tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post3118493680576674228..comments2024-03-23T04:01:39.348-04:00Comments on Understanding Society: Socrates the hopliteDan Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-68267841665670534922021-10-02T14:06:55.196-04:002021-10-02T14:06:55.196-04:00Great text! I just have a couple of questions and ...Great text! I just have a couple of questions and points.<br />What were these atrocities exactly? What kind of information do we have on this? Mass execution of everyone (men, women, children?) or maybe mostly just former soldiers, politicians who were regarded as innocents but perhaps incited the war? <br /><br />It is easy to imagine that the Platonic text do not go into these topics; maybe they are irrelevant to the philosophical questions or it wouldn't have been wise for Plato to bring them up (retaliation from Athenian (ex)leaders).<br /><br />Someone wrote that Socrates' times as a soldier and a philosopher overlapped. However, there might be a development in his thinking as he experienced more. I am just not that familiar with the philology side of Plato to know what's the order of the text and how they match the order of the events. This would be an interesting comparison, and check the changes in the Socratic figure if there are any. But it's likely that he wouldn't touch a moral topic all the time that would be useful. (Anyway, if anyone's lacking a phd topic...)<br /><br />Finally, I can imagine a solution to the discrepancy. Socrates as a philosopher was eager to criticize the ill-nature of Athenian politics and politicians. Yet, he had a strong and stringent idea of duty - as we can read in State - which made him obey morally unacceptable orders to maintain political unity. This should not imply a theory-practice split because by drinking the hemlock willingly (not defending himself, nor fleeing prison) he was making a political-philosophical statement. I would suggest that disobeying military order is not is not considered the proper and useful way of philosophical practice. Csabanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-37371596994044784152021-09-15T09:49:10.064-04:002021-09-15T09:49:10.064-04:00Eric, thanks -- I've corrected the link. You&#...Eric, thanks -- I've corrected the link. You're right about the reference to Anderson's piece. And I'm very grateful for the reference to the passage in the Republic -- I'll go back to it. Dan<br />Dan Littlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-83150696428261918452021-09-15T01:53:50.088-04:002021-09-15T01:53:50.088-04:00Hi Dan,
Stimulating blog post!
1. The link to the ...Hi Dan,<br />Stimulating blog post!<br />1. The link to the Anderson piece is broken, so I am unsure what text/book you are referring to. Is it "Socrates as Hoplite" in *Ancient Philosophy* 25 (2):273-289 (2005)?<br />2. It is worth noting that in The Republic (470-471), Socrates is presented as offering a reform of laws of war (at least among the Greeks). And it is pretty clear that these are intended to avoid a repeat of the kind of events like the Melian massacre. Of course, it is not entirely whether that is the historical Socrates or Plato's Socrates*. So, I agree with anonymous that one way to understand Socrates is as a loyal participant in civic life of the city and obedient to its laws, while also being a severe critic and/or reformist in speech.<br />3. A quick perusal suggests that Anderson 2005 does not engage with the material from Republic 470-471 (but apologies to both of you if I missed it). I discuss it here: and more critically here: <br />Cheers!<br />EricEric Schliesserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13840436384353801701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-59284516873428371952021-09-14T19:40:45.487-04:002021-09-14T19:40:45.487-04:00These are very acute and credible comments. Thank ...These are very acute and credible comments. Thank you. I was sort of pointing to the possibility of the "loyal citizen's duty" in the post, as you note. What is still hard to understand is this: If it was a common and well-known practice of Athenian generals (Cleon in particular) to put non-combatants to death, one would imagine that Socrates would at least make an argument that this is wrong and unjust. In fact, the lines quoted by Vlastos would support such an argument. And yet there is no indication of such an argument on Socrates' part, is there?<br />Dan Littlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-83168186014080856842021-09-14T12:31:48.183-04:002021-09-14T12:31:48.183-04:00Very interesting and thought provoking. However, I...Very interesting and thought provoking. However, I do think that there might be here a too violent pendulum swing "against" Socrates' morality. With an ever sympathetic eye to Socrates I try to find ways to redeem him. In this spirit (and in general), I think it is important to distinguish between A) Socrates believed those military campaigns to be unjust, whether with respect to their goal or means; and B) Socrates believed it was unjust for him to participate in those campaigns. It is very weird (and very suggestive of an anachronistic moral view) that the arguments you cite lead straight from the denial of B) to the denial of A).<br /><br />You yourself write about Vlastos' distinction between the unjust action of the citizen and of the city, and it is again puzzling why Vlastos himself went on to go straight from his belief in A) to a belief in B).<br /><br />So it seems this is a possible account of Socrates' position: He does find those military campaigns to be unjust, and would rather Athens not pursue them. However, at the same time he does view it as a citizen's first and foremost moral and political duty to carry out the city's decisions and orders. That Socrates volunteered for a long career as a hoplite could be explained due to his believing that this was the best way he could serve his city at the time, and that it is again his duty to serve his city. <br /><br />It should be noted that however uncomfortable a moral stand this seems to us today, and however much we believe, most likely rightly, that it can lead to hideous crimes against humanity, this is not an inconsistent nor an inconceivable view (arguably, it was a widely held view in many places and times in history).<br /><br />This suggested account is not only consistent with, but strengthened by Plato's accounts (or depictions) of Socrates. It is exactly his view in the Crito- the Athenians are executing unjustly one of their finest citizens- they convicted by false arguments a man they should anyway be treating with all the perks of an Olympic athlete! However, it is still unjust for him to escape to another city- because he is committed to his city and to his fellow citizen's decisions. <br /><br />In other places in Plato Socrates repeatedly comes out in this fashion. He seems ever the patriot and ever the social critic. He also seems to have a tendency to try to change the people's views, and especially the youth of the elite. He would never try to "force" a political change, not even by some civil disobedience or protest (his life as a philosopher is protest enough, as we can see by the people's reaction to it), but would always try to change the people's mind (and more so the future leadership's) and point it toward justice. This seems both the essence of what it means to be a democrat in Athens, and quite more prudent on his part. Imagine how sooner he might have been executed had he started a one man political campaign to let everyone know the wars are unjust and to try to stop them in any way he can.<br /><br />Also, we are reminded that in the rare occasions that he had political authority to issue orders, he acted both as he saw was just and strictly by the law book, against many people's protest. This is again consistent with a view that respects political authority and the rules, going against the people's wish only when he has authority to do so or when the law is on his side.<br /><br />And lastly, Plato's account/depiction of his beloved teacher would have to be bluntly, even grotesquely fictional, for him to put in his mouth repeatedly the doctrine that one should not return evil for evil, and that it is better to be harmed than harm others (and then criticize and try to attenuate it). The account you cite would have to do some very hard work at explaining this badly, weirdly distorted image of Socrates by arguably his greatest admirer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-83774486982670744742021-09-13T14:42:58.907-04:002021-09-13T14:42:58.907-04:00Thanks for your comment. According to Anderson, th...Thanks for your comment. According to Anderson, the military service overlapped a great deal with the philosophical career of Socrates, so it isn't the case that his time as soldier came first and his philosophical thinking came later.Dan Littlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-78416312693815837182021-09-12T13:14:03.219-04:002021-09-12T13:14:03.219-04:00Is it that Socrates had been a hoplite and a (mora...Is it that Socrates had been a hoplite and a (moral) philosopher at the same time? Or, is it that Socrates had been a hoplite and then turned into a philosopher? This chronology should be given a thought to. At least we are in the know that he hated hypocritical politics of Athens - and he even espoused a critical view of the then Athenian democracy. Kamaruzzamannoreply@blogger.com