WEEK 7: Who is Socrates?

Tuesday’s Class 10/06

In class today, we, again, discussed the similarities and the many differences differences between Alcibiades and Socrates. There were of course a lot more differences than similarities. Ironically, even though Socrates mentored Alcibiades, their leadership styles and personalities couldn’t be more different.

Socrates vs. Alcibiades Leadership Methods

• Socrates isn’t good at reading audiences; Alcibiades is.
• Socrates is all about the truth and does not have remarks prepared; Alcibiades’ speech is planned and strategic.
• Socrates refuses to win people over by pleading or affecting their feelings; Alcibiades plays on emotions to get what he wants.
• Socrates accepts his punishments; Alcibiades does anything to save himself when in trouble.
• Socrates believes that one should never hurt anyone because it is bad for your soul and it is much better to be the victim than the one who harms; Alcibiades is not afraid to use instrumental aggression.
• Socrates is stable and never changes who he is; Alcibiades is a chameleon.
• Socrates leads by making the community pious; Alcibiades leads by making people happy.

The similarities between Socrates and Alcibiades and Socrates include that that they are both unapologetic-ally defiant and are both very grandiose.

Psychopathy of Socrates

So, I was very bothered during Tuesday’s class period because just about everyone was in agreement that Socrates was not a psychopath. Why did you all let him off so easily? I didn’t want to speak up until I heard multiple arguments and I had time to formulate my thoughts, but I believe that his actions were dismissed simply because Socrates’ name has a good connotation.

Here’s my argument: being a good person does not mean you are not a psychopath. Now I’m not saying that Socrates was definitely a psychopath. What I am saying is that it shouldn’t be put past him just because what he’s doing is “the right thing to do.”

My peers decided that though Socrates was grandiose and showed little emotion, he was very ethical, selfless, and had good friendships. Let me, first, address the friendships he had. Do you think that all psychopaths are lonely? They are people who like the company of other people, too. Psychopaths enjoy being praised by others and will do what it takes to keep them around. Who knows if Socrates REALLY loved them? He could have used them for his own purposes. Like we said, he was grandiose and felt very highly of himself. Why not have a posse that feels the same way about you.

Now, you all gave Socrates credit for being ethical. But here’s the thing — psychopaths live by sets of rules, wrongs and rights. Him having ethics does not prove that he is non-psychopathic. His ethics are based off of what he believes to be the truth:
(1) he was chosen by the gods to help the people, and
(2) it is important to be good to people because if not, your soul will bad and you will be in bad standing with the gods.

So, we agreed, as a class, that this first claim portrays grandiosity. How can you not see that the second is incredibly selfish? “Don’t do wrong to others because YOUR soul will be bad and YOU’LL suffer. Compare this to modern-day psychopaths’ thinking: “Don’t kill because you’ll be put in jail.” Socrates’ reasoning directly correlates. “Don’t harm because your soul will be bad.” Neither of these show concern for the party acted upon, only one’s self.

Socrates’ “morals” are simply his truth. They’re like his known facts. “Do bad and you’ll be in trouble.” Not that doing wrong to others is sad for the others, it’s just inconvenient for the self.

My Ideal Leader- Socrates or Alcibiades?

Socrates in a perfect world, Alcibiades in the world as is.

If we could start over, I would love to have Socrates as our leader. People would value doing the right thing with seemingly “unselfish” motives. Doing wrong to others would be frowned upon.

In the world as it is now, Socrates would be a terrible failure. This world, specifically America, has taught us that it is okay to hold people under water so that you won’t sink. We are selfish and are willing to make it to the top by any means necessary (within the law usually). It is too late for Socrates to try to come and change us. Alcibiades is the leader that we want. He would tell us what we want to hear and feed into what we think we need.

My opinion of Socrates?

Socrates is terribly annoying. His entire life consists of playing the devil’s advocate. He just seeks debate to prove you wrong and make you question what you thought you knew. I absolutely love it.

Plato’s vs. Xenophon’s Apology of Socrates

During Tuesday’s class period, we also discussed the differences between the two different variations of the story of Socrates’ trial.

• Plato’s Apology is more of a report of exactly what happened in the courtroom. It is a complete description of the three speeches delivered by Socrates at his trial. Xenophon’s is a description of Socrates’ actions before, during, and after trial.
• In Plato’s Apology, Socrates speaks directly to the jury. In contrast, instead of a straightforward address to the jury, Xenophon uses second-hand reporting. He gives Socrates’ address to the jury as reported to him by Hermogenes.
• In Plato’s Apology, Socrates proposes a counter-penalty. In Xenophon’s he does not.
• In Plato’s Apology, Socrates is humble when giving the oracle anecdote and does not deem himself wise. In Xenophon’s he tells the story with pride and explains why he is so wise.

Assessment Questions

1. What is the difference between and intellectual/spiritual leader and a political one? How might their goals and character differ? What conflicts might intellectual/spiritual leaders face in a political environment? — The intellectual/spiritual leader is a servant leader while the political leader is a self-serving one. — The intellectual/spiritual leader often shows their true self while the political leader uses impression management and shows their practiced personality. — The intellectual/spiritual leader makes actions based off of what is right while the political leader acts how he should to get what he wants — The intellectual/spiritual leader has a stable and unchanging personality while the political leader tends to be a chameleon. — The intellectual/spiritual leader leads by making the community ethical and pious while the political leader leads by making people feel good. — The intellectual/spiritual leader appeals to the people logically while the political leader appeals to the people emotionally. — Intellectual/spiritual leaders may face many socialist accusations and be deemed not fit for making right decisions to benefit the people in the way that they would like to be.
2. Here is an notice for the position of Cannon Missioner to Historic Black Churches. What challenges would you expect this leader to face? What leadership role have you held that is most similar to this one? Would you be a good candidate for this position, either now or in the future? Why or why not? — He will face the challenge of quelling the people who disagree with the changes he is trying to make. He will also have to face challenges from the current church leaders who will try to downplay his actual power and attempt to hinder his progress.
3. Why does Socrates think the soul is immortal? Which of his arguments do you find weakest and which most persuasive? — Socrates’ first argument that just as the souls of the dead in the underworld come from those living in this world, the living souls come back from those of the dead was actually the weakest of his arguments that I’ve ever read in my life. It actually made me laugh, because his analogies are just very… not the same thing. At all. Not all things come from their opposite states in both directions. True, larger comes from smaller. But smaller usually does not come from larger. Just as death comes from life, but life may not come from death. Also, his analogy of larger and smaller are comparative adjectives while life and death are nouns and mean something on their own. — The strongest is the affinity argument, that we have 2 existences- one we experience with our senses and one we experience with our minds. the first we experience only with our bodies and the second is a part of us. So, even when the body dies, our real selves still exist.