Chapter 2 Volume 1 Chapter 2

Reply to other charges against Socrates.He did not corrupt the youth, for all his instruction was to exhort them from sin, and to encourage them to cultivate self-control and every virtue, v. 1-8.He exhorts them to obey the law, v. 9-11.If Critias and Alcebiades became bad after he taught him, it is not his fault, § 11-28.Before they departed from him; he had endeavored to save them, and some others, who followed his teachings fully, became noble and virtuous men, v. 28-48.Refuting other trivial charges, §49-60.His benevolence, disinterestedness, and general merit, pp. 61-64. Another thing that I find strange is that anyone should believe that Socrates corrupted youth.Besides what we have said about him above, Socrates was not only the man who most strictly controlled his passions and appetites, but also the man who could best stand cold, heat, and hard labor of every kind; He was also a man very accustomed to living frugally, and though his possessions were meager, he easily made them adequate.With such a noble character in himself, how can he make others ungodly, lawless, extravagant, incontrollable, or too feeble to bear toil?On the contrary, he stopped many from committing crimes, led them to love virtue, and gave them hope that, if they behaved prudently, they would become honorable and honorable men.He did not, of course, claim to be such a teacher, but the fact that he showed himself to be such a man gave those who associated with him the hope that, if they behaved like him, they could be, too. people like him.

He never neglected physical fitness, nor did he praise those who neglected it.He disapproved of people engaging in unrestrained labor after overeating, but he suggested that people use moderate labor to digest as much food as possible after eating happily; he said that such a habit is beneficial to health, At the same time, there is no hindrance to taking care of the soul.He is neither showy nor ostentatious in his clothes, shoes, or other habits of life.He did not, however, make those with him money-lovers, for he required temperance in them, as in other desires; and to those who desire to hear him, He himself did not ask for monetary rewards.He believed that the man who did not get paid was thinking of his own freedom, and called those who demanded pay to teach were forcing themselves into slavery, because they had to discuss with those who paid him.He was also amazed that anyone who professed to teach virtue should demand money for reward, not thinking that the acquisition of a friend was in itself the greatest advantage, but fearing that those who by their help would become honorable and worthy. Respectful people do not feel sincere gratitude to their greatest benefactor.Indeed, Socrates did not express this clearly to anyone, but he firmly believed that anyone who made friends with him and accepted his opinions would inevitably become good friends of himself and others.How can men of such noble character corrupt youth; is the cultivation of virtue itself corrupt?

His accuser said: "But, as I swear by Deus, he does indeed make those who associate with him despise the existing law, because he says, 'It is not good to cast lots for the heads of states. Very foolishly, no one would cast the beans for a helmsman, or architect, or flute player, or any other trade, where doing it wrong could do more harm than Much less mistakes have been made in the administration of state'"; they said, "Such speeches arouse dissatisfaction among young people with the existing form of government and incline them to acts of violence".But I think that young men who use reason, and hope to be able to guide their fellow men for their benefit, will never resort to violence, because they know that hatred and danger often accompany violence, but use the method of good persuasion, The same effect can be achieved without risk.Those whom we compel hate us as if we have robbed them, and those whom we persuade love us as if they have received some favor from us.Therefore, no one trained to exercise reason will use violence, because only those who have brute force and lack the training of reason will resort to such actions.Besides, a man who dares to use violence must need a lot of followers, but he who can win by persuasion does not need these, because even if he is alone, he will still have the power of persuasion; There will be no bloodshed, for who wants to put a man to death when he can be persuaded to keep him alive?

"However," said the accuser, "Critias and Alcbiadis, after their association with Socrates, have inflicted a great deal of evil on the country; Critias is the most greedy and the most tyrannical of men, and Alcibiades the most indulgent, haughty, and tyrannical of all democracies." I do not want to excuse either of the evils they have done to the state; I will simply say Let's take a look at how they got close to Socrates.These two were by nature the most ambitious of all Athenians, always wishing that everything should go their way, and make themselves the most famous of all.But they knew that Socrates was the man who could live most contentedly on a meager income, who could exercise the most restraint in all kinds of pleasures, and who could use his arguments as he pleased with all those with whom he conversed. .That being the case, and they were such men as I have described above, who can be sure that their motive in associating with Socrates was the desire to live like Socrates and practice his temperance? , instead of the desire that if they associate with him, they will be masters of talk and deed?In fact, my own opinion is that if the gods had given them the choice between living Socrates' life or dying, they would have preferred death to Socrates' life.For as soon as they think themselves superior to their fellows, they immediately leave Socrates, engage in political life, and realize their purpose of associating with Socrates.

