The following is a clip from a conversation I recorded with Donald Robertson,
A cognitive behavioral psychotherapist and renowned expert on Stoicism.
Donald specializes in bridging ancient philosophical wisdom with the modern psychology to enhance resilience,
Emotional clarity,
And well-being.
Enjoy.
One of the things that Socrates said that you quoted in saying in the trial chapter of your book is that the evil of wrongly taking a life or inflicting other forms of unjust punishment is far greater than the evil of suffering it.
In other words,
The people that were going to execute him were really the ones suffering compared to him.
A lot of people would be like,
Hang on a second.
Is that really the case?
I'm curious how you interpret that.
Yeah,
That's a good example of something that Socrates says that sticks in your mind and should make you think.
But it's kind of extreme and a lot of people would struggle to agree with it.
Epictetuses.
So often Socrates also will insinuate things or imply conclusions.
Not so much to some extent in the apology,
But in the apology is the least dialogical of the dialogues.
The apology is almost a monologue.
There are little bits of dialogue in it,
But it's more like a monologue.
In the other dialogues,
There's a bit more back and forth.
But Socrates will say these things.
But sometimes in the discussion,
He'll be asking questions and he'll kind of like he's spiraling around something.
He's getting closer and closer to a conclusion,
But he doesn't necessarily state it explicitly.
You know,
Sometimes it's left.
And that's partly because those dialogues are come across as if.
And I think we don't know for sure,
But I think many scholars believe they're not like what we would think of as a philosophical book or a lecture.
They're intended somewhat more as teaching aids that were created to inspire thinking.
You know,
Their function is to make us think,
Not just to say,
Here's the conclusions.
You know,
Socrates was kind of against this idea of just like handing down opinions that we would absorb passively.
You know,
He says radical things on purpose to make us question our thinking,
And he poses tricky questions.
But then what happens is that over time,
The people that are responding to those dialogues often naturally say,
Well,
This is what he seems to be implying.
And they'll state it more explicitly than he ever would.
So in Epictetus,
The,
Again,
Like five centuries later,
At the end of the Enchiridion,
The handbook of Epictetus,
He has this kind of quote that he attributes to Socrates that isn't in the apology.
So it's not clear whether he's kind of paraphrasing or maybe he's taking it from some other lost text.
But it concludes with the words,
Annotus and Meletus,
Who are two of the main guys that were prosecuting him,
Suing him in court.
In ancient Greek law,
There wasn't a kind of,
What do you call it,
A crown prosecution service or whatever.
The government or the police didn't press charges against people.
You had to bring civil suits against people.
So it had to be other fellow citizens that would bring these charges to the court.
And there weren't judges either.
The jury men kind of served as jury men and judges.
And there were more of them.
There were 500 typically in a jury.
So again,
If you imagine he's in the court,
It's like a huge mob of people and fights would break out and things like that.
Right.
It's somewhat,
You know,
What we would think of as a trial.
But Epictetus portrays Socrates as saying,
Annotus and Meletus can kill me,
But they cannot harm me.
Which is pretty hardcore thing to say.
Right.
Again,
He goes straight for the jugular.
It's the most extreme version that he can come out with.
They could kill me,
But it won't harm me.
They could take away my property.
They could destroy my reputation,
But they can't harm me.
Because what he's implying is that the only truly important thing in life is moral wisdom or something like that.
And that seems to be the position that Socrates circles around constantly,
Continually seems to be implying.
Although,
You know,
He often implies or insinuates or is working towards it rather than just kind of explicitly stating it.
But he clearly seems to be implying that moral wisdom of some sort is the most important,
Perhaps the only important thing in life.
And taking someone's property,
Destroying their reputation or killing them doesn't damage their moral wisdom or integrity.
So it's of trivial or secondary importance.
And in fact,
Being threatened with death simply gives him,
In a sense,
More opportunity to exercise moral wisdom and integrity in the face of extreme adversity.
Arguably,
You know,
He has.
Seneca says,
You know,
One of the ironies is that you need to experience,
In a sense,
You need something resembling fear in order to exhibit the virtue of courage.
Like if you just had no fear at all,
Then you wouldn't be able to exercise courage.
Just like,
Can a robot be courageous?
You know,
Can somebody who's kind of been lobotomized or just isn't capable of feeling anxiety be courageous?
You need to experience some kind of desire or temptation in order to exhibit self-control and self-discipline.
Like if you just don't desire,
You know,
If you're not hungry,
Then how can you exhibit self-control in relation to your appetite?
Right.
And it's not because he's in the trial.
He says something like he says,
You know,
They're talking,
He's talking about how he's not pleading for mercy and he says,
I'm a man of flesh and blood and,
You know,
I'm not like I'm made of wood or stone.
So he says,
I have feelings,
You know,
But nevertheless,
He stands up in front of the jury and tells them he's not afraid of dying.
And the most important thing to him is he wants to honor philosophy and defend.
He's really,
He's not defending himself.
He's defending philosophy in that trial,
Basically,
You know,
In a way that he made himself a martyr for philosophy,
You know,
400 years before Christ.
Like he's a Christ-like figure in a sense,
Like somewhat,
You know,
Couldn't be less like Christ in some ways and other ways,
Really similar.
It's an obvious comparison that many authors throughout history have made.
It's like Socrates kind of dies for his belief in moral virtue and philosophy and a bit like the crucifixion of Christ.
And I'll tell you another weird thing about it.
Strange coincidence in the trial,
There are kind of two phases to the jury vote.
So they vote on whether someone's guilty or not.
They narrowly find Socrates guilty.
And then what happens is that the prosecution suggest a penalty and the defendant suggests a penalty and the jury vote to choose which one.
So normally,
Like in a case like this,
The people are prosecuting would suggest the death penalty and then the defendant would suggest exile or something like that or a huge fine.
And Socrates suggested that they should give him free meals for life as his punishment,
Right?
It was part of his big talk.
But then he kind of backpedaled because I think because of his friends and he offered to pay a fine of 30 pieces of silver,
Weirdly,
Like a bit like the biblical story of the betrayal of Christ by Judas Iscariot.
And then they vote again.
But he's condemned by a larger majority,
Which means,
As it's often put,
That some of the guys that thought Socrates was innocent actually then voted in favor of the death penalty.
Somehow,
Because they were so provoked by the second speech that he gave regarding his alternative penalty,
They were so kind of offended by that somehow that quite a few of them switched and said a minute ago,
I voted to say you were innocent.
Now,
I think that we should execute.
So remarkably,
That was what happened during his trial.
