In Book VIII he describes the four principal political systems and how each tends to degenerate from the one immediately above. He shows also how the larger state reflects the individual psychology which is prevalent in the community. "States," he said, "are as men are, because they grow out of human characters."52 Timocracy which is government based on honor and ambition, develops out of aristocracy due to negligent eugenics and the rise of the military character over the philosophical nature. The timocratic man loses interest in culture and becomes ambitious. He treats slaves with contempt but is respectful to free men, is obedient to authority and a lover of honor and power. He despises riches when young but becomes avaricious when older, forgetting virtue. This character is formed when his mother is always complaining that her husband and her have lost their prestige because he is not eager to struggle for power or money as he lets his thoughts center within himself. The servants also encourage the boy to strive for honor and position while his father attempts to give him wisdom. The result is: "He being not originally of a bad nature, but having kept bad company, is finally brought by their mutual influence to a middle point, and gives up the kingdom which is within him to the middle principle of aggression and passion, and becomes arrogant and ambitious."53
Oligarchy or plutocracy, which is the rule of the wealthy, occurs due to an increase in the private accumulation and expenditure of money. As the citizens grow richer, they think less of virtue, and soon rich men are honored above all others. They become lovers of money, and possession of property becomes a qualification for citizenship. Now neither the wise nor the honorable are ruling, but merely the rich. Another result is that as the rich get richer and the poor are excluded, there develops two states in conflict with each other. The rulers are few and have no courage for battle; but if they arm the masses, they become more afraid of them than the enemy. Also their love of money makes them unwilling to pay taxes. Those who are driven out of business or lose their jobs become the unemployed and useless drones who drain the state and often turn criminal. How does the plutocratic man arise? When he sees his father pursuing honor and ambition but floundering on the sinking ship of state as his position of prestige and his property are taken from him, the son humbled by poverty looks down on ambition and strives only to become wealthy. To do so he becomes frugal and stingy, even cheating if the opportunity presents itself.54
Democracy develops as the powerful wealthy buy up the estates of the spendthrift youth. The poor are becoming eager for revolution, but the rich mollify the drones by giving them hand-outs. The rich meanwhile live in luxury and idleness, caring only for pleasure as they ignore virtue and the poor. Finally on some pilgrimage or march the lean poor men notice the weakness of the fat rich. Realizing their natural strength and the weakness of the divided state, the poor classes either by revolution or some other means take over the government. Then everyone has an equal share of freedom and power, and governmental officials are elected. Due to the freedom this spangled state will have a variety of characters and constitutions. There is a great tolerance even in forgiving condemned criminals, but in this wild liberty many principles of order and good taste are trampled under foot by the mob. The democratic man originates as his miserly father tries to train him in his middle-class ways, but the son becomes enamored of pleasures and desires which are tacitly valued. He associates with the drones and eventually his desires and pleasures overcome his miserly upbringing, often after a fierce battle within himself. He calls insolence breeding, anarchy liberty, waste generosity, and impudence courage; the young man trained in necessity becomes a libertine of useless pleasures. He cares not who is in the government as they are all the same to him, and he spends his life going from one fad to the next.55
Tyranny results from the insatiable desire for freedom in democracy. The democrats wish the rulers to be like the subjects and to give in to their every whim. The family situation is parallel as the sons no longer respect or obey their parents, since all are equal. The teachers fear and flatter their students, and the old condescend to adopt the gay and frivolous manners of the young, not wishing to be thought unpopular or authoritative. All classes and both sexes are considered equal and free. Even the dogs and other animals run around free and undisciplined. No one cares for laws or any kind of authority. As excessive love for money brought the economic downfall of the plutocracy, excessive freedom in democracy leads to the slavery of a tyranny. In democracy the idle drones increase and feed off of the wealthy class and the working class. When the well-to-do and workers begin to defend themselves against these infringements, the people find a protector who once he has tasted blood, requests a body-guard, and eventually becomes a dictator, liberating debtors and distributing land to his followers. He is always stirring up wars and taxing his people. Any resistance to his authority is considered as traitorously aiding the enemy and is ruthlessly destroyed. To maintain his rule he must rid the state of the wise, wealthy, and valiant who might challenge his supremacy. This inverted purgation removes the best and leaves the worst. Those willing to be enslaved by him become his supporters. The tyrant seizes the public treasuries and when these are exhausted, lives off the people. If they rebel, he punishes them cruelly.56
This understanding of the types of political systems and human characters was probably elaborated and embellished a great deal by Plato, but it is undoubtedly true that Socrates studied and discussed these questions with a depth and clarity never before approached. Xenophon gives us only Socrates' brief definitions of the forms of government.