It may be said here that Socrates should have taught his disciples self-control before he taught them politics.To this I shall not at present reply, but it seems to me that all teachers set the example to their pupils, and inspire them by admonishment, to the extent that they themselves practice their precepts.I know that Socrates set an example to those who associated with him with his honorable personality and nobility of character, and that he also gave admirable lectures on virtue and other subjects connected with mankind.I also know that these people practiced self-control during their association with Socrates, not because they feared his punishment or beating, but because they were convinced at the time that such behavior was the best behavior.

Many who profess to be lovers of knowledge will perhaps say that it is impossible for a man once to be just to be unjust; or to be prudent again to be imprudent; After acquiring knowledge through education, it is impossible to become ignorant again.But this is not my opinion on matters of this kind; it seems to me that whoever does not exercise his body cannot do what his body is supposed to do, just as he who does not exercise his mind cannot do what his soul should Such people can neither do what they ought to do, nor can they refrain from doing what they should not do.It is for this reason that, in spite of the good qualities of the sons, the fathers refrain them from associating with the wicked, because they are convinced that the association of the good is an exercise of virtue, but the corruption of virtue by association with the wicked.A poet also testified to this truth when he said:

You will learn good things with good people; but with bad people you will lose your discernment. Another poet also said: A good man is good at one time and bad at another. I also agree with them; for it seems to me that, as men forget their verses without repeating them, so also do those who neglect their precepts forget their lessons.When a man forgets the precepts of virtue, he also forgets what the soul feels in the pursuit of virtue; and when he forgets this, it is not surprising that he neglects self-control.I have also seen that those who indulge in drink and in love are not as good as they used to be in tending to what they ought to do and restraining themselves from doing what they ought not to do; Formerly frugal in expenses, they could not continue to do so after their love; You can't restrain yourself from doing it.How, then, is it impossible that a man who is once capable of self-control can later lose it, who is once able to do justice, can later become incapable of doing it?It seems to me that everything that is honorable and good is maintained by exercise, and self-control is no exception; for the desires that are planted in the body with the soul, are constantly stimulating it to give up self-control, In order to satisfy the requirements of desire in the body as soon as possible.

When Critias and Alcibiades were in the company of Socrates, by the example of Socrates they were able to control their immoral tendencies; but when they left Socrates , Critias fled to Sethalia, where he befriended some men who were not just but blind to fraud; Alcbiadis was also courted by many women because of his beauty, even some of noble family. and because he was powerful in the city-state and allies, he was seduced and corrupted by many flatterers, and the people respected him, so that he easily obtained a superior position among them, just as Just as the man who wrestles in sports neglects exercise because he feels himself considerably stronger than others, so he neglects self-control.Being so fortunate, having a noble birth to be proud of, wealth making them proud, power making them arrogant, and many bad friends corrupting their virtues, all these make them morally bankrupt and grow up. When they were not with Socrates during the period, what is there to blame for them becoming stubborn and self-willed?If they did something wrong, should the accusers blame Socrates?Was Socrates not at all creditable to his accusers for making them cautious when they were young, very reckless and unrestrained?But men do not judge in this way about other things; when some flute player, or harp master, or other teacher, has taught capable pupils, these pupils turn to other teachers, so that in skill Become less proficient and be blamed for this degradation?What father would blame the first of the two for having made his son virtuous in association with one, and immoral in association with another? Woolen cloth?Didn't he praise the first person even more because his son's association with the second one became worse?Even the parents themselves, if they themselves are well behaved, will not be blamed for anything bad their sons do while with them.It is right to judge Socrates in the same manner; if he himself has done something immoral, he is justified in calling him a villain; but if he has always been moral, how can he be justified by the crimes of others? Who is to blame?

