Philosopher: Socratic Questions Were an Attempt to Defend Against Populism and Polarization

Dr. Hab. Krzysztof Łapiński teaches the history of ancient philosophy at the Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Warsaw. He is the author of the latest biography of Socrates, "The Wisest. Biography of Socrates", published by Wydawnictwo Agora.

PAP: Socrates' students and various historical sources convey an ambiguous image of the Athenian philosopher, attributing to him different motives or views. Socrates himself did not leave any writings. So how can we create a coherent image of such a multidimensional figure?

Krzysztof Łapiński: This problem was noticed at the beginning of the 19th century by a German researcher, Friedrich Schleiermacher. He stated that the image of Socrates in the dialogues of his student, Plato, contains too many elements in relation to historical truth. Socrates is a monumental figure there, almost superhuman, and besides, he often propagates purely Platonic concepts. In turn, in the image of Socrates in another student, Xenophon, there is something too little, we have the impression that such a Socrates would not have made any great revolution in philosophy, would not have been able to sow such intellectual ferment that is attributed to him.

He is shown there as a calm, decent citizen, so it is not really clear why someone like that was hated so much that he was sentenced to death. And now we have to try to find some common points among these and many other voices, to put them in order. We must also remember that these authors were very ambitious, sophisticated writers. They were a kind of literary narcissists who fiercely competed with each other for the recognition of readers. Each of them tried to show that they understood Socrates' thought best. So by writing about him, they wrote a little about themselves.

In my interpretation of Socrates, texts that are seemingly not very obvious as historical sources, namely comedies, have proven helpful. They have the advantage of being written when Socrates was around 40-50 years old. In comparison, Plato and Xenophon wrote about Socrates many years after their master's death. Comedy texts may seem suspicious as sources. For example, in Aristophanes' comedy "The Clouds", Socrates spends entire days hanging in a basket from the ceiling, because supposedly the air is more subtle up there and therefore one thinks better. Of course, this is hard to accept as historical truth.

Sometimes, however, comedy writers, instead of ridiculing their hero, pronounce his praise. And in the case of Socrates, all the comedies we know in which he appears, happen to be unanimous in testifying that he valued independence, despised flattery, cared nothing for wealth or political career, and was able to lead effective discussions. So we see a Socrates who shows that it is important to practice philosophy, to put ideals into practice, and not just to speculate on theoretical matters.

PAP: You mentioned that Socrates' most important contribution to philosophy was transforming it from a theoretical to a practical field. This seems rather non-obvious in the case of a philosopher, especially an ancient one.

K.Ł.: Socrates believed that philosophy was, above all, a way of life. This is the main message he brings to Athens, which was full of discussions and was receptive to all intellectual novelties. In his opinion, it is not enough to propagate certain concepts, but one must also live in accordance with them.

The second important thing that we attribute to Socrates is the emphasis he placed on asking questions, on curiosity. In my opinion, and I write about this in the book, this could have been a reaction to the critique of philosophy by the sophist Gorgias. He claimed that philosophy was worthless because its representatives were unable to agree with each other on any matter. Socrates, on the other hand, shows that questions are sometimes more important than answers. And they are the essence of philosophy.

Leszek Kołakowski believed that Socrates should be a point of reference for every philosopher. In philosophy, questions are timeless, while answers are transient, sometimes better, sometimes worse. Generations of philosophers are constantly confronted with the same universal questions.

Socrates' message was that a philosopher is someone who is in a state of constant intellectual activity, who is able to question established patterns, to undermine what seems obvious to most people but is not so obvious at all. This is someone who comes and says: you live according to some stereotypes, you believe in them, but have you ever thought about their meaning? He makes us think again about issues that until now seemed well-known and unquestionable to us.

Socrates' attitude is anti-dogmatic. For him, the most important thing was precision of thinking, being guided by reason in life. He believed that orderly thinking translates into orderly, proper action.

In our day, Socrates would perhaps ask: should certain social norms, political or economic issues really be treated as absolutely true? Maybe what seems obvious is worth taking a fresh look at? Especially when such beliefs harm other people. Above all, we can learn from him not to believe in stereotypical truths, but to try to find out what the deeper meaning of reality is. But at the same time, it is not about the inquisitiveness represented by, for example, internet conspiracy theorists, whose pseudo-theories are inconsistent and based on fragmentary knowledge. Socrates would certainly track down such inconsistencies. And ruthlessly expose them.

PAP: In your book, you present Socrates against the background of his era and in relation to various phenomena and political events of his time. How did they shape Socrates' philosophical activity?

K.Ł.: I believe that ancient philosophy should be discussed in its entire cultural, historical, religious, social and literary context, because it was constantly in dialogue with its environment. Socrates' times were very turbulent. The first part of his life fell on the magnificent era of Pericles. This was a time when democracy was taking shape in Athens, and art and literature were developing dynamically. Although Athens was already showing imperial tendencies and was subordinating other Greek states to itself. Later, in 431 BC, the devastating Peloponnesian War broke out between Athens and Sparta and their allies. It lasted for a quarter of a century and ended with Athens' defeat.

