socrates the selfish?

Question

surely he was acting ridculously and rather not selflessly throughout his life..
as the single person who can rightly claim to be the father of western philosphy, and who has had an influence on countless people, thought processes, ideas, and even other disciplines (theology, politics, and more recently psychology, sociology and so forth..), and who reinforced the general assumed idea that selflessness is the most important virtue, SURELY it was his obligation to the world to publish his thoughts.

i mean look at the influence of the republic, aristotles ethics etc. plato was the student of socrates, and aristotle of plato..

can we even begin to imagine the impact that the writings of 'the wisest man in the world' might have had? but my question really is was socrates selfish? why/why not? why didnt he publish his ideas?

i realise i could probably work out WHY he didnt publish his work myself, but hey, what is more credible than Y!A..

Answer 1

If we take Plato's and others' accounts at face value, he was only the 'wisest man in the world' because he was AWARE of how little he knew. How do you write a book about that? It would probably be a very short one, neh?

And there's reason to NOT take Plato's accounts at face value. Consider: why would Athenians listen to Socrates' diatribes for DECADES and do nothing, but then suddenly decide that they were so serious as to merit death? There seems quite obviously more going on the Plato is allowing.

The problem - as we know - with figuring out what Socrates was actually doing and encouraging others to do is that there is no account left by Socrates himself. Everything we know about him was written by pupils or critics. But there are two of his ardent pupils who are often glossed over in discussions of Socrates: Alcibiades and Critas.

From these two gentlemen we can learn of a somewhat different side of Socrates... traces of which also can be found in Plato's 'Republic'. Among the many other things Socrates questioned, one was the Athenian way of life. As he knew all too well from his questionings of common folk, most people did not really give much thought into deeper matters. He called them sheep. Sheep in need of a shepherd. And not equal members of a republic.

It was Alcibiades who took this first to heart. One of Socrates' favourite politicians, he had fled to Sparta to avoid being tried for defacing religious structures. There, he assembled support and returned to overthrow the republic and discard the constitution as Socrates had advocated so many times. What had seemed like harmless mockery to the Athenians suddenly became a lot less funny.

It was Critias, however, who COMPLTELY ruined the scene. Alcibiades was deposed after just four months, but Critias was not only far longer lasting, but many times more brutal. He is universally described as cruel, inhumane, and a fan of Socrates. Critias united a group of thirty wealthy landowners to seize the city and rule it with an iron first. Literally thousands were executed and thousands more exiled before the democracy was able to re-establish itself.

As you can imagine, Socrates and his criticism of Athens' system of government was no longer even vaguely seen as funny (you can see part of the OLD view of Socrates in the play 'Clouds' by Aristophanes... a play which Socrates even reportedly attended). But as part of the return to power, the democracy had granted amnesty to all citizens. Nothing he had done before could be considered against him. Even openly calling for his students to initiate a rebellion.

That might have been the end of that, if Socrates had perhaps been a little wiser and not returned to the streets to once more decry the way things were. Once more he attracted a band of young pupils. And - whether it was related to Socrates or not - there was even another failed uprising.

Enough was enough. To the people of Athens, this was now TREASON, not just philosophy. It probably only took them so long to get around to it because Socrates himself was old and poor... they probably hoped he would just keel over and save them the trouble.

Instead (as you probably know) Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon decided to step forward and proffer charges. If Socrates and his pupils were so opposed to democracy, then (many thought) perhaps there was something democracy could do about it...

So much for 'wisest man in the world'. He doesn't even know when to keep his mouth shut.

Answer 2

Could Socrates write?
Could he spell?
Did he claim that he was starting or started western philosophy?
Dont get me wrong; i have been on the recieving-end of some of the nonsense that purports to be "philosophy".
(It stank then and is still busy stinking!).
And have any of you read how difficult it is,now,to get a book
published? And,possibly,we are talking about an AGE when
hardly anyone could write-where the so-important people
with access to books and book-Making would no doubt
jealously guard their Right(and a right to "air" only their and
their group's views-a la the democrats AND the republicans!)

i dont believe for one minute that Socrates was the father of
western Philosophy. Sorry to dissappoint you but thats a
mistake that is easily made.
Leave any more to the historians(!)
Join me and others(not literally!) and look to the future of
western so-called philosophy.
We,including those fantastic History writers,are the selfish
ones.
And the (really) stupid ones too; except we can admit it in
print,and books too, if we care to answer "important"
questions(together with access to publishing).

Answer 3

I am not sure spiritually but I would like to contribute that I think the most profound thing he invented was the Socratic method of teaching. It is the most effective way to learn something, if done properly.

Answer 4

If you think about it, have you ever met a person in your life, who has not showed even a hint of selfishness? Why would anyone, no matter what their reputation, be any different?

Selfishness is a part of human behaviour, like fear, anger, jealousy, and there can never be someone who is not selfish - that is literally against all fundamental ideals of what we know a persn to be. It would literally classify them as "inhuman."

Answer 5

Plato never claimed to be a biographer.

Socrates was probably, almost certainly, a fig-newton of Plato's imagination. As such he had no choice, being fictional, of his actions.

Socrates didn't write nuthun, is what I'm saying. He didn't publish any ideas.

Socrates was as selfish as Plato wished him to be.

Answer 6

Why did you make this about Socrates. Using your logic anybody who publishes anything is selfish.