Or, though he has done no wrong himself, when he sees others doing wrong he praises them, and is justified in condemning him.But when Socrates knew that Critias was obsessed with Eusudaimus, and that he pursued being with him for the sake of pleasure, just like those who destroy other people's bodies for lustful purposes, Socrates advised him He must not be so intent on begging and begging the one whom he loves (whom he expects to be venerated) that he begs like a beggar for favors, especially when such favors are not for a legitimate purpose, which Such conduct is vulgar and unbecoming of a man with a sense of honor and justice.But since Critias disregarded such advice, and refused to turn away from the object he was pursuing, Socrates is said to have said in the presence of Eusudemus and many others: Come on, Critias's mood is like that of a pig. He wants to rub Eusudemus as a pig rubs against a stone. Therefore, Critias is very fond of Socrates. Resentful, when he became one of the Thirty Tyrants, and was appointed Legislator with Hallicles, he recalled the unhappiness, and added to his laws "Let no one teach oratory "One, wanted to insult Socrates, but he didn't know how to injure Socrates in particular, he just attributed to Socrates what the masses accused the general philosophers of, so as to slander him in front of the people; at least this It's my own opinion, because I haven't heard Socrates say anything like that myself, and I don't recall hearing him say it.But it turns out that this was the case: for when the Thirty Tyrants killed many of the city's people (none of whom were inferior) and encouraged many to do bad things, Socrates said something along the lines of: what he felt It is amazing that when a man who is responsible for herding livestock has fewer and fewer animals and the situation is getting worse, this person does not admit that he is a bad shepherd; A man became the chief of a city-state, and the people became fewer and fewer, and the situation became worse and worse. This person did not feel ashamed and realized that he was a bad chief.This passage was reported to the Thirty Tyrants, and Critias and Halicles summoned Socrates to them, and showed him the law, forbidding him to speak to the youth.Socrates asked if they could question them about things he did not understand about the prohibition.They gave him permission.He said, "Then I am prepared to keep the law, but lest I should inadvertently break the law through ignorance, I want to be clear that you ban oratory because you think it is used Helping people to speak right words, or do you think it is used to help people speak right words? For if it is used to help people speak right words, it is obvious that we must not speak right words; If it is used to help people say the wrong thing, it is obvious that we should try to say the right thing."

Harry Chris was furious at him and said: "Socrates, since you are ignorant, we will tell you an order that is easy to understand, and you are not allowed to talk to young people at all." Socrates said: "In that case, so that there may be no doubt as to whether I obey the law, please specify for me how old a person can be considered a young man!" Harry Chris replied: "As long as they are not members of Parliament, as long as they are not of age, as long as they are not thirty, you must not talk to them." Socrates said, "If I want to buy something and a man under thirty is selling it, can't I ask him how much he sells it for?"