Kingship and tyranny in his judgment were both forms of government, but he believed that they differed. For government of the people with their consent and in accordance with the laws of the state was kingship; while government of unwilling subjects not controlled by laws, but imposed by the will of the ruler, was tyranny. And where the officials are chosen among those who fulfill the requirements of the laws, the constitution is an aristocracy; where ratable property is the qualification for office, it is a plutocracy; where all are eligible, a democracy.57
Socrates considered it his duty to educate capable men for politics even though he did not participate in government himself. When he was criticized by Antiphon for avoiding politics, Socrates replied, "How, Antiphon, should I play a more important part in politics, by engaging in it alone, or by taking care to turn out as many competent politicians as possible?"58 Socrates often counseled his companions on how to prepare oneself to be a good ruler. Even though Aristippus turned out not to be interested in government, Socrates indicated in conversation with him the need for self-control as a training for rulership.59
Xenophon also records a conversation between Socrates and Glaucon reminiscent of those with Euthydemus and Alcibiades. Glaucon is anxious to become an orator and was striving to rise in politics even though he was still a teenager. He was being dragged from platforms and was a laughing-stock, and so Socrates took an interest in him for the sake of his brother Plato and uncle Charmides. Socrates gets his attention by appealing to his ambition, and then proceeds to question him on questions of government. Would he benefit the city by making it richer? Yes, but Glaucon has no knowledge of the city's revenues nor of its expenditures. Glaucon suggests he would get wealth from the enemies, but he has no knowledge of the relative strength of the city and its enemies, nor of its defenses, which are already weak. He does not know why the silver mines are no longer producing as much, or even how much wheat is available to feed the population. One must know the needs even of one household in order to manage it successfully, yet Glaucon cannot even help his uncle. Glaucon's excuse is that his uncle will not listen to him, but if he cannot persuade one man, how could he ever get all the Athenians to listen to him? Socrates points out the dangers of acting out of ignorance and suggests that Glaucon gain the needed knowledge if he wishes to enter public life.60 On the other hand Socrates advised Glaucon's uncle, Charmides, to use his ability and knowledge to serve the state, since he had something valuable to offer.61 In Xenophon, Socrates' lessons on politics were personal and practical for the individual.
In Plato's Republic Socrates also discusses politics with Glaucon, but here they are attempting to formulate universal principles. They give special attention to the qualities of character needed for their ideal rulers. The elders should rule, and the younger should serve. The candidates for rulership should be tested in every stage of their life to make sure that they always do what is for the good of the country regardless of the temptations of pleasure or fear. Only those who have the inner golden quality of a virtuous character are to be selected as leaders.62
Finally Socrates proposes that the ideal is for philosophers to be kings, and until the political leaders become wise the human race will have no rest from evils. The correct use of knowledge, not mere belief or opinion which can err, is the sure guide in all action. The true philosopher loves truth and wisdom and the joys of the soul above all else; consequently he will be temperate, gentle, sociable, very intelligent, and harmonious. However, the name of philosophy has been corrupted by sophistry and the failure of society to recognize and make use of the true philosophers. The true philosopher is rare, because it is easy for one's philosophical nature to deteriorate, for many reasons. There are few from the beginning. One strong virtue may overshadow the others and prevent the development of a well-rounded character. Beauty, wealth, strength, rank, and other prizes of life may distract and corrupt. The finer and more subtle natures are often more susceptible to negative influences. The public opinion of the masses and the force of the crowd may sway them. They may even be tried or put to death. The only consolation for the philosopher is that he may come to good and be saved by the power of God. When the society is not receptive to the wisdom of the real philosopher, then he can only live his own life in goodwill, keeping himself pure from injustice. Unfortunately Socrates felt that there was no state in existence at that time capable of adapting to the philosopher king.63 Nevertheless Socrates must have believed that it was worthwhile to strive toward the ideal, and they must know what it is in order to do it.
Virtue
Usually the discussions of Socrates would focus around how to become virtuous or attain excellence. Virtue was discussed in this general sense and also more specifically in terms of self-control, courage, wisdom, justice, and holiness. In the Alcibiades I Socrates convinces the young man that what people really need in order to be happy is virtue. Therefore, if he is to help the state, Alcibiades must first become virtuous himself, and this is done by looking at what is divine and bright, and acting accordingly. Only the virtuous can govern correctly; virtue makes a man free, while vice enslaves.64
In the Laches Socrates is consulted by two gentlemen to see how their sons' souls may be improved and made virtuous or excellent.65 A frequently mentioned assumption is that each human faculty has its natural function, and virtue is what enables it to function at its best. Socrates gives the example of the eyes; their proper excellence or virtue is seeing. Accomplishing anything in the world depends on the soul, and consequently happiness or success depends on the virtue or excellent functioning of the soul.66
We have described in the previous chapter Socrates' attempts in the Meno to define virtue and discover whether it can be taught. Many ideas were examined, but the results were not conclusive. The main definition they consider is that virtue is the ability to attain what is good. However, Meno is not able to defend this when Socrates introduces a case where someone attains what he thinks is good by unjust means.67 However, this refutation could be easily challenged by showing that one cannot attain true goodness by unjust means. If injustice is bad for someone, how can this be "attaining what is good?"
