This chapter has been published in the book
CONFUCIUS AND SOCRATES Teaching Wisdom.
For ordering information, please click here.
Socrates used more than pure reasoning to get his points across.
He often quoted or interpreted poetry to illustrate a particular
idea.
He also used analogies extensively, and occasionally he
would develop
an allegory or recount a tale which was appropriate
to his theme.
Socrates was very familiar with the myths, fables,
history, poetry, and plays of his culture.
However, in his discussions
he did not really examine these for their own sake,
but he referred
to them for the benefit they might add to the listeners.
Xenophon
recalled Socrates saying, “And the treasures that the wise
men of old
have left us in their written books I open and explore
with my friends.
If we see something good, we extract it and
believe
it is a great gain to be useful to one another.”142
Xenophon in his defense of Socrates against certain accusers,
labored to show that
Socrates’ interpretation of certain lines
of poetry was not as his detractors had imagined.143
In persuading
Aristippus that the easy and pleasant life is not always the best,
Xenophon had Socrates quote a similar passage from Hesiod that
Plato had him use
in the Protagoras
about the road to virtue being a steep, hard climb,
though it
is easy on top.144
He then quoted Epicharmus twice on a similar
theme.
Xenophon also recorded an incident when Socrates was
talking
with a man who had been chosen general.
He quoted Homer about
Agamemnon being “shepherd of the people”
and that a
good general is a good king.
Since a good king makes his subjects
happy,
his duty ought to be to make the people happy.145
Both Xenophon and Plato had Socrates quote the same lines from
Theognis
about good people teaching each other, while company
with the bad is corrupting.146
In the Meno
Socrates quoted another passage from the same poet
which contradicted
the idea that virtue could be taught.
The implication is that
poetry can be used to illustrate an argument but not to settle
one.
In the Protagoras when
this sophist questioned Socrates
he based his arguments on phrases
from the poets Simonides and Pittacus.
Socrates through his ability
to interpret their precise meanings
brought out a deeper understanding
of the poems.
However, at the conclusion of this detailed literary
critique, he indicated his preference
for direct discussion between
the participants compared to having poetry
as a kind of entertainment
like flute-girls or dancing girls.
The poets were not there to
declare what they meant in specific passages,
and therefore each
person could only offer one's interpretation.
However, true gentlemen
can put poetry aside and discuss in their own persons,
testing
the truth and themselves more directly.147
How poetry is somewhat removed from wisdom,
and self-knowledge
is indicated in Plato's Ion.
Ion was a man who had become
accomplished at reciting the poems of Homer,
and therefore claimed
to know about everything which was mentioned by Homer.
Socrates
used his usual method of questioning, but he also demonstrated
the ability
to call forth appropriate lines from the great poet
in order to communicate with Ion
who did not seem to care about
anything else.
Although Ion had memorized all of Homer and could
portray his work admirably,
it became apparent through Socrates’ questioning that
this did not make him wise in these subjects
as he had thought.148
Praising Socrates in Plato’s Symposium
Alcibiades described
how he was able to use words so as to reveal
an inner meaning.
The words, like the physical appearance of Socrates
which resembled Silenus or a satyr,
might seem common and ordinary;
but just as a statue of a satyr might open to reveal a god
within
it, the words of Socrates also held a deep understanding
extending
to the entire duty of the good and noble person.149
Let us look at how Socrates clothed his ideas in everyday language
by examining next his use of analogies.
In the Charmides
when Critias said that temperance is a science of itself,
Socrates
compared it to other sciences such as medicine which produces
health
and architecture which produces buildings so that he could
ask him
what results come from wisdom or temperance.150
To describe the inspiration and influence of poetry in the Ion Socrates used the analogy
of a magnet and a series of rings attracted
to it.
God is the source of the inspiration for the poet who through
his inspirational output
attracts a rhapsode to recite
the poetry;
this expression in turn has a magnetic appeal to the
audience.
In the figure, God is the magnet, and the poet, rhapsode,
and the audience are the respective metal rings attached to the
magnet.151
Such a picture could convey the overall relationships
of the situation in a holistic manner.
In the Cratylus Socrates used the analogy of the arts
to show that
the proper tool must be used in a correct way.
He
started with the natural processes of cutting and burning,
then
moved on to speaking, weaving, carpentry, and the legislator.
The user of each thing knows it best, and it is the dialectician
who can ask and answer questions who knows words best.152
By showing
the relationships in the simple arts, Socrates could lead people
from what they knew to see the relationships in areas which they
did not yet know.
Socrates employed many analogies in the Republic.
He asked what good thing justice gives as medicine
gives drugs
and diet and as cookery gives seasoning.
The physician helps the
sick; the pilot guides a ship in rough seas.
How does the just
person help?
Polemarchus replied that it is in war that he could
harm his enemy and help his friends.
Justice might also be useful
in time of peace, as farming and shoemaking.
Polemarchus suggested
contracts, and Socrates asked about brick-layers and harp-players
to discover that he meant money partnerships.
Socrates got Polemarchus
to agree that anyone who has knowledge of using things
such as
the horseman for horses and the pilot for ships
is better in these
areas than the just person.
Polemarchus got in the position of
saying that
justice is only useful when these things are useless.
Also since Polemarchus had left out any concept of right and wrong,
by the analogies
that a good guard can most easily sneak off and
a good keeper most easily steal,
Socrates showed that justice
is a thief!153
Here we see that the use of analogies and examples
in no way guaranteed a good argument.
Rather they are more of
a pedagogical tool which enables one
to look at relationships
of things that may already be familiar.
To refute Thrasymachus' notion that the ruler does things for
his own advantage,
Socrates used the analogies of the physician
who helps his patients
and the captain whose interest is for his
sailors.154
Most of the Republic
is in fact based on the analogy between the individual and the
state,
which may allow its greatest danger of misrepresentation,
because the members
of the social classes are not whole people
but represent only part of the psyche.
Nevertheless Socrates used
this pedagogical tool to blow up justice from its small size
in
the individual to the larger scope of the state.155
In other words,
justice may be easier to understand or learn about
if we can see
it in its larger scope.
Another purpose of this analogy is to
compare justice in the state
with justice in the individual.
He
said,
If they agree, we shall be satisfied;
or, if there is a difference in the individual,
we will return again to the state and test the theory.
The friction of the two when rubbed against each other
may possibly strike a light in which justice may shine forth,
and the vision which is then revealed we will fix within us.156
In examining the characteristics of the psyche it is noted,
as with the arms of the archer,
that there seems to be opposing
forces of motivation.
Because the logical principle holds that
nothing can be and not be
at the same time in the same relation,
it is likely that
there are at least two different aspects of
the consciousness.
These are held to be desire and reason, and
they are illustrated by the story of Leontius,
who felt a desire
to see some dead bodies lying on the ground
after an execution
while at the same time he felt an abhorrence to them.157
A good analogy is one which gives the listener a clear and comprehensive
picture
of the relationships in the situation.
