Plato and Xenophon were contemporaries; they were both students of Socrates. Both, in the wake of the trial and execution of Socrates, wrote an Apologia explaining how the court case went, what the charges were, and how Socrates replied.
Xenophon, though, grew disgusted with Athens – eventually leaving and joining the city-state of Sparta, marrying a Spartan woman, and eventually fighting for Sparta in the Corinthian War against the Athenians, a group of Greek Athenian allies, and the Persians who were then allied with Athens.
Growing late in years, in his 50’s at the time, Xenophon wanted to revisit what happened with Socrates in Athens, the charges against him, and the hearsay and discussion that happened after the fact. This led to him writing another of his great works, the Memorabilia. Xenophon begins,
“I have often wondered by what arguments those who indicted Socrates could have persuaded the Athenians that his life was justly forfeit to the state. The indictment was to this effect: "Socrates is guilty of crime in refusing to recognise the gods acknowledged by the state, and importing strange divinities of his own; he is further guilty of corrupting the young."”
He first takes on the charges that Socrates didn’t honor the Gods. But Xenophon notes that Socrates did the customary sacrifices and followed tradition, except in practical matters where doing so would be foolishness –
“"No one," [Socrates] would say, "who wishes to manage a house or city with success: no one aspiring to guide the helm of state aright, can afford to dipense with aid from above. Doubtless, skill in carpentering, building, smithying, farming, of the art of governing men, together with the theory of these processes, and the sciences of arithmetic, economy, strategy, are affairs of study, and within the grasp of human intelligence. Yet there is a side even of these, and that not the least important, which the gods reserve to themselves, the bearing of which is hidden from mortal vision. Thus, let a man sow a field or plant a farm never so well, yet he cannot foretell who will gather in the fruits: another may build him a house of fairest proportion, yet he knows not who will inhabit it. Neither can a general foresee whether it will profit him to conduct a campaign, nor a politician be certain whether his leadership will turn to evil or good. Nor can the man who weds a fair wife, looking forward to joy, know whether through her he shall not reap sorrow. Neither can he who has built up a powerful connection in the state know whether he shall not by means of it be cast out of his city. To suppose that all these matters lay within the scope of human judgment, to the exclusion of the preternatural, was preternatural folly. Nor was it less extravagant to go and consult the will of Heaven on any questions which it is given to us to decide by dint of learning. As though a man should inquire, "Am I to choose an expert driver as my coachman, or one who has never handled the reins?" "Shall I appoint a mariner to be skipper of my vessel, or a landsman?" And so with respect to all we may know by numbering, weighing, and measuring. To seek advice from Heaven on such points was a sort of profanity.”
Written like a true soldier!
“To seek advice from Heaven on practical matters is a sort of profanity.”
There is so much wisdom there, if you muse on it. Xenophon has Socrates saying that the realm of the mystical has no bearing on practical matters of navigating the environment. Such things are above the Gods – and since the priesthood was a political role, of course, Xenophon is implicitly arguing that these matters are above politics too.
***
WRETCHED SOCRATES
Later in Memorabilia, he addresses various criticisms levied at the old philosopher by sophists. This one is striking –
“In this context some discussions with Antiphon the sophist deserve record. Antiphon approaches Socrates in hope of drawing away his associates, and in their presence thus accosts him.
“Antiphon: “Why, Socrates, I always thought it was expected of students of philosophy to grow in happiness daily; but you seem to have reaped other fruits from your philosophy. At any rate, you exist, I do not say live, in a style such as no slave serving under a master would put up with. Your meat and your drink are of the cheapest sort, and as to clothes, you cling to one wretched cloak which serves you for summer and winter alike; and so you go the whole year round, without shoes to your feet or a shirt to your back. Then again, you are not for taking or making money, the mere seeking of which is a pleasure, even as the possession of it adds to the sweetness and independence of existence. I do not know whether you follow the common rule of teachers, who try to fashion their pupils in imitation of themselves, and propose to mould the characters of your companions; but if you do you ought to dub yourself professor of the art of wretchedness.”