Meno is more concerned with whether virtue can be taught. They agree that virtue is wisdom, and since wisdom is the right use of knowledge, and knowledge can be taught; then virtue can be taught. However, they are not able to verify this by finding any teachers of virtue.68 There is some confusion here also, because often wisdom is considered only to be a part of virtue. Even if wisdom can be taught, that does not mean that all of virtue can be taught.
Since they agree that there are some virtuous people, Socrates suggests that virtue may be merely due to right belief gained by divine inspiration.69 This idea is not refuted, and it is an explanation of the phenomena.
In the Protagoras Socrates questions the master sophist on what he proposes to teach young men - virtue. Socrates asks whether justice and temperance and holiness are parts of virtue which is one whole. Protagoras agrees, saying they are like the parts of the face. Socrates reveals a contradiction in his argument in that some of these parts of virtue can have the same opposite.70 However, Socrates ends up showing that the virtues depend on knowledge and therefore are teachable.71 The assumption again is that virtue is inseparable from wisdom. This position is also maintained by Socrates in the Phaedo where he further states that the virtues without wisdom are only a shadow of virtue and have no freedom or health or truth in themselves alone.72
A fundamental belief or axiomatic truth for Socrates was the idea that no one desires what they know is evil. Or, in the positive, everyone desires what they believe is good. This is a basic psychological principle of motivation. However, this does not mean that everyone knows what is good, nor does it deny that a person may think something is bad and still do it. Actually it is a pragmatic principle which verifies people's values on the basis of their actions. In other words, everyone is doing the best they can with what they know. In the Meno Socrates clarifies, "They desire what they suppose to be goods, although they are really evils."73
Socrates expresses the same idea in the Protagoras. "For no wise man, as I believe, will admit that any person errs willingly, or willingly does evil and dishonorable actions; but they are well aware that all who do evil and dishonorable things do them against their will."74 Xenophon has Socrates saying the same belief, "that all naturally love whatever they think will benefit them."75
This premise leads to another important belief of Socrates, and that is that the remedy for bad action is to educate the person so he will know what is good. Both Xenophon and Plato indicate that Socrates recommended instruction rather than punishment for those who are in ignorance. Xenophon has him make a distinction between those who do evil out of ignorance or due to madness; madmen need to be kept in prison.76 In Plato's Apology Socrates says that if he has harmed anyone, he has done so out of ignorance. Therefore he asks Meletus to instruct him how to improve his ways rather than punish him, since his errors are unintentional.77
In the Euthyphro Socrates gets the righteous gentleman to agree that most people do not argue whether a wrong should be punished, but usually debate whether an action is right or wrong.78 This leads to the question of values. Socrates also discussed the relations of values and the principles of good and evil in the Lysis, although no conclusion was reached.79
In the Theaetetus Socrates declares that the concept of evil is a necessary relative to good, but goodness itself is divine and heavenly. Evil therefore is only found in earthly things. Also those who become most virtuous become most like God. Seeing the value of the good life, Theodorus expresses the hope that evils among mankind will be lessened. He stimulates this response from Socrates:
But it is impossible for evils to be eliminated, Theodorus, for there must always be something opposed to the good. They cannot have their place among the gods, but of necessity they hover around the mortal nature and this earth. Therefore we ought to fly away from earth to heaven as quickly as we can; to fly away is to become like God, as far as this is possible; to become like God is to become just and holy with wisdom. But my good friend, it is not very easy to convince people that they should pursue virtue or avoid vice, not merely that one may seem to be good, which is the reason given by the world, and in my opinion is only the repetition of an old wives' tale. Let us tell the truth, God is never in any way unjust, but is perfectly just, and he among us who is the most just is most like him. Herein is the true cleverness of a man, and also his nothingness and cowardice; for knowing this is wisdom and true virtue, and ignorance of it is folly and manifest vice. All other kinds of seeming cleverness and wisdom, such as in politics and the arts, are coarse and vulgar in comparison.80
Such cleverness is only vanity, for they do not understand the pain of injustice. There are two patterns: the divine which is most blessed, and the godless which is most wretched. Evil men associate with evil, and think these discussions are foolish; but if they are willing to stay in such a conversation, they can be brought to the realization that their arguments are unsatisfactory.81 Discussions on virtue, then, were an important part of Socrates' work. Let us look at the main virtues he examined.