Harry Chris replied, "These questions can be asked, but many of the questions you often ask are when you know exactly how things are; therefore, such questions are not allowed to be asked." Socrates said, "If a young man asked me such questions as, 'Where does Halicis live', or, 'Where is Critias?', if I knew it, would I also Can't you answer him?" "You can answer that kind of question," Harry Chris said. "But," Critias added, "you must not talk about those shoemakers, carpenters, blacksmiths, etc., to be honest, because you have often talked about them, and they are now rotten by you." Socrates said, "In this way, I cannot learn from these people, that is, I cannot learn from them about justice, godliness, etc." "Yes, I swear by Deus," retorted Hallicles, "and you must not learn from the shepherd; otherwise, you must be careful that you yourself will reduce the stock."From this it is clear that they were angry with Socrates because what he had said about the beasts had reached them. How Critias treated Socrates, and how they behaved towards each other, has already been described.But I now point out this: No man can receive a true education from his teacher if he does not like him.During their acquaintance with Socrates, Critias and Alcibiades did not like their teacher, but from the first they aspired to the leadership of the city; for When they were still with Socrates, they took great pleasure in talking with those who governed political affairs. It is said that Alcbiadis, before the age of twenty, had conversed with his guardian and head of state Baili. Chris made the following talk on legal issues. He said, "Pray, Pericles, can you teach me what the law is?" "Of course," replied Pericles. Alcbiades said, "Instruct me, then, in the name of the gods! I have heard people praised for following the law, but I think that if a man does not know what the law is, he does not know what the law is." may justly receive such praise." "It's not very difficult for you to know what the law is," Pericles replied. "All the constitutions passed by the people's assembly are laws. They guide us what we should do and what we should do." It shouldn't be done." "Do they direct us to do good or to do evil?" "I swear to Teuss, of course it's a good thing, my boy," he said, "never a bad thing." "If it is not the whole people who come together to decide what we should do, but a few, such as an oligarchy, what are such regulations?" Regulations are laws," replied Pericles. "If a tyrant who controls the state power stipulates what the people should do, is such a regulation a law?" "Whatever a tyrant in power prescribes," replied Pericles, "whatever he prescribes is called a law." "What, then, Pericles," asks Alcebiadis, is violence and lawlessness? When the strong threaten the weak to do what he pleases, not by persuasion but by compulsion. Isn't it violence and lawlessness?" Pericles replied, "I think so." "Isn't it illegal, then, for a tyrant to enact regulations and force the people to do them without their consent?" "Yes," said Pericles, "it seems so to me, and now I withdraw my statement that the regulations which the tyrants have not been persuaded to make to the people are laws." "But is it violence or is it not violence that a few make by virtue of their superior power, without the consent of the majority?" Pericles said, "In my opinion, anything that is compelled by a man to do another without his consent, whether written or not, is violence and not law." "Then, when the people as a whole are stronger than the wealthy classes, the regulations they make without the consent of the rich classes are also violence instead of laws?" "It is true, Alcbiades," said Pericles, "that when I was your age I was good at such discussions, for we, like you now, studied and Discuss such issues.""Pericles," said Alcbiadis, "if only I could discuss these matters with you, when you were good at them!" Therefore, when Alcibiades and Critias thought themselves stronger than those who held power in the state, they at once stopped going to Socrates, (for in other respects he also Not as they wish, if they went to him, they were often annoyed at being reproached by Socrates for their faults), but went to political life, because it was for this purpose that they originally associated with Socrates.But Criton was also a man who listened to Socrates, and others, such as Haraiphon, Haraicrates, Helmogenes, Simmias, Caibes, and Feidondas, etc., who listened to Socrates. Crates lectures not to be an orator or a lawyer, but to be honorable and respectable good men, able to conduct themselves above reproach to their families, relatives, servants, friends, and their country and fellow men.None of these people, either in youth or in older age, did anything bad or were ever blamed."But Socrates at least teaches children to despise their fathers, and convinces his followers that they are wiser than their own parents," says the accuser, "by the law, he says, as long as a son can prove that his father is insane, could have taken the father into custody, and he took advantage of the situation to justify the detention of a more ignorant man by a wiser man."But what Socrates is saying is that, in his view, he who imprisons others for ignorance may justly be imprisoned by those who know what he does not know, and he often considers ignorance in such matters How is it different from madness; it seems to him that it is good for themselves and their friends to detain the insane, but those who do not know what they ought to know ought to learn from those who do . The accuser went on to say, "But Socrates not only made his disciples despise their parents, but he also made them despise other relatives, saying that kinship is not good for those who are sick or those who sue, Rather, doctors are helpful to the former and lawyers are helpful to the latter."The accuser also asserts that Socrates said about