The selection and
education of the guardians is likened to the dyeing of wool.
The
ideal is to find the white wool and prepare it
so that it will
take the purple and hold it fast.
Thus the guardians must be of
good character
so that the laws will make a clear and lasting
imprint on them.158
The government was described as a ship with a mutinous crew of
politicians,
and the skillful pilot is the true philosopher but
appears to some as a useless star-gazer.
The reason the star-gazer
is considered useless is because
the other people refuse to make
use of his abilities.159
Book VIII of the Republic
is a very enlightening analysis of political psychology.
Socrates
described four forms of government,
which can degenerate from
the best government of virtue.
They are timocracy, oligarchy (or
plutocracy), democracy, and tyranny.
After each state was described,
the analogous human character was portrayed,
and the process by
which the government degenerated into the next form
was shown
over the course of a family generation.160
The analogies of the
ship and of bees were also utilized.
The result of drawing such
a comprehensive picture is that the listener can relate it
to
many aspects of one’s experience and on different levels of consciousness.
In the Theaetetus Socrates used the analogy of an aviary
with the whole cage
representing the mind, and birds indicating
various elements of knowledge.
There are three stages of possessing
the birds:
1) the original capture, 2) maintaining them in the
cage, and 3) their recapture for some use.
The three stages of
knowledge are:
1) the original learning, 2) latent awareness,
and 3) conscious use of the knowledge.
Wrong opinion is due to
catching the wrong bird for the purpose.
The analogy may be helpful
as far as it goes, but Socrates challenged it by wondering
where
ignorance comes from if we have knowledge in our mind.
How could
knowledge cause ignorance?
Theaetetus further confused the metaphor
by suggesting that
some of the birds might be forms of ignorance.161
Alas, the figure may have been helpful in understanding some principles,
but it fails to resolve others.
In order to understand knowledge
as a composite of elements,
Socrates suggested the analogy of
letters and syllables.
However, this analogy did little more than
stimulate a discussion of the whole and the parts.
The letters
were not defined, and the syllables could not be
truly known if
the letters were not known.162
It seemed that this analogy did
not prove to be very useful,
because
it did not really show any
meaningful relationships or a pattern familiar to our experience.
Also in this dialog the metaphor of a wax tablet was used
to
represent memory as the impressions made by perception.
These
impressions are then recalled suitably or not in relation to perceptions
later on.
The quality of one’s memory is indicated by the nature
of the wax—whether it is clean
or muddy, too hard to make a deep
imprint or too soft to hold the pattern.163
This metaphor seems
to be appropriate for memory,
but it is hard to relate it to other
aspects of knowledge.
In the Philebus Socrates
used the analogy of letters to show the intermediate steps
between
one and infinity which it is the task of dialectic to show.
The
sound of the voice is one and yet infinite, but as the child learns
the letters,
as they were first invented by the Egyptian god Theuth,
he learns the art of speech.
The knowledge of the number and nature
of these sounds makes one a grammarian.164
In this case the subject
is more abstract and the use of letters
and the experience of
learning them is more appropriate and meaningful.
In discussing how false opinions can develop, Socrates described
the soul or consciousness
as a book where memory and perception
write down words, sometimes falsely.
In addition to the scribe
there is an artist who paints images in the soul,
and the images
may also be true or false.
This image-painting, especially of
future hopes,
is often related to pleasures which may be good
or bad.
Socrates associated the good pleasures with true images
and the bad pleasures with false images.165
This analogy appears
to work because of the close relationship between the imagination
and the desire for pleasure which most people probably experience
visually.
Also it is interesting to note the characteristic Socratic
unification
of the true with the good and the false with the bad.
One of the most frequent analogies Socrates used was to examine
something on the level
of the soul or consciousness as compared
to the level of the body or the physical.
This is used several
times in the Gorgias.
The most comprehensive series of relationships is designed to
show how
rhetoric as a flattery rather than an art of consciousness
corresponds
to other arts and flatteries of the consciousness
and the body.
There are also two arts and their two shams each
for soul and body,
one which institutes and the other which corrects.
The physical arts and their flatteries are as follows:
gymnastics
is to beautification (cosmetics, clothing) as medicine is to cookery.
The consciousness arts are: legislation is to sophistry as justice
is to rhetoric.
The complete geometric ratios are: gymnastic is
to beautification as legislation is to sophistry,
and as medicine
is to cookery, justice is to rhetoric.166
This can give us a comprehension
of many relationships in a short space;
it is easy to remember
because it all fits together in a pattern.
Later on Socrates compared bodily disease and the need for medicine
with vice,
the disease of the soul, and the need for justice.167
This helps those who have difficulty seeing the soul level
to
recognize the relationship on the physical level.
Once the relationship
is understood, only the level needs to be transferred.
Finally
in the discussion with Callicles, Socrates indicated that the
disease of the body
is treated by temperance, and vices of the
soul are cured
by self-control and the chastisements of justice.168
By means of the physical analogies Socrates was able to get Callicles
to see this.
Socrates would often tell a story or use an allegorical figure
to express comprehensive and deep meanings.
In the Gorgias
to show Callicles the value of temperance Socrates recounted the
tale
of an Italian that the soul is a vessel, and the ignorant
or uninitiated have holes that leak
where the desires are because
of intemperance and incontinence.
The temperate person may have
equal difficulty filling one’s containers
with wine, honey, and
milk; but because they remain full one is not bothered by them,
while those that are leaky are continually striving to fill them
by painful struggle.169
By this metaphor Socrates was able to
indicate the dissipation of energy
and perpetual stress caused
by lack of self-discipline over one’s desires.
Socrates often got these allegories from other people
and then
applied them in an appropriate situation.
Xenophon recorded his
using a tale from Prodicus’ essay “On Heracles”
to show
Aristippus the dangers of a life of pleasure and the value of
duty.
The story presented the young Heracles at a crossroads where
he must decide
whether to pursue a life of virtue or vice, which
are personified as women.
Virtue is fair, temperate, of high-bearing,
pure, and modest in her manner and dress,
while Vice is plump,
soft, sensual, and looking for attention.
Vice runs up to meet
Heracles first and promises him
all sorts of delights and pleasures
without any work.
Her friends call her Happiness, but those who
hate her have nicknamed her Vice.
Virtue tells Heracles he must
work for the truly good things
by benefiting his friends and taking
care of things.
When Vice says that her road is shorter, Virtue
criticizes her for being always unsatisfied
by her pleasures and
for leading to an old age of weakness and misery.
The virtuous
enjoy simple food, do their duties, sleep well,
are content and
respected even in old age.
By this story Socrates presented Aristippus
with clear choices
to consider in regard to the life that he would
lead.170
In the Philebus Socrates
personified the pleasures and wisdom,
and then he asked them questions.