Desire and Self-control
Xenophon describes how Socrates pointed out that desires could lead to slavery if a man allows them to rule him. Gluttony, lechery, drinking, gambling, foolish and costly ambitions, any of these can get hold of a man and force him to give over all his profits to these habits until he becomes old and miserable.82
Socrates also counseled Xenophon and Critobulus against falling into sensual passion. Kissing a pretty face can lead to the end of liberty as one begins to spend his money and time pursuing these pleasures. A kiss can be like a scorpion's sting which injects a poison that is painful and maddening.83 Here Socrates couches his warning in a humorous analogy.
He described envy as having pain at a friend's success, which is clearly irrational, and can only occur in a fool.84 Such an explanation could help a person to see this pattern, and perhaps change it.
In the Phaedrus Socrates distinguishes two principles within man: the natural desire for pleasure, and rational thinking which strives after what is best. When desire irrationally drags one into pleasure, this misrule is called excess. There are many types, such as gluttony which is excessive desire for food.85 In the Republic Socrates explains the difference between necessary and unnecessary desires. Using the same example, the desire to eat is essential to the continuance of life, but it is the luxuries or large amounts which are unnecessary or excessive.86
Uncontrolled desires lead to slavery and are also a characteristic of the tyrannical man. The passionate lusts of the appetites become tyrannical if they are allowed to rule. The person is driven to attempt to fulfill the desires by any means, even vicious ones. Power then can increase the corruption, because circumstances are not as restraining. Ultimately it is the political dictator who can cause the most misery for others and himself.87 Here Socrates portrays the extreme case of vice.
Socrates must have discussed pleasure often, since it is such a strong force for most people. The Philebus is an extensive discussion of the topic. The debate is whether pleasure or wisdom is the good. There are various kinds of pleasure. Pleasure without awareness of it is not really valuable, and a life of wisdom devoid of pleasure is not desirable. Therefore neither alone is sufficient, and it is likely we shall have to mingle them to find the good life. To understand pleasure we must also recognize pain. Pleasure is the restoration of harmony which often occurs after the dissolution of a pain. The soul can also experience pleasure and pain due to expectation in the mind. Desire is the wish to restore the harmony as anticipated by the mind. Since the mind can have true or false opinions in it, desires or pleasures can be true or false. It is possible also to live without pain, which is not necessarily the pleasantest life, since it could be neutral. The greatest pleasures, or the most extreme ones, are the grossest or most physical, such as scratching an itch. Mixed pleasures are of the body and mind, and usually include hope. Then there are pleasures of the mind and emotions such as anger, fear, desire, sorrow, love, emulation, envy, etc. Although these are not physical, they still mix pleasure with pain. The pure pleasures are aesthetic and intellectual, relating to beauty and knowledge. Although they are lesser and more subtle, these are better than the impure pleasures which include some pain. Pleasure and pain are generated out of each other, and are not absolute essences, like the good. Therefore it is absurd to equate the pleasant with the virtuous and the painful with the vicious. Certainly a good man may be experiencing pain without becoming bad due to it!88
A similar but shorter discussion occurs in the Republic. The lover of wisdom (philosopher) has greater experience than either the lover of honor or the lover of wealth, and therefore can get a better perspective on pleasure. Pleasure and pain are relative to each other. Again the lack of pain is not necessarily pleasant. Intellectual things are longer lasting and more true than bodily things; therefore intellectual pleasures are more real than sensual pleasures. Again the sensual pleasures are mixed with more pain. However, both kinds of pleasures are attained to the highest extent when reason and knowledge are guiding. While the tyrant suffers the worst pain, the true philosopher achieves the highest pleasures.89 Such an analysis can be helpful even to those who seek a life of pleasure.
