| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Matt Williams
Fledgling
6 Posts |
 Posted - Feb 16 2009 : 12:43:42 PM
|
In any scholarly discussion, it's necessary to analyze not only the arguments, but also the sources that are used to create the arguments. In class, we have spent a lot of time discussing Socrates, who he was, what he did, and what, if any, kinds of differences there are between the historical Socrates and the traditional Socrates. This last question has given me a lot to meditate about, and I find that one of the most interesting ways to approach it is to take a deep look at the sources we have for Socrates, and more specifically, what the motives behind the sources' writings are.
Here are my ideas as to what each author is trying to accomplish with his writings:
Xenophon: I have a very hard time trying to classify Xenophon and his writings. There is a lack of the kind of drama that you see in Plato's writings, and his stories seem extremely bland compared to those of the other two writers. Xenophon, unlike Plato, does not appear to insert any drama into his dialogues for the sake of adding drama. At first, I was leaning towards the thought that Xenophon's lack of excessive detail was an indication that he was writing some sort of biographical, historical look at the actual Socrates. Lately, I've tried to pull myself away from that view, and consider other possibilities. The main motive I see outside of possibly providing an accurate, historical representation of Socrates' life and death, is a sort of postmortem plea for all Athenians to save the legacy of Socrates. I think it is quite clear that Xenophon believes that Socrates was incorrectly put to death. This idea may be based on his writings relative to Plato's, but I don't find that Xenophon is trying to do anything revolutionary. He seems to simply be trying to point out the injustice that was served to Socrates.
Aristophanes: Aristophanes offers a unique perspective into the life of Socrates, and I say this primarily because Aristophanes' play, The Clouds was written during Socrates' lifetime. I find that he also represents the side of the accusers of Socrates in his trial, being among those who found Socrates to be guilty of crimes against Athens. What I find most interesting about Aristophanes and his play is that it not only shows us a clear distaste for Socrates, but it also appears to be a satire about academia in general, of which Socrates would have been a major part. I think it's probable that Aristophanes wrote The Clouds not only as a shot at Socrates, but also as a shot at anyone who was a part of academia and wasn't fully in favor of classic Athenian traditions.
Plato: Plato's motives in describing Socrates are probably the easiest to find. Plato is clearly searching for a revolution of thought, a revolution that would move everyone away from the classic Athenian tradition, and into the Socratic state of mind. This is evident throughout Plato's works, where there is incredible dramatic detail regarding what Socrates has to say, and why he says it. As much as I dislike using the word "martyr" for this situation.* I can't find a better word for what Plato is attempting to do with the death of Socrates. Plato uses dialogues such as The Apology and The Crito to exaggerate to their fullest extent the logical processes of Socrates. From what I see in Plato's writings, Socrates seems to be some sort of infallible logician, one whose only worthy adversaries are those that Socrates himself creates (e.g., Diotima and the Laws).
So, I've outlined my thoughts, and was wondering what kind of thoughts others had.
_____________
* I don't like using the word "martyr" because I would be using it in the modern, Catholic sense, basically saying that Socrates died because of his refusal to betray his commitment his beliefs. In Greek, the word means witness, which I don't find quite fits into what I think is trying to be done. I've been unsuccessful in finding another word that would cover what I'm trying to describe.
[Very lightly edited to enhance readability -TT] |
|
|
Zach Ramey
Newcomer
4 Posts |
|
|
Alicia Heckman
Newcomer
2 Posts |
Posted - Feb 19 2009 : 10:35:57 PM
|
| I read in the Conversations of Socrates that "...Xenophon's Socratic works can be described as quasi-fictional" (54). So why would Xenophon write conversations of Socrates that are not totally correct? Does that mean that people of today do not totally know, for a fact, that all the conversations that have been published are totally true? |
 |
|
|
Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin
1368 Posts |
Posted - Feb 21 2009 : 08:00:58 AM
|
Alicia, you and I talked about a number of things before class on Friday that were connected with what you've posted here, mostly having to do with the last question that you ask in what you posted, but we didn't really talk about your first question: "[W]hy would Xenophon write conversations of Socrates that are not totally correct?" Matt's made one suggestion in his post right at the top of this thread: Xenophon was making "a sort of postmortem plea for all Athenians to save the legacy of Socrates." In making such a plea, one might well be motivated -- maybe without even realizing it -- to gild the lily just a bit, i.e., to cast the plea in terms that would maximize people's receptivity to it. And that could certainly result in one's writings' diverging somewhat from the truth. Zach's reading suggests much the same thing. On his view, too, Xenophon was trying to mount a defense, and in mounting a defense, it's always easy to be carried away, to stretch the truth, and to minimize the shortcomings of the person one is defending.
But of course there are other possibilities too. Xenophon may not have known the truth about Sokrates. Perhaps he didn't really know Sokrates all that well or, even if he did know him well, didn't really understand him. Perhaps Sokrates' famous irony misled Xenophon as it so often misled others. Perhaps Sokrates' method of asking people questions to get them to say what they thought about various things led Xenophon to assume mistakenly that Sokrates must have believed many of the things that he, Xenophon, himself believed -- even if, as a matter of fact, Sokrates wouldn't himself have said any of those things at all. Any or all of these things could easily have resulted in inadvertent inaccuracies in Xenophon's picture of Sokrates, maybe even really serious inaccuracies.
What do all of the rest of you think about this? Are there other motives Xenophon might well have had -- or other facts about Xenophon -- that could have resulted in his painting an inaccurate picture of Sokrates? |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Motives of Socratic Authors
Forum Locked