The pleasures would like to live with wisdom; but wisdom is only
willing
to dwell with the more pure pleasures because the heavier
pleasures
hinder wisdom by carelessness and forgetfulness.171
Also in the Crito Socrates
personified the laws of the state
so that he could carry on a
discussion with them.172
This technique enabled Socrates to get
deeply into an abstract subject in such a way
as could be closely
related to human experience and have a personal appeal to the
listener.
Socrates used natural metaphors as in the Phaedo
where he interpreted the song
of the swans before they die as
prophetic rejoicing
in expectation of the blessings in the other
world.173
In the Republic
Socrates referred to their search for justice
as hunters following
along its trail.174
Again this would enable his listeners to be
more interested
because of the picture in their minds which recalled
some familiar experience.
In the Republic we
find Socrates using several allegories
to explain and describe
complex relationships.
In Book VI Socrates was attempting to convey
the idea of the good,
but he discovered he could not do it adequately.
Therefore he offered to give a representation of the child of
the good
even though he warned them the description could not
help
but be false to the reality of what they were talking about.
He described sight as dependent on the eyes, color, and the light
which comes from the good in the visible world;
what the sun is
in the visible world, the good is in the intellectual world.
Just
as the sun generates light, the good creates truth and knowledge.
Then Socrates showed more detailed relationships again
by means
of geometrical proportions or ratios.
In the visible world there
is the reflection of images and shadows
as compared to actual
physical things which we perceive.
In the intellectual world what
corresponds to the images and shadows are the hypotheses,
and
above them are the actual ideas.
Geometry is an example of using
hypotheses,
and dialectic is the process concerned with the ideas
themselves as first principles.
Each of the four levels has the
corresponding faculty
of the soul which engages in those activities.
The ideas are the domain of the pure intellect and knowing.
Hypotheses
are dealt with by understanding and thinking.
Our higher relation
to the visible world is one of belief,
and the lower is that of
image-making or conjecture.175
This design shows the relationships
in a very intellectual and abstract way
without feeling tone or
much to hold on to from personal experience.
Therefore Socrates followed it up with the allegory of the cave
which uses the sun again
and attempts to give a higher perspective
on the human condition.
To indicate how the good itself is really
better, human experience must be portrayed
worse than it is so
that a better level can be shown which people can grasp.
Socrates
used a similar device in the Phaedo
when he said that this world is as murky
as being in the ocean
compared to the clarity of the other world which would be like
air,
except that our world is of air and the other even clearer.176
In the cave people are chained in darkness and can only see
the
shadows of a fire cast on a wall of the cave.
Most of the prisoners
cannot even turn their heads to see those
who are carrying the
objects by the fire which make the shadows on the wall.
To the
prisoners the shadows are the only reality.
When a prisoner is
liberated, he needs time to adjust to
moving his body and seeing
the light of the fire directly.
He has difficulty persuading the
other prisoners that there is a higher reality,
and he begins
to lose interest in the shadows which are their whole world.
Gradually
he will be able to accustom his eyes to the light of the fire
as he climbs the rugged ascent out of the cave.
First he sees
shadows best, then objects themselves;
he gazes at the moon and
stars, and finally he is able to behold the sun in the light of
day,
seeing everything in its proper place.
When he returns to
the cave, he has compassion for his fellow prisoners
but does
not care about their contests and honors;
his eyes are not used
to the darkness, and he appears ridiculous to them.
They feel
threatened by anyone who would try to free a prisoner and lead
him up to the light;
and therefore if they caught him, they would
put him to death.177
Having presented the allegory, Socrates explained how it fits
with the worlds
of the visible and the intellectual, and his analogy
of the sun to the idea of the good.
The cave represents the visible
world and the fire the physical sun.
This indicates how he has
lowered it a level in order to show
two levels with a higher one
than is usually recognized.
The journey out of the cave represents
the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world
which is culminated
with the idea of the good (sun outside the cave).
This good is
the source of reason and truth and the essential guide for all
human life.
It explains why those who have had the beatific vision
are reluctant to become involved
in human affairs and the difficulties
they have in dealing with the shadows of justice
as conceived
by those who have never seen absolute justice itself.
It is more
appropriate to laugh at the one who is adjusting his eyes to the
light,
for this is a joyful occurrence, rather than to laugh at
the one who has returned to the cave.
Education does not consist
of putting knowledge into the soul, like sight into blind eyes,
because the soul already has the ability to learn.
Education should
be the process of liberating the prisoner's whole being
from the
chains and turning one by degrees toward the light of the good.
The future leaders must turn away from sensual pleasures and seek
the knowledge
of the good; after they have seen the light, they
ought to return to the cave
to serve the state and take up the
duties of philosophers.
Their experience with the good will enable
them to transcend
any concerns of honors, wealth, ambition, or
jealousy.178
By the comprehensiveness of this allegory and its
interpretation, Socrates was
able to tie many things together
concerning human experience in this world
and how the process
of transcendence can be approached.
In Book IX of the Republic
Socrates gave a three-part image
of the soul to represent different
aspects of human consciousness.
The appetites are symbolized by
a many-headed monster or beast,
the aggressive instinct by a lion,
and reason by a person.
These three creatures appear on the outside
as a
single human to those who are not able to look within.
Injustice
in the individual is to allow the beast to feast and strengthen
the lion
while starving and weakening the person.
Justice is giving
the person control and mastery over the creature
so that the beast
is tamed and made gentle, and the lion-heart becomes one’s ally.
Then Socrates used this comparison to explain how justice,
when
the divine element in people rules over the bestial,
is far superior
to the intemperate wildness of the beast.
People are blamed when
they allow the lower nature to control them.
Letting the divine
wisdom rule is generally considered best,
and it is better for
the other levels to serve.
Also children are ruled by adults until
the ruling principle
is established within them with a guardian
in their heart.
These are evidences of the value of justice, temperance,
and wisdom.179
These vivid images and the analogous experiences,
which show
how these elements interact, enable the listener to
comprehend
the three levels of this psychology and its application.
In the Phaedrus Socrates
gave an inspired speech on love as a madness.
He described the
soul and its travels with the image of
two winged horses and a
charioteer flying through various realms of heaven.
One horse
is noble and the other ignoble, and the driving of them is not
easy.
The souls that lose their wings, fall to earth and taking
up a body
become a living creature; it is the soul which moves
the body.
The souls that travel with the gods perceive the true
essence
of justice, temperance, and absolute knowledge.
The wings
of the soul are nourished on the truth found in the higher realms,
but those that cannot control the horses fall into a human body
on earth,
where they reincarnate until the wings are grown again.
Philosophers can grow these wings more quickly than others.
Learning
is a process of recalling or recognizing in earthly experience
the images of
beauty, temperance, and justice which were seen
directly in the heavenly realms of true being.
Many souls have
forgotten the holy things they have seen,
but beauty and love
tend to re-awaken these divine qualities.
As the beauty of the
beloved vitalizes the love, the wings begin to grow.
Souls are
differentiated by the characteristics of the gods they follow.
Socrates described the good and virtuous horse as compared to
the bad, vicious one.
