Socrates, Reductionism, and Proper Levels of Explanation
Science — formerly known as natural philosophy — is pretty much the only game in town when it comes to understanding and explaining the world
Turns out, I have something in common with Socrates. Don’t worry, this essay isn’t about self-aggrandizing. It’s just that, rather surprisingly, Socrates and I have followed a similar career, 24 centuries apart. You see, like myself, he started out as a scientist. And, like myself, he ended up a philosopher, and specifically one interested in ethics. Moreover, the two career moves were motivated in part by a similar shift in interest. Let me explain.
The Phaedo is one of the most famous Platonic dialogues, the one in which we relive the last few hours of Socrates. (Luckily, in that our life trajectories depart, at least at the moment!) He has been condemned by the Athenian assembly, on charges of impiety (believing in the wrong gods) and corruption of the city’s youth, charges brought against him by a trio of shady characters: Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon.
Much of the Phaedo is devoted to Socrates’ ideas about the immortality of the soul, and the dialogue is pretty forgettable in terms of modern philosophy. Except, of course, the poignant end. And the bit I’m about to…
