Scan barcode
A review by socraticgadfly
The Trial of Socrates by I. F. Stone
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.