The beauty of the beloved inspires the white
horse to adoration as true beauty is recalled,
while the dark
horse is filled with desire and urges the chariot toward sensual
indulgence.
As the charioteer exercises temperance and goodwill,
then:
Love overflows upon the lover,
and some enters into one’s soul,
and some when one is filled flows out again;
and as a breeze or an echo rebounds from the smooth rocks
and returns whence it came,
so does the stream of beauty passing through the eyes
which are the windows of the soul,
come back to the beautiful one;
there arriving and animating the passages of the wings,
watering them and making them grow,
and filling the soul of the beloved also with love.180
One loves but does not understand it, and the lover is one’s mirror to see oneself.
Their love from this point on depends on
their self-control whether they will give in
to the desires of
the dark steed or begin the heavenly pilgrimage through philosophy.181
Here Socrates has presented another image to portray the heavenly
in relation to
the earthly and to describe love and two possible
choices of how to experience its inspiration.
In Plato’s Symposium
Socrates related the teachings he heard from Diotima on love.
To describe Love as an intermediary between the divine and the
mortal, and as a mean
between opposites such as ignorance and
wisdom, she used an allegory of the birth of Love.
The story goes
that at a feast in heaven on the birthday of Aphrodite,
Poverty
contrived to lay with Plenty, who is the son of Discretion.
The
child conceived was Love, who shares the qualities of being poor
and always in need
with the resourcefulness of a strong and enterprising
hunter.
Love is what unites the mortal and immortal, pursues wisdom,
and is always flowing in and out.182
Here Socrates used the personification
of opposites in order to show
love as a dynamic quality which
bridges opposites as a mean.
In Xenophon’s Symposium
Socrates also referred to figures from myth to show
the spiritual
connection between gods and humans through love.
He pointed out
that Zeus loved many mortals, but it was only those he loved
for
their souls’ sake that he carried up to heaven, such as Ganymede.183
Here again Socrates was implying the significant difference
between
divine love and mortal passion.
Phaedrus once accused Socrates of making up stories from whatever
country he pleased.
This was after Socrates told an Egyptian story
of how the god Thamus (Ammon)
commented upon the dangers of Theuth’s invention of written letters.
Memories will be weakened, and people
will have the appearance of wisdom,
thinking they know more than
they do.184
Socrates used this story to warn Phaedrus of the dangers
and limitations of the written word.
In the Charmides Socrates
told how he got his charm cure from a Thracian physician
of the
divine king Zalmoxis which can even make a human immortal,
but
one must not use it on a part of the body until the whole of the
soul is treated.185
In this way Socrates implied the precedence
of the spiritual work prior to the physical,
and it enabled him
to move the focus of the discussion
from Charmides’ headache to
an investigation of temperance.
In the Gorgias Socrates
concluded his argument on justice
by relating the Greek myth of
the judgment which follows after death.
He suspected that Callicles
would only look upon it as a fable,
but Socrates believed that
it is true.
He started with the Homeric account of how the empire
was divided between
Zeus, Poseidon, and Pluto, and how since the
days of Kronos those who lived in justice
and holiness have passed
over after death to the Islands of the Blessed.
The unjust and
impious go to Tartarus for punishment.
Socrates showed the problem
of judging by worldly standards by having Pluto
complain that
the judgments according to apparel, physical appearance,
wealth,
and rank have not been accurate.
Therefore Zeus decided that Prometheus
should take away the foreknowledge of death,
and they should be
stripped naked to the soul before they are judged—
both those who
are judged and the judges.
The judges were to be the sons of Zeus:
Minos, Rhadamanthus, and Aeacus.
Then Socrates interpreted the myth.
Death is nothing else but
a separation of the soul from the body.
Just as bodies tend to
maintain their habits and qualities, so too does
the soul exhibit
its character and former actions.
When the soul presents itself
before the judge,
there is no indication of its social station
on earth;
even a king may only be seen as a cruel and wicked criminal,
insolent and licentious.
In fact a position of power tends to
corrupt the soul more often than not,
while it is often the humble
and private citizen who may be a philosopher
and go to the Islands
of the Blessed.
Finally Socrates concluded that these things are
true as far as he is concerned,
and therefore he strove to live
as best he could so that he could present his soul
pure and undefiled
before the judge after death.
He also exhorted Callicles to be
just in this life
in preparation for what would inevitably come.186
Again Socrates had to use myth and allegory to attempt to convey
what pertains to the soul,
because these are the areas of life
which are invisible to physical perception.
Also he presented
the listener with a definite choice of alternatives.
A similar account is found in the tale of Er at the conclusion
of the Republic.
This
story was presented as an actual experience of a man who died
in battle,
had his soul leave his body to go on a long journey
before he returned to his body and came alive again twelve days
later.
Here again the description of the other world appears symbolic
and mythical.
He first found himself at the place of judgment
between two openings
from the lower world and two openings in
the upper heaven.
The unjust were bound and taken down below,
and the just ascended the heavenly way.
Souls also came from these
places, some dusty and worn, the others clean and bright.
All
actions from earthly life were balanced out by punishments or
rewards;
Er witnessed several cases of each.
Then he and the souls
that had returned from the other worlds went to a place
with a
great column of light with bright and pure colors.
They saw the
spindle of Necessity and the revolutions of the planets
with their
corresponding musical sounds.
The three Fates of the past, present,
and future accompanied their harmony.
Each soul was to choose
their guiding spirit or divinity for their next life on earth.
The various destinies were very complex, and Socrates reminded
his listeners
at this point of the great value of wisdom in discerning
good from evil.
Er then saw the choices made by various famous
heroes.
When the selections were made, the genius or divinity
led the souls to the Fates to ratify their destiny.
Then they
marched to the scorching plain of Oblivion where they drank varying
amounts
from the river of Forgetfulness, except Er who was prevented
from drinking.
From there they went to their births, and Er returned
to his body
with the ability to remember what had happened.
After the tale, Socrates briefly exhorted his friends toward the
heavenly way
of justice and virtue, remembering that the soul
is immortal.187
By means of this tale, Socrates explained the
ultimate balancing action of divine justice,
showed that individual
human destinies are not random but freely chosen,
indicated what
kind of things might happen to the eternal soul before, in between,
and after lives on earth, and symbolically portrayed why people
do not remember
what they have done in the other world or before
birth.
Such an account may assist souls in recognizing
or intuiting
the experiences they have had but do not remember.
Socrates was a master at handling a discussion, and in addition
to his way of
asking questions and using metaphors and stories,
he also would point out examples,
analyze concepts, search for
definitions, lead by dialectical agreement,
and summarize the
main points.
In Xenophon’s Symposium
Socrates used various kinds of examples to support an idea.
Even
a girl who did somersaults and gymnastic tricks through hoops
of swords
became for Socrates evidence that courage could be taught.188
In further encouraging Callias to a more spiritual rather than
carnal love, Socrates moved
from the mythic example of Zeus and
Ganymede to other heroes and then to the customs
of the Thebans,
Eleans, and Lacedaemonians in their lovers’ relations in battle
situations,
and finally to the noble gifts Themistocles, Pericles,
and Solon gave to Athens.189
Socrates often compared the practices
of other people
when it was appropriate to the topic to show real
possibilities.