friends that their friendship is of no use unless they help each other; A little man deserves to be respected; thus he convinces the youth that he is the wisest man among men, and that he is also the most able to make others wise, and he makes his disciples feel towards him that other Compared with Socrates himself, they all seem worthless.Indeed, I know that he used to say this about parents and other relatives and friends; besides, he used to say that when the soul (in which intelligence exists only) leaves the body, people take their dearest Send the body of your loved one to the funeral, so that it can leave your eyes as soon as possible.He also used to say that every man, while he was alive, himself got rid of the useless and useless things in his favorite body, and let others get rid of them; The hair and calluses are removed, and they are cut off and burned by the surgeon through toil and pain, and people think they are obliged to pay them for the operation; Go, for the saliva is of no use to them while it remains in the mouth, and it is quite likely to do them harm.But Socrates said these words, not to ask his disciples to bury his father alive, or to cut his body into pieces, but to prove to them that everything that is unconscious is worthless, he exhorted Every man should try to make himself as wise and useful as possible, whether he wants to be respected by his father, brothers or others, he should not neglect his training because he trusts his relatives, but should try to make himself worthy of those he wishes to be respected. benefited people. The accusers also say that Socrates selected the worst lines of famous poets and used them as evidence to teach his disciples to be scoundrels and tyrants, for example, the lines of Hesiodes: "Work is not a disgrace, idleness is a disgrace." They said he interpreted the line as if the poet were admonishing people to do anything, that it's okay to be unjust, it's okay to be dishonorable, as long as it's profitable That's fine.While Socrates fully agrees that being a busy worker is a good and beneficial thing to man, being idle is a poisonous and bad thing—indeed, working It is good, and idleness is evil——but he also said that only those who do good things are really working, and they are truly useful workers.He calls idlers those who gamble or do bad and harmful things; and in this sense the poet's lines are justifiable: "Working is not a shame, being idle is a shame." The accusers also say that a verse from Homer, often quoted by Socrates, tells how Odysseus "When he met a prince or a well-known person, he would politely go up to him, stand by him, and dissuade him, saying: 'Sir, it is not appropriate to threaten you like a coward. Please Sit down yourself first, and then let the other common people sit down'... But on the other hand, when he saw a common man making a noise, he beat him with a stick and reprimanded him loudly, saying, ' You fellow, sit down quietly and listen to the advice of others, they are much stronger than you, unlike you, a coward and weakling, no matter whether it is fighting on the battlefield or making suggestions, it is useless' ". The accusers say Socrates often interpreted the verse as if the poet meant to approve of beating ordinary people and laborers.But Socrates did not say such a thing, because if he did, he would be saying that he himself should be beaten.But he speaks of those who are incapable of being of any use either by words or deeds, who are unable to serve an army, a country, or a people if necessary, and who, if incapable, are arrogant, should be stopped, even though they are very rich.But, contrary to the charges of his accusers, Socrates was evidently the friend of the common people, and a lover of mankind; and though he received many who wished to hear him, both citizens and foreigners, he never He never asked anyone for a reward for his lectures, but taught everyone with his rich knowledge without hesitation.Some people don't spend a penny, learn a little from him, and sell it to others at a high price, and they don't make friends with ordinary people like him, but they refuse to make friends with anyone who has no money to give them. They talk.But Socrates, in his intercourse with others, has done much more for his own country than Rehas, who is famous for his service to the Lachadaimones.It is true that Lihas entertained the strangers who came to Lakaidaimoni at the Children's Dance Festival, but Socrates exhausted his life's energy to maximize the benefits of those who were willing to accept his teachings. He made those who studied with him better people when they parted with him. It seems to me, therefore, that a man of Socrates' character ought to be honored by the state rather than put to death; and anyone who considers his case legally must see this to be the case: , it is evident that no one is more innocent than Socrates if he is proven guilty of theft, robbery, pickpocketing, burglarism, kidnapping, or theft of sacred objects.He has never been the culprit of causing war, causing the country to suffer losses because of him, nor has he committed the crime of rebellion or rebellion, and he has never done anything that harms others to benefit himself or draw others into injustice in his personal dealings with others. In all these crimes he was not even the slightest suspect. So how could he have committed the crime he was charged with?Not only did he not disrespect the gods as the indictment charges, but he clearly worshiped them more than others: not only did he not corrupt the youth as his accusers charged, but he clearly induced those among his disciples who were guilty of crime. The inclined cease their crimes, and exhort them to the most honorable and best virtues, by which men govern their states and families.Should not those who follow such a way of conducting themselves in the world receive the utmost respect from the city-state?