The virtues which restrain and govern the desires for the sake of excellence are self-control and temperance. Xenophon gives us samples of Socrates' discourses on self-control (enkrateia). Socrates asks his friends who they would trust to govern the state, or to educate their children, or to take care of their possessions: a slave of the belly or wine or lust or sleep? If they would not choose such a slave, then they as masters ought to watch to be sure they do not become vicious and harm themselves by stealing or mischief. "Should not every man hold self-control to be the foundation of all virtue, and first establish this firmly in his soul? For can anyone without this learn anything good or practice it in a worthy way? Or what man that is the slave of his pleasures is not in bad shape body and soul alike?"90
Xenophon recalls a conversation with Euthydemus typical of the ones Socrates held to continually remind his friends of self-control as an aid to virtue. Socrates asks him if he values freedom, and then asks if he considers the man free who is ruled by his bodily pleasures. They agree the uncontrolled are the worst slaves since they are ruled by the worst things. Wisdom and prudence are dulled and lost, and the uncontrolled makes bad choices which turn out to be harmful. The uncontrolled do not even experience as much pleasure as those who are able to discipline themselves; they attempt to fulfill their desires so fast that there is no pleasure at all, while those who can wait enjoy greater satisfaction in eating, drinking, sex, and sleeping. The self-controlled also take delight in learning many things useful to their friends and the city. The uncontrolled are like a beast, not caring at all for virtue, but the self-controlled can see what is best and most pleasant, choosing the good and rejecting the bad.91 Here Socrates shows the consequences of the two types of life.
Temperance or self-restraint (sophrosune) is explained by Socrates in the Cratylus as being derived from "salvation" (so) and "wisdom" or "prudence" (phronesis).92 Unfortunately there is no exact English equivalent; it can mean moderation in desires, self-control, temperance, chastity, sobriety, etc. Plato's Charmides is an attempt to define it, but it is far from conclusive. It is certainly not quietness and modesty as Charmides suggests. Neither is it merely doing one's business. It is more than doing good actions, because it requires self-knowledge. In testing self-knowledge as a definition, they decide it must be a science of something, but it cannot be knowledge merely of knowledge. The knowledge needed for happiness is the knowledge of good and evil. Now we are examining wisdom as the science of sciences, but this too fails if it has no practical application as does, for example, medicine, the science of health.93 This is another example of Socrates getting people to think about something and to realize they do not know what it is, as they had thought.
In the Phaedo Socrates explains that many people become temperate and control their passions and appetites in order to get more pleasure out of them. They abstain from some pleasures, because they are overcome by others; in other words, they are temperate for the sake of intemperance. However, true philosophers are temperate in every way for the sake of wisdom and virtue.94 In this case Socrates transcends temperance to move into wisdom which includes temperance.
In the Republic temperance or the control of pleasures and desires is described as a process of self-mastery. Mastery is when the better principle rules over the worse. This is reflected in the aristocratic state as rule by the better.95 Here Socrates describes this virtue on the individual and collective levels.
Again in the Gorgias Socrates suggests to Callicles that "a man should be temperate and master of himself, and ruler of his own pleasures and passions."96 However, Callicles believes that temperance and justice are only practiced out of fear, and that any man who has power would be foolish to be temperate. For Callicles pleasures are the real value of living. Socrates describes intemperance as the annoyance of always trying to fill a leaky vessel. Socrates shows that a man may not have good and evil at the same time, although he can experience pleasure and pain together; therefore good and evil is not the same as pleasure and pain. The good is prior to pleasure, because people seek pleasure and all things because they are good, but goodness is not sought for its pleasure. The assumption here again is that the essential purpose of all actions is for some good. The flatteries or sham arts such as beautification, cookery, sophistry and rhetoric are sought for the pleasures they give the body and soul, but the true arts of gymnastics, medicine, legislation, and justice are practiced for the good of the body and soul. Temperance and justice are aids in being lawful and orderly for the good of the body and soul. Thus the temperate soul is good, and the intemperate is bad.97 Thus Socrates delineates the difference between pleasure and goodness, and how they are expressed in different activities.
Courage
Courage, or literally "manliness," is considered one of the cardinal virtues. However, Socrates often pointed out that truly courageous action depends also on knowledge or wisdom so that the action will be right. In Xenophon Socrates demonstrates this point to Euthydemus and concludes that "those who know how to deal well with terrors and dangers are courageous, and those who are mistaken in this are cowards."98 It follows from this that to some extent courage can be learned. Socrates recognized that natural abilities varied, but he also believed that they could be greatly improved by application. "From this it is clear that all men, whatever their natural gifts, the talented and the dullards alike, must learn and practice that in which they wish to excell."99 Here Socrates is realistic and practical and encouraging.