In order to refute an argument or a definition, Socrates would
often cite cases
which were appropriate but contradictory to the
previous statement.
When Charmides said that temperance is a kind
of quietness implying slowness or caution,
Socrates brought up
many actions such as writing, reading, playing the lyre, wrestling,
boxing, running and jumping which are better done quickly rather
than slowly.
By a couple more questions Socrates made it clear
to Charmides
that quietness could not be temperance.
Then Charmides
suggested modesty, but Socrates cited Homer to say that
modesty
is not good for a needy person, but obviously temperance is good.190
Socrates always seemed to be able to think of cases or examples
which could challenge a particular definition or viewpoint.
In the Ion the rhapsode thought he knew Homer so well
that he could even be
a good general except that the Athenians
would not pick him because he was an Ephesian.
Socrates was quick
to point out actual cases where the Athenians
had selected foreigners
to be their generals.191
In this way Socrates tested and challenged
the statements of others
so that the discussion could proceed
as accurately as possible.
In analyzing a situation Socrates might also offer constructive
criticism.
Again in Xenophon’s Symposium
after the dancing girls had performed with the swords,
Socrates
recognized that it was dangerous;
but he felt that such feats
were not appropriate at a banquet.
He was more interested in such
questions as why a flame gives light
while a bronze mirror only
reflects it or why olive oil burns.
Finally he suggested to the
dancers that if they portrayed the Graces or Seasons
or the Nymphs
in their dance to a flute accompaniment they might get less worn
out,
and the banquet would be enhanced.192
Although Socrates could
be critical, he also gave positive suggestions.
At the beginning of the Politician Socrates pointed out
to Theodorus, the geometrician,
the different values of the sophist,
politician, and philosopher by humorously
referring to mathematical
proportions.193
This brief comment gives some perspective on the
relative weight of the entire discussion.
In questioning Theaetetus on knowledge Socrates tested the ideas
of Protagoras
that knowledge is perception and that “Man is the measure of all things.”
Socrates showed that knowledge
can and must be more than sense perception
as in the example of
memory.
If whatever anyone thought was right, there would be no
purpose at all
in philosophical discussion, and the ideas of Protagoras
would not be worth any more than anyone else’s.194
By showing
these contradictions Socrates got the other person
to clarify
his ideas and consider other possibilities.
In the Phaedrus Socrates
analyzed the speech of Lysias and then analyzed his own speech.
He said that Lysias should have defined love which he never did.
Also his speech had no organization; it began with the conclusion
and then rambled around.
In Socrates’ own speech he started with
madness,
explaining it was caused by human infirmity or divine
release of the soul.
He then described the four kinds of divine
madness as prophecy, initiation, poetry, and love.
Socrates employed
two principles in his speech:
first, a definition unifying the
idea of love, and second, dividing it into appropriate species,
symbolized here by the two horses.
These two principles of the
one and the many are the tools of the dialectician who attempts
to clarify meaning rather than of the rhetorician who strives
only to persuade.195
Such analysis sheds added light on the speeches
made
and gives a greater understanding of speech-making itself.
Socrates was aware of how easy it is to fall into verbal contradictions,
but he knew it was important to distinguish whether
the verbal
opposition really made a difference to the argument.
A good example
of this is found in the Republic
when he was accused of treating men
and women the same when their
natures are obviously different.
He held that the major difference
between the sexes, which is the ability to have babies
or not,
is no reason for not giving women the same education as men.
Women
are just as capable as men in taking up the various pursuits in
the state
except that women tend to be a little weaker physically.
In the various abilities there are degrees of difference among
all people, men and women.
Therefore the government of the state
should be in the hands
of the best men and the best women.196
The person who could not make such distinctions
was easily refuted
and would never get very far in dialectic.
After comparing the different forms of government and types of
human character,
Socrates went on to show that the philosopher
is better off
than the lover of honor or the lover of wealth.
The philosopher has experienced the pleasures of gain and honor
from childhood,
but the wealthy and the brave have not necessarily
developed their reason
and experienced the joys of knowing true
being.
Thus the philosopher is more comprehensive than the others
and must know
which pleasures are the best.197
By this analysis
Socrates showed the relationship of the concepts to each other
and which experience level is included within that of a larger
one.
Having established these, his conclusion became clear to
the listener.
One of Socrates’ preoccupations was to attempt
to define the
concept they were talking about.
Xenophon told us that he never
gave up considering definitions
and analyzing others’ responses
through his questions.
Xenophon gave a sample by narrating a discussion
with Euthydemus which goes over
piety, justice, wisdom, the good,
the beautiful, courage, and government;
the discussion shows that
most of these are interrelated.
Xenophon added that whenever someone
debated with him about whether a specific
person was wiser or
braver, Socrates would go back to the definition in question.
Xenophon concluded,
By this process of leading back the argument
even his adversary came to see the truth clearly.
Whenever he himself argued out a question,
he advanced by steps that gained general assent,
holding this to be the only sure method.198
This is the crux of the Socratic method and could be used both
to refute
the other person's hypothesis and to establish a positive
understanding.
After refuting Charmides’ notions of temperance, Socrates took
on Critias,
who likewise was caught in contradictions.
Critias
attempted to save his definition by making new distinctions.
This
prompted Socrates to request that he define his terms
if he intended
to make these various distinctions.199
A clear and useful discussion
depends on the accuracy of the communication,
and therefore agreeing
upon the definitions of the terms is essential.
In the Euthyphro Socrates
pursued a definition of piety
because the man claimed to be an
authority on the subject.
However, Socrates ran into the common
problem of being given cases or examples of piety
(as Hippias
had done with beauty) rather than its essential meaning
that could
be applied to all its manifestations.
Euthyphro suggested a couple
of definitions,
but Socrates showed him the contradictions in
each of them.
When Euthyphro said that piety is justice, Socrates
wanted to know their relationship
which turned out to be the part
to the whole; piety is a part of justice.
Then the part must be
explained, which Euthyphro said is “attending on the gods.”
Then the concept of people attending on the gods must be scrutinized
and was eventually shown to be fallacious, for how can humans
benefit or help God?
Neither do humans really trade with the gods.
Euthyphro finally came around to his original assertion which
had already been refuted.
At this point he became frustrated and
hurried away.200
Such an exercise was not conclusive, but it did
enable a person to examine
several definitions that he thought
were true and perhaps to realize that he may need
to look deeper and more thoroughly to really understand what had seemed so obvious.
In the Theaetetus Socrates asked the young man for a definition
of knowledge or science.
However, Theaetetus began to list some
of the sciences.
Socrates explained that this does not tell us
what science itself is.
He gave the example of clay which could
be defined as moistened earth,
though there are several different
kinds of clay.
