Scan barcode
shiradest's review
5.0
This excellent, well-researched, engaging and even at times sadly funny book is well worth owning, rereading, and researching further. Stone suggests, highly recommends in the strongest terms, learning the ancient Greek for oneself, and I heartily agree. These ancient plays and commentaries have the strongest bearing on our current situation, and need to be looked at critically again.
alliterationaristocrat's review
3.0
While a very enjoyable read, with lots of new information, the unmitigated bias that Stone shows throughout the book pulls it from a well-researched 4 stars, to a journalistic 3 stars. If only for his use of emotionally charged adjectives.
All that being said, definitely worth the read, even if this is more a book on Platos ideals, as spoken by his character Socrates, than on Socrates himself.
All that being said, definitely worth the read, even if this is more a book on Platos ideals, as spoken by his character Socrates, than on Socrates himself.
socraticgadfly's review
5.0
The real Socrates (and Plato, too?) revealed
Socrates was NOT a democrat, of course. His touting of Sparta, and his relations to Alciabiades and other authoritarian rebels makes that clear.
But, Stone also points out that he wasn't an intellectual egalitarian, either, and that the "Socratic method," to the degree it is touted as egalitarian, or anything similar, is a fraud.
If anybody was egalitarian at that time, it was Protagoras and Socrates' other Sophist opponents. As Athens hand no lawyers, not even government prosecutors, citizens pressed their own cases, civil and criminal alike.
Hence, skills in rhetoric were hugely valuable.
Reading through the lines of Plato's "winners write history" description of Socrates, it's clear that he was interested in setting up straw men, etc., rather than having a legitimate, question-based search and dialogue. And, of course, we don't know the Sophists' *real* answers, just what Plato put on their lips. And, Stone sets you up to see all of that.
That all said, the book isn't perfect. Not all of Stone's conclusions are warranted. But, it's still the valued corrective to hagiography of Socrates that it was when it came out.
Socrates was NOT a democrat, of course. His touting of Sparta, and his relations to Alciabiades and other authoritarian rebels makes that clear.
But, Stone also points out that he wasn't an intellectual egalitarian, either, and that the "Socratic method," to the degree it is touted as egalitarian, or anything similar, is a fraud.
If anybody was egalitarian at that time, it was Protagoras and Socrates' other Sophist opponents. As Athens hand no lawyers, not even government prosecutors, citizens pressed their own cases, civil and criminal alike.
Hence, skills in rhetoric were hugely valuable.
Reading through the lines of Plato's "winners write history" description of Socrates, it's clear that he was interested in setting up straw men, etc., rather than having a legitimate, question-based search and dialogue. And, of course, we don't know the Sophists' *real* answers, just what Plato put on their lips. And, Stone sets you up to see all of that.
That all said, the book isn't perfect. Not all of Stone's conclusions are warranted. But, it's still the valued corrective to hagiography of Socrates that it was when it came out.
secarles's review
4.0
The writing is quite accessible. It's a well told story. Not everyone will agree with Stone's assertions, but he makes a valiant effort at showing an alternative side to Socrates.
More...