Most of the Laches is an attempt to define the nature of courage with the help of two famous generals. When Socrates asks what it is, Laches begins with the common understanding that courage is fighting in battle without running away. However, Socrates points out that the Scythian cavalry are very skilled at fighting on the run; besides courage also shows up in perils at sea, in disease, in poverty, or in politics. What quality does courage give in all these cases? Laches then suggests endurance of the soul as its universal nature. Foolish endurance does not seem wise, so Laches qualifies it as wise endurance. However, Socrates suggests cases that indicate to Laches that wisdom usually makes it easier for one to endure, and it appears then as being less courageous than the one who endures without the knowledge. Then Nicias quotes a statement he once heard from Socrates that "every man is good in that in which he is wise, and bad in that in which he is unwise." Therefore he offers the idea that the brave man is wise. However, courage is certainly not all wisdom, such as knowing how to play a musical instrument. Nicias then qualifies it as "the knowledge of that which inspires fear or confidence in war, or in anything." Socrates asks if by defining courage as wisdom, that excludes all animals, even the lion, from being courageous. Laches ridicules such an idea, but Nicias having been educated by sophists makes a distinction between boldness and courageous actions, which are wise actions. Finally Socrates shows that this definition describes all of virtue whereas they had already agreed that courage was only a part of virtue.100 In fact Socrates often ran into this dilemma.
In the Protagoras Socrates holds that the courageous are those who are confident in their knowledge and wisdom.101 In the Phaedo Socrates makes the same point about courage as he did about temperance, that most men are only courageous out of fear of something worse. Only the true philosopher faces death courageously without fear of anything at all.102
In the Republic where the three aspects of the soul are described as the appetites, the passion or spirited, and reason, the virtues corresponding to each of the three are held to be temperance for the appetites, courage for the aggressive spirit, and wisdom for the reason. "He is considered courageous whose spirit retains in pleasure and in pain the commands of reason about what he should or should not fear.... He is temperate who has these same elements in friendly harmony, in whom the one ruling principle of reason and its two subjects are in agreement that reason ought to rule, and do not rebel.... And we call him wise who has in him that small part which rules and proclaims these commands, that part having a knowledge of what is for the interest of each of the three parts and of the whole."103 We see here the interrelation of these virtues and the indispensable role of wisdom.
Knowledge and Wisdom
According to Xenophon, Socrates believed in using human knowledge in those areas which could be reasonably studied and inquired into, such as crafts and arts and sciences. However, in regard to questions which man does not understand, such as future events, he advised his friends to consult the gods through an oracle. "If any man thinks that these matters are wholly within the grasp of the human mind and nothing in them is beyond our reason, that man, he said, is irrational."104 He considered it just as irrational to inquire of an oracle when human reasoning and study could solve the problem.
In fact, in human affairs it is knowledge of how to do something which leads to success in that activity. Socrates explains this to the young Pericles in terms of being a good general, that if he does not have the knowledge needed he seeks out someone with good advice from whom he can learn.105 Experience shows us that any given activity is governed by the one who knows how to do it, while others who do not know will gladly take orders from the knowledgeable one. This is true in government, on a ship, in farming, even in spinning wool where the women govern the men.106 It is interesting to note that in Xenophon's examples it is not abstract knowledge he is talking about but the practical knowledge of how to do something. Plato demonstrates the same point as Socrates shows the young Lysis how even his slaves are trusted by his parents above him in matters which they know better, while he is free and useful in those subjects he had learned, such as reading and writing and music.107
In the Laches Socrates points out that questions ought to be decided by those who know, not be mere majority vote. The opinion of one knowledgeable person may be of more value than the opinions of all the rest.108 Socrates was always ready to take advice from someone who knew.
In the Euthydemus Socrates asks what knowledge we ought to acquire. He answers his own question with the obvious - knowledge which will do us good. Even if we know how to find gold, we would still need to know how to use the gold. Any knowledge, whether of money-making or medicine or any other art which can make something, is not sufficient unless we can use the thing made as well. Even the kingly or political art, although it does use certain things, does not grant every wisdom which is useful to man. Thus the knowledge which benefits by use was not found.109 Yet for Socrates we can see that usefulness was an important criterion for beneficial knowledge.
The Theaetetus is an extended discussion in search of an understanding of what knowledge is. Theaetetus gives examples of the arts, but Socrates wants a definition. Theaetetus suggests that knowledge is perception, the notion of Protagoras that man is the measure of all things. However, Socrates points out the limitations of this subjective relativity, and by using memory shows that knowledge is more than sense perception. Also everyone cannot know, because many people disagree.110 Experts are able to know better, as the wise can measure things more accurately. The soul may perceive through the eyes and ears, but it is also able to think about and combine these perceptions and also grasp ideas directly, such as being, identity, beauty, and the good. Learning occurs through education, and truth is found by reasoning, not by mere sense.