He also gave the example of geometry of square
roots and cube roots.
Thus Socrates had given him a model to follow.201
However, defining knowledge turned out to be a difficult task.
Although they spent considerable time on it, they were never really
satisfied with the results.
One of the best examples of the Socratic method of education is
found in the Meno.
Meno wanted to know how virtue could be acquired; but Socrates
confessed that
he did not know what virtue is, which ought to
be the first step in the inquiry.
Having heard Gorgias, Meno was
confident that he could describe the nature of virtue.
He declared
what a virtuous man does and how a virtuous woman behaves;
but
Socrates wanted to know the essence, what every act of virtue
has in common.
Virtue itself will be the same in men or women,
and temperance and justice are more abstract examples of it.
To
help him see the idea of a universal definition, Socrates gave
the example
of plane figures and gave a definition that would
include all kinds.
So Meno suggested that virtue is the desire
of the good;
but Socrates showed that all people desire what they
consider to be good.
Virtue must be the ability to attain the
good.
This could be a good definition, but Socrates tripped him
up by showing how
some people
may desire partial goods, such as
gold and silver, and may attain them in unjust ways.
Therefore
the good must be attained with justice, but justice is one of
the virtues.
How can we define the whole by means of a part of
the whole
when we still do not know what the whole is?
So Socrates
returned to the original question, and Meno realized that
he had
been thrown into confusion by Socrates’ spell.202
This is the
early stage of the dialectical process which “makes use of those points
which the questioned person acknowledges he knows.”203
Socrates had been working in a very individual way with the awareness
that Meno had in regard to this subject.
The refutation part of
the process reduced the other person to the kind of ignorance
which Socrates usually admitted from the beginning and which seemed
so ironic.
Next Meno asked a very important question,
How will you inquire, Socrates,
into that which you do not know?
What will you put forth as the subject of inquiry?
And if you find what you want,
how will you ever know that
this is the thing which you did not know?204
If these doubts were correct, there would be no such thing
as learning,
because what is known would already be known,
and
what is not known could never be known.
This obviously goes against
human experience,
but how, then, did Socrates account for the
process of learning?
Understanding the Socratic psychology of
learning is the key to understanding
how the Socratic method of
pedagogy works.
To explain it Socrates referred to the divine
mystery
of the eternal soul and its inspirational wisdom.
Then
he described the process.
The soul, then, as being immortal,
and having been born again many times,
and having seen all things that exist,
both in this world and in the other realms,
there is nothing it has not learned;
so that it is no wonder that it is able to call to mind
what it knew before about virtue and other things.
For as all nature is akin, and the soul has learned all things,
there is no difficulty by recalling one thing—
what people call learning—to discover everything else,
if a person is courageous and does not give up searching;
for all research and learning are wholly recognition.205
The word “recognition” is used here to imply “re-cognition” which is what
Socrates was describing and differs from what is
usually experienced as memory.
What he was saying is that the
soul has the unique ability to know anything
and everything because
it is eternal and has a relationship with everything that exists.
When Meno asked how this could be and sought some proof, Socrates
offered
to give a demonstration with one of his slave boys who
would have had no formal education.
Socrates presented him with
a fairly difficult problem in geometry:
how to make a square twice
the area of the original square.
Socrates used his usual method
of asking questions to discover what the person’s ideas were.
The notions which were not correct, he showed to be false by his
questioning.
The boy, then, was first brought to the point of
realizing that
what he first thought was actually incorrect.
The
negative refutation was completed, and Socrates began the positive
part of the dialectic
by asking the boy to recognize the validity
of certain propositions he had not yet thought of.
By presenting
these propositions in a step-by-step manner so that the boy
could
understand each one of them, he was finally able to grasp
and
fully understand the solution to the problem.
This spontaneous
recognition of what is incorrect or correct by closely examining
the possible solutions is an example of the boy’s recalling to
mind what is true.
He had no experience with geometry before,
but nevertheless he demonstrated his ability
to recognize and
know the solution to a difficult problem.206
Thus education is
not only possible, but through a correctly guided inquiry
any
person can actually learn to recognize any truth that exists!
Also since our beliefs are so often found to be faulty, there
is even a greater incentive
to question them, to search and inquire
so that we might shed our false opinions
and discover the real
truth of things.
No wonder Socrates was so committed to this process
of inquiry!
Since they now more fully realized that inquiry is worthwhile,
Socrates suggested they search together into the nature of virtue.
Meno, however, preferred to examine his original question,
which
was whether virtue could be taught.
Socrates agreed to work on
testing this hypothesis even though
they had not established what
virtue is.
What is taught must be a form of knowledge.
Virtue
is good, and knowledge or wisdom also made everything beneficial.
Therefore virtue must be closely related to wisdom.
If wisdom
is taught, and they agreed that it is, then by this argument virtue
must be taught.
However, if it can be taught there ought to be
teachers of it
and cases where they taught someone to be virtuous.
This search for a teacher of wisdom proved fruitless, and now
it looked
as though virtue could not be, or at least had not been,
taught.
Then Socrates suggested that virtue may not always be
based on actual knowledge
but in many cases merely is due to right
opinion.
Since people are virtuous without having learned it,
it appears as though virtue comes
from divine inspiration as a
gift of God; for the virtuous are often called divine or blessed.
This is the best conclusion available, but Socrates believed they
would never know
the certain truth until they inquired into and
discovered the actual nature of virtue.207
This gap in the dialectic
because of Meno’s desire to skip over this question
prevented
them from gaining the original definition they needed.
This idea of recollecting or recognizing knowledge one already
has
was also demonstrated in Xenophon’s Oikonomikos.
Here Socrates was learning about household management
and farming
from the successful Ischomachus.
Socrates was relating how this
gentleman assisted him in realizing all the things he knew
about
farming by simply asking him questions and reinforcing Socrates’ correct answers.
As Ischomachus asked each specific question,
Socrates became aware that he knew the answer.
I really wasn't aware that I understood these things;
and so I have been thinking for some time
whether my knowledge extends to smelting gold,
playing the flute, and painting pictures.
For I have never been taught these things
any more than I have been taught farming;
but I have watched men working at these arts,
just as I have watched them farming.208
This is the ability of the soul to learn simply by giving attention
to something.
Socrates commented on this method of education that
he was experiencing.
At first he thought he did not know,
but
the questioning had artfully revealed to him what he did know.
Of course there is nothing in what you have said
that I don't know, Ischomachus.
But I am again set thinking what can have made me
answer 'No' to the question you put to me a while ago,
when you asked me briefly if I understood planting.
For I thought I would have nothing to say
about the right method of planting.
But now that you have undertaken to question me
in particular, my answers, you tell me, agree exactly
with the views of a farmer so famous for his skill as yourself!
Can it be that questioning is a kind of teaching, Ischomachus?
The fact is, I have just discovered
the plan of your series of questions!
