Philosophy 101, By Paul Klienman

Before Socrates, philosophy was the study of nature. In his book Philosophy 101, Paul Klienman writes, “Whereas pre-Socratic philosophers examined the natural world, Socrates placed emphasis on the human experience. He focused on individual morality, questioned what made a good life, and discussed social and political questions” (12). Born in 469 B.C. (c), Socrates was a poor and unattractive man, veteran of the Peloponnesian War, and father to three sons (12). “It was in the new and unique way,” Klienman writes, “that he approached knowledge, consciousness, and morality that Socrates would forever change philosophy (13).

At the turn of the fourth century, Klienman describes Athens as having “an identity crisis of sorts and became fixated on physical beauty, ideas of wealth, and romanticizing the past” (12). Socrates disagreed with these ideas and “grew to have many enemies” (13). “In 399 B.C.,

Socrates was arrested and brought to trial with charges of being unreligious and corrupting the city's youth. [He] was found guilty and was sentenced to death by poisonous drink” (13).

It was during this trial that Socrates gave his defense in four points, which was originally documented by Plato in the “Apology.” Writer T.Z.

Lavine explains in his book From Socrates to Sartre, these points of not only Socrates' defense, but of his philosophy as well. “The only true wisdom,” he writes, “consists in knowing that you know nothing” (15). Lavine describes the second point as “[. . .] the improvement or 'tendance' of the soul, the care for wisdom and truth, is the highest good. [. . .] Virtue does not come from money, but from virtue comes money and every other good thing for mankind, public and private” (15). Lavine describes the third point as the Athenians throwing a gift back in the face of their own gods. Socrates' point being that their gods sent him “to be stirred by [his] sting” (16). Socrates' final defense was, as explained by Lavine, “If virtue is knowledge, and if to know the good is to do the good, then wrongdoing comes only from failure to know what is good. [. . .] if you really understood the right thing to do, you would have done it”

(16).

Socrates was sentenced to death and in the time before execution, his friends arranged for an escape; Socrates refused. In volume one of his series A History of Philosophy, writer Frederick Copleston writes, “[He] refused to avail himself of their kind offers, on the ground that such a course would be contrary to his principles.” Instead, his last day was “a day that was spent by Socrates in discoursing on the immortality of the soul with Theban friends Cebes and Simmias. [. . .] When the poison reached his heart there was convulsive movement and he died, 'and Crito, perceiving it, closed his mouth and eyes. [It] was the end of our friend, a man, we should say, who was the best of all his time that we have known, and moreover, the most wise and just'” (115).