When sense perception was shown not to be knowledge, Theaetetus suggests that knowledge is true opinion. What then is false opinion? This problem they are not able to solve. It cannot be simply confusing perceptions with knowledge, because it is also possible to be wrong in abstract thoughts. It is not possible to know something and not know it at the same time. Since this did not work, they return to examine what it means to know. Using the aviary metaphor they consider it as having and holding knowledge. However, false opinion still confuses the issue, for how can possession of even the wrong knowledge be ignorance? Putting aside false opinion, they go back in search of knowledge. Perhaps it could be true opinion with reasoning. As with letters and syllables, maybe the elements are unknowable, but the combinations are knowable. However, if the letters are unknown, then the syllables become the unknown elements, and if the syllables can be known, then the letters can be known. This gets nowhere. Rational explanation in speech or the enumeration of the parts may indicate knowledge, except these may be done without really knowing. Again this is merely right opinion, even with the recognition of certain differences. The conclusion is that none of their definitions is adequate, but perhaps they are now humbler and better off since they realize they do not consciously know.111 Such a discussion acquaints one with the difficulties which still plague philosophers today.
Usually Socrates was more concerned with self-knowledge than knowledge in the abstract. Once when Phaedrus asked him about a fable and myth, Socrates says that he could probably give a rational explanation for them, but he has no spare time for that. This is the reason:
I am not yet able, in accordance with the Delphic inscription, to know myself; so it seems ridiculous to me, while in this ignorance to consider irrelevant things. Therefore I say farewell to them and accept the customary belief about them, as I was just now saying, and investigate not these things, but myself, to know whether I am a monster more complicated and furious than Typhon or a gentler and simpler creature to whom a divine and quiet destiny has been given by nature.112
Socrates began by examining himself.
He also assisted individuals in looking at themselves, as we have seen in the case of Alcibiades. Alcibiades claimed to have the knowledge he needed, but then Socrates showed him that he neither learned it from someone who knows nor did he discover it himself. His confusion in answering the questions indicates not only his ignorance but also his lack of awareness of his ignorance. This is the most dangerous kind of ignorance, because such a person tends to make mistakes by acting on what he thinks he knows. However, by realizing his ignorance he can quite simply avoid mistakes by not acting.113 This self-knowledge of one's own ignorance could save a person a lot of grief.
When they decide to study to know themselves better, Alcibiades is again shown that he is ignorantly making suggestions on how to improve the city. Socrates suggests that he learn to take care of himself first. Now they must discover what the self is. The one who takes care of things is the user of things, not what is used. Since man takes care not only of his possessions but also of his body, then the self must be the soul of man who uses the body. The soul is the ruling principle, and it is the soul which knows. How then can the soul know itself? Just as the eye must look into the pupil of the eye to see itself, so the soul must examine its virtue which resembles the divine wisdom. Those who are ignorant of themselves will not understand human affairs and will fail and be miserable. He who knows the virtue of the soul will act wisely and justly according to the will of God as he looks in the divine mirror to know himself and his own good.114 If this is true, and it certainly seems so to this writer, then is not this process of self-awareness the key to living well?
The opposite of self-knowledge is self-deception. In the Philebus Socrates lists three common areas in which ignorance of self appears - in regard to one's money, one's physical looks, and one's wisdom and virtue. Many people tend to be conceited and consider themselves richer, better looking, and wiser than they are. Of these those with little or no power are merely ridiculous, but the powerful can do great harm to others.115 Here Socrates points out the most common pitfalls for individuals and the dangers to mankind.
Xenophon tells how Socrates emphasized the importance for a tyrant to take good advice, because if he does not the resulting mistake will not go unpunished. Nor could a tyrant kill a loyal subject without suffering some loss.116 Here again the greater the power is, the greater is the need for self-knowledge and wisdom.
Diogenes Laertius tells how Socrates used to encourage people to study and improve themselves. He marveled that sculptors could work so hard to make a block of marble perfectly resemble a man, but would not care at all whether they themselves turned out to be blockheads. To the young he recommended the use of a mirror so that the handsome might acquire the corresponding conduct, and the ugly might conceal their defects by education.117
Among the many occasions Xenophon described of Socrates helping individuals to know themselves is the one where he advised Charmides to go into politics because his capabilities were needed. Socrates challenges him that it would be cowardly for him to shrink from serving the state when he had the ability. Socrates has observed Charmides giving good advice to politicians and also correct criticism. However, Charmides fears he will be timid and shy before a large audience, but Socrates assures him that they are far more ignorant than he is. Socrates concludes his talk with this exhortation:
My good man, don't be ignorant of yourself; don't fall into the common error. For many are in such a hurry to pry into other people's business that they never turn to examining themselves. Don't refuse to face this duty then; make more serious effort to pay attention to yourself, and don't neglect public affairs if you have the ability to improve them. If they go well, not only the citizens, but your friends and you yourself will benefit at least as much as they will.118
Many who are ambitious are better off held back from public life, but in this case Socrates felt the need to urge his friend into government.