You lead me by paths of knowledge familiar to me,
point out things like what I know,
and bring me to think that I really know things
that I thought I had no knowledge of.209
This indicates that the understanding of Socrates’ dialectical
method
and theory of recognition was not limited to the works
of Plato.
Part of the process of dialectic is for the participants to correct
each other as best they can.
The better they are at doing this,
the more accurate is the discussion likely to be.
In the discussion
of knowledge Theaetetus was willing to offer his ideas because
of his
confidence that Socrates would point out any mistakes he
made and set him right.
Socrates agreed to do this as well as
he could.210
Also in discussion Socrates paid close attention to
the whole
manner of the person, not just his words.
In the Republic
he treated Glaucon and Adeimantus much differently than Thrasymachus
even though the debate over justice and injustice was similar.
He said, “I infer this from your general character,
since from your words I should have distrusted you.”211
Although
they were taking the same side of the argument as the angry sophist,
their purpose and intention in doing so was completely different.
Another principle of the dialectical process is that
each person
must agree on the points as they proceed.
Otherwise they would
have to take a vote or a tally at the end,
and the conclusion
would obviously be in doubt.
Even Thrasymachus agreed to this
method.
Socrates suggested to him, “If, as in the preceding discussion, we come to terms
with one another as to what we admit in the inquiry,
we shall be ourselves both judges and pleaders.”212
Step-by-step agreement is what enables true progress
to be made
and acceptance of the eventual conclusion.
A very elevated dialectic took place in the Phaedo as
Socrates
endeavored to demonstrate the immortality of the soul.
The setting was the prison on the last day of Socrates’ life,
and the topic of concern to everyone was death, which Socrates
was glad to discuss.
Socrates urged the others to ask any questions
on this subject
they might have because of their doubts and fears.
He moved one step at a time, first showing that life and death
are opposites which are
generated out of each other like sleeping
and waking, and then calling upon the doctrine
of recollection
to indicate that souls existed before birth
which is implied by
the soul’s ability to understand ideals.
Socrates distinguished
the invisible and lasting things from the visible and corruptible
things.
After Cebes and Simmias agreed to reincarnation but still
doubted the soul’s immortality
because of certain theories they
had heard, Socrates dealt with their questions,
very specifically
refuting them by showing their contradictions
with what they had
already accepted about the soul.
To demonstrate conceptually the
immortality of the soul,
Socrates needed first to gain their agreement
that ideas have an absolute existence.
He then went back to the
generation of opposites, indicated the difference between
concrete
opposites and the essential opposites of the absolute ideals,
and by identifying the soul with the essence of life,
showed that
it could not die and therefore must be immortal.213
In this example
Socrates was able to use propositions which were earlier admitted
as a foundation to demonstrate higher and more complicated ideas.
This shows the power and comprehensiveness that the dialectical
process can have.
Another common pedagogical technique that Socrates used
was to
summarize the main points already discussed.
Often the dialectic
took a roundabout course to refute or prove an argument,
and it
was often helpful to review the agreed-upon conclusions so that
everyone
would be clear on what the results were so far.
In the Phaedo Socrates restated
the argument of Cebes in order to be certain
that he had understood
it correctly.214
This is a useful technique in any communication.
In the Gorgias when
Callicles became frustrated and tired of the argument,
Socrates
with the encouragement of Gorgias carried on the discussion by
summarizing
the points made and requesting corrections from Callicles.215
This allowed Socrates to bring the main points home,
and eventually
he lulled Callicles back into the discussion.
In Xenophon’s Oikonomikos
after Socrates had gotten Critobulus to recognize the value
of
studying estate management, he deemed it useful to recapitulate
the points already
discussed so that Critobulus could review them
now that he was more open.
In fact Critobulus found pleasure in
discussing things they both agreed upon.216
Thus by means of the
review the young man was able to grasp the ideas
much better as
he really wished to do so now that he was motivated.
The beginning of the Timaeus is devoted to a brief outline
of the previous day’s discussion,
which is found in the Republic.213
Apparently Socrates
also found it useful to review discussions from previous occasions.
The conclusions were especially joyful when there were some positive
propositions
which had been agreed upon, as at the close of the Philebus.
A list of
priorities had been drawn up showing that the suitable mean,
symmetrical
beauty and perfection, intelligence and wisdom, and the arts and
sciences
all rank above the pleasures, even the pure ones.
These
results were happily offered before the witness of Zeus
even though all the animals of the world might assert otherwise.218
Here Socrates
and his friends found particular strength in their agreement based
on
the inquiry even though they might be outnumbered by those
who were thoughtless.
The conclusion in this case became almost
a firm resolve.
We have examined in considerable detail the various pedagogical
techniques and methods
that Socrates used by looking at many instances
where he has been described employing them.
The summary of these
will appear in Chapter 14 where
they will be compared to the methods
of Confucius.
To continue our descriptive portrait of Socrates
as an educator we turn now
to an investigation of the subjects
he discussed.
