation of the soul, especially if he employs grandiloquent words. Socrates (469-399 BC) spoke widely about the soul, but his conception was practical most of the time.

Socrates’ advice for cultivating one’s soul is spread across a dozen Plato’s dialogues, but they all share the same structure. I am convinced that Plato (427-347 BC), whether consciously or unconsciously, would only bring up his soul-cultivation advice in those dialogues after he had run out of tangible arguments.

How did Socrates define the human soul? In fact, he didn’t supply or employ a consistent definition. In Plato’s “Republic,” Socrates presents the concept of the tripartite human soul. The concept encompasses the appetites, reason, and the emotional or spiritual aspects as three parts of the soul.

However, other Plato’s dialogues don’t include the appetites in Socrates’ advice of “cultivating one’s soul.” When Socrates said that we should cultivate our soul, he meant cultivating our reason and our moral virtues. The latter meant courage, justice, benevolence, and the like.

A pre-Christian concept

Besides, Socrates employed a pre-Christian concept of the soul because, on the one hand, he believed that the human soul survives death; and on the other hand, he regarded ambition and wealth accumulation rather negatively.

Socrates’ idea of an eternal human soul precedes Jesus’ teachings by five centuries. Plato must have subscribed to this idea of the soul as well because, when he chronicled Socrates’ views, he did not make any negative comment on this aspect.

Plato’s “Apology,” section 29d-30a, quotes Socrates’ advice to the jury to care for their souls, that is, looking for wisdom or truth. Socrates stated that the search for truth and wisdom should take precedence over the search for wealth and prestige, but never explained why we should choose between wisdom and wealth, or between truth and prestige.

Socrates’ concept of the soul remains abstract at best, and at worst, contradictory and impractical. During the criminal trial held in Athens against him, Socrates based his defence on the moral imperative to cultivate one’s soul. Even if everyone else disagrees with us, we should go ahead anyway and do what we have to do to cultivate our soul.

Cultivate one’s soul

Unsurprisingly, Socrates’ concept of the soul led to conflicts with other people in Athens. By preaching a moral imperative to cultivate one’s soul, Socrates was giving himself a licence to do whatever he wanted, no matter what.

Socrates had given himself a blank check that other people might refuse to accept as payment. Apparently, the idea did not cross Socrates’ mind that, what he considered as pursuit of the truth, might be viewed by other people as annoying, disruptive, and subversive.

In his “Memorabilia,” Xenophon (430-350 BC) recounted a great deal of anecdotes that exemplify Socrates’ pursuit of truth and cultivation of the soul. I am referring to Socrates’ habit of going to the Athens marketplace and debating with people by asking them a torrent of questions.

Plato’s dialogues, for example “Euthyphro,” “Gorgias” and “Meno,” supply examples of Socrates’ debating method. It did not consist of calmly presenting one’s position, and exchanging comments with one’s opponents, courteously and respectfully.

No, Socrates’ debating method resembled more a cavalry attack than a pugilistic match between gentlemen. As soon as the conversation had started, Socrates would ask one question after another with the purpose of proving his opponent wrong.

I admire Socrates’ skill at picking up on inconsistencies and gaps in his opponents’ arguments. Those skills are required for cross examination during a criminal trial, but they seldom lead to pleasant conversation in daily life.

Plato’s “Apology” explains that, by asking those questions, Socrates was practising philosophy and seeking the truth. For Socrates, asking questions was equivalent to cultivating one’s soul.

Irritation an enmity

Did the fact that Socrates was debating with people for free place him in an elevated position? Socrates argued that he was acting in the public interest by asking those questions because he was helping his opponents to recognise their errors. He was doing them a favour, said Socrates, because he was helping them dispel falsehoods from their heads.

In Plato’s “Apology,” section 30e, Socrates acknowledged that his debating style was annoying. He compared himself to a gadfly that Greek divinities had sent to sting sleeping horses. It meant that the Greek divinities had sent Socrates to Athens, so that he would wake up people with his annoying questions.

Socrates viewed it as unimportant that many people disliked his questions and that his debates practically never revealed the truth. A Socratic debate resembled a demolition session, not a peaceful walk in the park during which two people try to figure out the answer to a problem.

It is no wonder that Socrates’ debates seldom led to a useful conclusion because, although Socrates asked lots of questions to tear down his opponent’s claims, he rarely contributed to the debate by putting forward a solution.

Most men and women don’t have a problem being criticised and taught a better way to do things, but few individuals will welcome being criticised and proven wrong just “to care for one’s soul,” without being given a solution to the problem.

The immortality of the soul

I regard Socrates’ argument about “caring from one’s soul” as fairly weak for justifying an aggressive debating style. I am not surprised that Mellitus and Anytus, the accusers in the trial against Socrates, held a grudge against Socrates if he had made them look like fools during a debate.

When the trial ended in a death sentence, Socrates changed again his definition of the soul, this time to rationalise his own decision to stay put and commit suicide, instead of seizing the opportunity to flee Athens and go into exile.

Plato’s “Phaedo” retells Socrates’ calm acceptance of death because he regarded the soul as immortal. His seventy-year old body was an encumbrance that would disappear when his soul would continue to live after death.

Again, Socrates was making a pre-Christian argument, not based on theology, but on his own convictions. Although he did not give any solid proof of the soul’s immortality, he paved the way for Christian theologians in the Middle Ages.

For example, Boethius (477-524 AD), a courtier that ended up sentenced to death, wrote “The Consolation of Philosophy” while he was waiting to be executed. His arguments about the immortality of the soul are reminiscent of Socrates’ arguments in “Phaedo.”

No matter how deep I drill in Socrates’ life, I cannot identify a single theory of the soul. Socrates employed different shades of the same dye to adorn his arguments as he saw fit.

When Socrates wanted to justify his personal preferences, he talked about the cultivation of one’s soul, and when he faced a situation that nullified his preferences, he just categorised his soul as immortal and hoped for the best.

I submit that nobody, not even a philosophical genius such as Socrates, can build a consistent philosophy by using shifting definitions. By presenting the soul as subjective and immortal, Socrates disqualified his prior call for objective virtues that can make our lives better in the present.

If you are interested in applying rational ideas in all sorts of situations, I recommend my book “Rational Living, Rational Working.”