Xenophon also explains how Socrates would discourage pretense to knowledge or ability among his friends by showing what happens to impostures. First they must try to gain the appearance of a musician or general or whatever, which is expensive, burdensome, unprofitable, and disgraceful. If the person is exposed he becomes ridiculous, and if he succeeds in gaining a position such as piloting a ship or commanding an army, the results can be disastrous, bringing ruin and disgrace. Therefore even a reputation for virtue which goes beyond one's abilities can disappoint expectations.119 Thus by self-knowledge and true humility a person could avoid many problems.
Xenophon shows Socrates making a connection between wisdom and knowledge. A man is only wise in what he knows. Since it is impossible for a man to know everything, there can be no all-wise man.120 This enables us to understand Socrates' humility in not claiming to be wise.
Wisdom requires knowledge, but knowledge of what? Xenophon states that Socrates made no distinction between wisdom and prudence (temperance), and that the wise and prudent man "knows and practices what is beautiful and good, knows and avoids what is shameful." Here wisdom implies the unification of knowledge and action. When Socrates is asked the obvious question about those who know what they ought to do and yet do the opposite, whether they are both wise and self-controlled, he replied, "No, rather, they are unwise and uncontrolled. For I think that all have a choice between various courses, and they do the things which they think are most advantageous to them. Therefore I believe that those who do not act correctly are neither wise nor prudent."121 The obvious solution then is to develop wisdom; but it must be practiced as well as understood, or it is not truly wisdom.
According to Xenophon, Socrates considered justice and all the other virtues to be wisdom, and again he relates it to action and knowledge of the ideals of beauty and goodness. "For just actions and all forms of virtuous activity are beautiful and good. He who knows the beautiful and good will never choose anything else."122 This is knowledge in its strongest sense, not thinking, nor thinking one knows, but knowledge verified by action. Socrates described madness as the opposite of wisdom, although ignorance was not considered exactly the same. Madness was held to be an extreme case, as love is a strong desire, where someone was mistaken in a matter of common knowledge. However, "not to know yourself, and to assume and think that you know what you do not, he put next to madness."123
Plato also portrays Socrates giving a pragmatic definition of wisdom. In the splendid exhortation Socrates demonstrates in the Euthydemus, Socrates shows how wisdom is the greatest good, because it causes success in every action. Any other thing which is considered good may be harmful if it is not used wisely, but wisdom gives us the right use of all things. To be able to use everything correctly and gain success leads to happiness. Socrates concludes, "Since everyone desires happiness, and we have shown that this comes from using things, and using them correctly, and the greatest correctness and good fortune is provided by knowledge, the inference is that everyone ought to prepare himself in every way to become as wise as he can."124 Since life consists of using things, Socrates has shown that wisdom is helpful in everything.
Plato in the Apology also shows Socrates admitting that human wisdom is worthy little or nothing compared to the true wisdom of God.125 Even so, human wisdom is still better than ignorance. In the Crito Socrates explains to his friend that he must follow the opinion of the wise rather than public opinion. Therefore Socrates uses his reasoning based on the good life as his chief value to discover the wisest and just action.126
Finally in the Phaedo the proposition that the soul is immortal implies that wisdom can be valuable even beyond this life. In the Euthydemus Socrates had said, "If there were a knowledge which was able to make men immortal without knowing how to use that immortality, there would be no advantage in it."127 Now Socrates shows that wisdom itself is the knowledge which benefits the soul not only in this life and in this world, but also in the next world and in future lives. In fact if the soul is eternal, then eventually everyone must attain wisdom and goodness!
My friends, it is right to understand that if the soul is immortal, we should care for it, not only in respect to this time which we call life, but in respect to all time; the danger now seems terrible, if we neglect it. For if death was an escape from everything, it would be a bargain to the wicked when they die and are released from the body and the wickedness with the soul. But now since being is shown to be immortal, there is no escape or salvation from evil except to become as good and wise as possible. For the soul takes nothing into the other world except its education and upbringing, which are said to greatly benefit or injure the departed from the very beginning of his journey there.128
The orderly and wise soul fares much better in following its guiding spirit and in understanding its circumstances, while the soul which desires the body wanders in the lower more visible realms until after much resistance it is forcefully led away by its guide.129 The choices of future lifetimes on earth are also determined by the wisdom of the soul. The value of developing wisdom in terms of all the future consequences can be great indeed!