The Greek historian Thucydides wrote at the time that the borders run through the middle of the states because the Greek states are polarized, destroyed by internal conflicts. One side is represented by democrats, supported by Athens, the other by oligarchs, supported by Sparta. In this way, Athens and Sparta, as the two most important players, try to manipulate smaller allies, playing these two parties off against each other. This in turn led to civil wars.

Socrates sees various pathologies in social life that appear in Athens at that time, such as populism or polarization, phenomena that are also close to our times. He does not remain indifferent to these phenomena, but tries to persuade the Athenians to be reasonable, moderate, and reflect on their own behavior.

PAP: What is the significance of his dispute with the sophists?

K.Ł.: When the sophists appear in Athens, they teach, among other things, rhetoric, the art of effective speech, which is a useful tool in politics. It was then realized that such persuasion of listeners does not have to have anything to do with telling the truth, but can be based on the manipulation of arguments and words. As Thucydides shows, the manipulation of language also becomes a weapon in the war of the time, in fueling acts of aggression.

Socrates, in opposition to the sophists, tries to define ethical concepts, asking what is justice, what is goodness. On the one hand, we have the populist blurring of meanings and concepts, and on the other hand, Socrates, who tries to specify the meanings of terms so that they cannot be manipulated. We know this very well from the 20th century, when totalitarianisms used propaganda. I mention this in the book, citing the example of Victor Klemperer, a Jewish philologist who constantly monitored and analyzed the forming language of propaganda in the Third Reich.

When we project the figure of Socrates into the political background of the time, then we can better understand what he was doing in Athens. What is the point of his constant questions about the meaning of ethical concepts. It is an attempt to defend against populism, which blurs the meaning of words. That is why it seems to me that Socrates can be an important point of reference for us, someone who faced similar problems as we do today. In this context, he is an extremely contemporary figure.

PAP: Has the Socratic method of asking questions found any other practical applications today?

K.Ł.: It is used, for example, in psychology. Various therapies have been designed that use Socratic dialogue. It is also used as a method of questioning defendants and witnesses. One of my favorite films is Sidney Lumet's "Twelve Angry Men." I believe it is an excellent example of using Socratic dialogue in defense of a wrongly accused person. In turn, in wise education, students are encouraged to think by encouraging them to ask questions. It is important that they come up with a solution to the problem themselves. Because Socratic questions are about someone discovering the truth within themselves. And this independent formulation of the truth has greater value, a greater emotional charge, than when someone gives us a ready-made solution.

PAP: In addition to the political and historical perspective, you talk about Socrates in a slightly more private context. The story of Xantippe, the philosopher's wife, who has not only been marginalized in literature but also portrayed as an extremely quarrelsome character, seems particularly interesting.

K.Ł.: Indeed, the tradition of presenting Xantippe is very unfair to her. She has been labeled a shrew, a scoundrel, a woman who only hinders her great husband from changing the world. First of all, this vision is certainly exaggerated. And secondly, even if Xantippe had complaints about various matters, it was probably very often not without reason. Her husband did not pay attention to mundane matters, and after all they had children who had to be taken care of. In Polish literature, Ludwik Hieronim Morstin, for example, took up Socrates' wife in the drama "The Defense of Xantippe".

Through this character I wanted to show the status of women in those times. We often idealize Athens, we perceive it as a wonderful time, which is partly true. However, political life was limited to citizens, and only men could be citizens. Women were condemned to the private sphere, they basically had no legal independence. Hannah Arendt once said that men lived in a bright, sunny agora, and women were condemned to the dark oikos, or domestic sphere, a life devoted to performing burdensome household duties.

PAP: And what was Socrates himself like, apart from the fact that he was not an ideal husband?

K.Ł.: In various sources we find many interesting details about Socrates' character, his appearance and way of life. Plato writes that he was extremely physically strong, resistant to cold, brave on the battlefield. During one military campaign he walked barefoot on ice, he was able to endure hunger. However, when there was an abundance of wine, no one could drink as much as he did, and at the same time no one saw him drunk. He fell into strange, mysterious meditative states. Plato describes that once he stood still for a whole day and pondered over a problem. He stopped doing so for the whole day, then the whole night, and when the sun rose, he clearly resolved his doubt, because he returned to normal functioning. These are very interesting features of Socrates. They make up a character who must have been extraordinary, charismatic and made a huge impression on his contemporaries.

***

Dr. hab. Krzysztof Łapiński translated, among others, "Meditations" by Marcus Aurelius and "Stoic Lectures" by Muzoniusz Rufus, and is the author of a monograph on Marcus Aurelius. He also writes books for children. Łapiński is a scholarship holder of the Kościuszko Foundation and the Lanckoroński Foundation from Brzezie, and the head of the Center for Comparative Studies on the Philosophy of the East and the West at the University of Warsaw.

Ewelina Krajczyńska-Wujec (PAP)

ekr/ bar/ amac/