1. Plato Timaeus 27.
2. Plato Republic IV, 432.
3. Plato Phaedrus 279.
4. Plato Alcibiades I 127.
5. Ibid. 135.
6. Plato Theages 128-129.
7. Ibid. 129-130.
8. Ibid. 130.
9. Plato Phaedo 95.
10. Plato Cratylus 396.
11. Ibid. 411.
12. Ibid. 428.
13. Field, G. C. Plato and His Contemporaries, p. 149.
14. Xenophon Memorabilia I, vi, 11-14.
15. Plato Theaetetus 146, 162.
16. Plato Phaedo 89 (38).
17. Plato Laches 181.
18. Ibid. 195.
19. Xenophon Symposium I, 2-7.
20. Ibid. III, 9.
21. Ibid. III, 10.
22. Xenophon Memorabilia. I, iii, 8.
23. Plato Euthyphro 11.
24. Plato Euthydemus 285.
25. Plato Euthyphro 15.
26. Plato Philebus 53-54.
27. Diogenes Laertius II, 33.
28. Ibid. II, 34.
29. Xenophon Memorabilia III, xiv, 1-6.
30. Xenophon Symposium II, 24-26.
31. Xenophon Memorabilia I, ii, 2-4.
32. Xenophon Memorabilia I, ii, 5-8.
33. Xenophon Apology 26.
34. Xenophon Symposium II, 4.
35. Ibid. VIII, 7-12.
36. Ibid. VIII, 27-28.
37. Ibid. VIII, 37-43.
38. Plato Charmides 169.
39. Plato Defense of Socrates 38-39.
40. Ibid. 41.
41. Plato Laches 186-187.
42. Ibid. 200-201.
43. Plato Gorgias 526-527.
44. Plato Euthydemus 278-282.
45. Plato Republic IX, 589-592.
46. Ibid. X, 621.
47. Plato Symposium 214.
48. Plato Phaedo 89-91.
49. Xenophon MemorabiliaI, iv, 1.
50. Xenophon Memorabilia IV, vii, 1-2.
51. Xenophon Apology 20.
52. Ibid. 29.
53. Plato Laches 180.
54. Plato Protagoras 311-314.
55. Ibid. 318-319.
56. Plato Theaetetus 143.
57. Plato Laches 187-188.
58. Xenophon Symposium III, 2-3.
59. Diogenes Laertius II, 62.
60. Ibid. II, 29-30.
61. Xenophon MemorabiliaIII, xiii, 1.
62. Xenophon MemorabiliaIII, xiii, 2.
63. Xenophon MemorabiliaIII, xiii, 3.
64. Xenophon Memorabilia III, xiii, 4.
65. Xenophon Memorabilia III, xiii, 5.
66. Xenophon Memorabilia III, xiii, 6.
67. Xenophon Memorabilia II, viii, 1-6.
68. Xenophon Memorabilia II, ix, 1-8.
69. Xenophon Memorabilia I, ii, 30.
70. Xenophon Memorabilia I, ii, 31.
71. Xenophon Memorabilia I, ii, 32.
72. Xenophon Memorabilia I, ii, 37.
73. Xenophon Memorabilia II, vii, 1-14.
74. Xenophon Anabasis III, i, 4-7.
75. Xenophon Memorabilia II, i, 1-34.
76. Xenophon Symposium IV, 24.
77. Xenophon Oeconomicus II, 11-18.
78. Ibid. III, 7-16.
79. Xenophon Memorabilia IV, ii, 1.
80. Xenophon Memorabilia IV, ii, 2.
81. Xenophon Memorabilia IV, ii, 3-7.
82. Xenophon Memorabilia IV, ii, 8-23.
83. Xenophon Memorabilia IV, ii, 24-29.
84. Xenophon Memorabilia IV, ii, 30-39.
85. Xenophon Memorabilia IV, ii, 40.
86. Plato. Alcibiades I 103-114.
87. Ibid. 115-124.
88. Ibid. 125-135.
89. Plato Phaedrus 228.
90. Plato Symposium 199-201.
91. Plato Theaetetus 144-145.
92. Plato Meno 71.
93. Ibid. 86.
94. Ibid. 90-92.
95. Plato Euthyphro 5.
96. Ibid. 9.
97. Apology 24-27.
98. Plato Crito 48-54.
99. Xenophon Memorabilia IV, i 1-5.
100. Plato Lysis 208-210.
101. Ibid. 212-223.
102. Plato Meno 80.
103. Plato Charmides 155-157.
104. Plato Phaedo 77-78.
105. Plato Parmenides 127-130.
106. Ibid. 135-136.
107. Plato Cratylus 391.
108. Ibid. 425-428.
109. Plato. Charmides 165-166.
110. Plato Theaetetus 148-150.
111. Ibid. 151.
112. Ibid. 157.
113. Ibid. 161.
114. Ibid. 162-184.
115. Plato Republic I, 328-331.
116. Ibid. I, 336-345.
117. Ibid. I, 345-354.
118. Xenophon Symposium IV, 56-60.
119. Ibid. V, 1-10.
120. Plato Alcibiades I 106.
121. Ibid. 112-114.
122. Plato Greater Hippias 286-304.
123. Plato Protagoras 320.
124. Ibid. 329.
125. Ibid. 334-347.
126. Plato Gorgias 449-454.
127. Plato Ibid. 458-461.
128. Ibid. 486-489.
129. Ibid. 462-467.
130. Ibid. 462.
131. Plato Euthyphro 14.
132. Plato Alcibiades I 115-116.
133. Plato Euthydemus 277-278.
134. Ibid. 288-289.
135. Ibid. 295-296.
136. Plato Phaedrus 234-237.
137. Plato Protagoras 342-347.
138. Plato Theaetetus 166-168.
139. Plato Menexenus 236-249.
140. Plato Timaeus 19-20.
141. Plato Critias 108.
142. Xenophon Memorabilia I, vi, 14.
143. Xenophon Memorabilia, ii, 56-59.
144. Xenophon Memorabilia II, i, 10; P. Protagoras 340.
145. Xenophon Memorabilia III, ii, 1-4.
146. Xenophon Symposium II, 4; P. Meno 95-96.
147. Plato Protagoras 339-348.
148. Plato Ion 530-542.
149. Plato Symposium 221-222.
150. Plato Charmides 165-166.
151. Plato Ion 533-536.
152. Plato Plato Cratylus 387-390.
153. Plato Republic I, 332-342.
154. Ibid. I, 341-342.
155. Ibid. II, 368-369.
156. Ibid. IV, 434-435.
157. Ibid. IV, 436-440.
158. Ibid. IV, 429-430.
159. Ibid. VI, 488-489.
160. Ibid. VIII, 544-569.
161. Plato Theaetetus 197-200.
162. Ibid. 202-210.
163. Ibid. 191-195.
164. Plato Philebus 17-18.
165. Ibid. 38-40.
166. Plato Gorgias 464-465.
167. Ibid. 477-478.
168. Ibid. 505.
169. Ibid. 493.
170. Xenophon Memorabilia II, i, 21-34.
171. Plato Philebus 63-64.
172. Plato Crito 50-54.
173. Plato Phaedo 84-85.
174. Plato Republic IV, 432.
175. Ibid. VI, 506-511.
176. Plato Phaedo 109-110.
177. Plato Republic VII, 514-517.
178. Ibid. VII, 517-521.
179. Ibid. IX, 588-591.
180. Plato Phaedrus 255.
181. Ibid. 246-257.
182. Plato Symposium 203.
183. Xenophon SymposiumVIII, 28-31.
184. Plato Phaedrus 274-275.
185. Plato Charmides 156-157.
186. Plato Gorgias 523-527.
187. Plato. Republic X, 614-621.
188. Xenophon Symposium II, 11-12.
189. Ibid. VIII, 31-39.
190. Plato Charmides 159-161.
191. Plato Ion 541.
192. Xenophon Symposium VII, 2-5.
193. Plato Statesman 257.
194. Plato Theaetetus 151-165.
195. Plato Phaedrus 262-266.
196. Plato Republic V, 454-456.
197. Ibid. IX, 582-583.
198. Xenophon Memorabilia IV, vi, 1-15.
199. Plato Charmides 161-163.
200. Plato Euthyphro 5-15.
201. Plato Theaetetus 146-148.
202. Plato Meno 71-80.
203. Ibid. 75.
204. Ibid. 80.
205. Ibid. 81.
206. Ibid. 81-86.
207. Ibid. 86-100.
208. Xenophon Oeconomicus XVIII, 9.
209. Ibid. XIX, 14-15.
210. Plato Theaetetus 146.
211. Plato Republic II, 368.
212. Ibid. I, 348.
213. Plato Phaedo 70-106.
214. Ibid. 95.
215. Plato Gorgias 506-509.
216. Xenophon Oeconomicus VI, 1-10.
217. Plato Timaeus 17-19.
218. Plato Philebus 66-67.
This chapter has been published in the book
CONFUCIUS AND SOCRATES Teaching Wisdom.
For ordering information, please click here.