Thus challenged, Socrates replied: “One thing to me is certain, Antiphon; you have conceived so vivid an idea of my life of misery that for yourself you would choose death sooner than live as I do. Suppose now we turn and consider what it is you find so hard in my life. Is it that he who takes payment must as a matter of contract finish the work for which he is paid, whereas I, who do not take it, lie under no constraint to discourse except with whom I choose? Do you despise my dietary on the ground that the food which I eat is less wholesome and less stengthening than yours, or that the articles of my consumption are so scarce and so much costlier to procure than yours? Or have the fruits of your marketing a flavour denied to mine? Do you not know the sharper the appetite the less the need of sauces, the keener the thirst the less the desire for out-of-the-way drinks? And as to raiment, clothes, you know, are changed on account of cold or else of heat. People only wear boots and shoes in order not to gall their feet and be prevented walking. Now I ask you, have you ever noticed that I keep more within doors than others on account of the cold? Have you ever seen me battling with any one for shade on account of the heat? Do you not know that even a weakling by nature may, by dint of exercise and practice, come to outdo a giant who neglects his body? He will beat him in the particular point of training, and bear the strain more easily. But you apparently will not have it that I, who am for ever training myself to endure this, that, and the other thing which may befall the body, can brave all hardships more easily than yourself for instance, who perhaps are not so practised. And to escape slavery to the belly or to sleep or lechery, can you suggest more effective means than the possession of some powerful attraction, some counter-charm which shall gladden not only in the using, but by the hope enkindled of its lasting usefulness? And yet this you do know; joy is not to him who feels that he is doing well in nothing—it belongs to one who is persuaded that things are progressing with him, be it tillage or the working of a vessel, or any of the thousand and one things on which a man may chance to be employed. To him it is given to rejoice as he reflects, "I am doing well." But is the pleasured derived from all these put together half as joyous as the consciousness of becoming better oneself, of acquiring better and better friends? That, for my part, is the belief I continue to cherish.”
“[Socrates]: “Again, if it be a question of helping one's friends or country, which of the two will have the larger leisure to devote to these objects—he who leads the life which I lead to-day, or he who lives in the style which you deem so fortunate? Which of the two will adopt a soldier's life more easily—the man who cannot get on without expensive living, or he to whom whatever comes to hand suffices? Which will be the readier to capitulate and cry "mercy" in a siege—the man of elaborate wants, or he who can get along happily with the readiest things to hand? You, Antiphon, would seem to suggest that happiness consists of luxury and extravagance; I hold a different creed. To have no wants at all is, to my mind, an attribute of Godhead; to have as few wants as possible the nearest approach to Godhead; and as that which is divine is mightiest, so that is next mightiest which comes closest to the divine.””
We see there, again – Socrates is advocating mastery of self first. When it comes to being useful, he is saying that the man with self-mastery is also more useful out in the environment.
***
&nb
sp; WISDOM FOR GOLD
Antiphon’s final charge against Socrates, and how Socrates replied, is also worth recording –
“Returning to the charge at another time, this same Antiphon engaged Socrates in conversation thus.
“Antiphon: “Socrates, for my part, I believe you to be a good and upright man; but for your wisdom I cannot say much. I fancy you would hardly dispute the verdict yourself, since, as I remark, you do not ask a money payment for your society; and yet if it were your cloak now, or your house, or any other of your possessions, you would set some value upon it, and never dream, I will not say of parting with it gratis, but of exchanging it for less than its worth. A plain proof, to my mind, that if you thought your society worth anything, you would ask for it not less than its equivalent in gold. Hence the conclusion to which I have come, as already stated: good and upright you may be, since you do not cheat people from pure selfishness; but wise you cannot be, since your knowledge is not worth a cent.””
“To this onslaught Socrates: “Antiphon, it is a tenet which we cling to that beauty and wisdom have this in common, that there is a fair way and a foul way in which to dispose of them. The vendor of beauty purchases an evil name, but supposing the same person has discerned a soul of beauty in his lover and makes that man his friend, we regard his choice as sensible. So is it with wisdom; he who sells it for money to the first bidder we name a sophist, as though one should say a man who prostitutes his wisdom; but if the same man, discerning the noble nature of another, shall teach that other every good thing, and make him his friend, of such a one we say he does that which it is the duty of every good citizen of gentle soul to do.””
We see patterns in Antiphon and Socrates, thus – Antiphon is weighing everything in terms of the value he can exchange things for in gold, for luxuries. Socrates is valuing things for the development of self-mastery (wisdom, strength, temperance, etc) and for their use in mastering the environment.
Though not explicitly stated, you can see how Antiphon is infinitely more concerned with appearances in front of others as the value of things.
***
THE POLITICAL FRANKLIN
We turn then from self-mastery and mastery of environment, to gaining influence and mastery over our fellow humans.
This path, I’m afraid, is the most popular one at the moment, the one that most people choose to tread down, whether realizing it or not.
Benjamin Franklin’s political path was different – he was already 30-years-old and had largely committed to self-mastery and mastery over the environment before seeking to greatly influence and coordinate his fellow colonial Americans.
But more importantly, his first major foray into public life was about uniting people to master the environment together – he formed the Union Firefighting Company in Philadelphia, organizing volunteers to fight fires.
In the 1740’s and 1750’s, he help found the University of Pennsylvania, founded the first modern hospital in the colonies, and the American Philosophical Society.
It was only in the 1760’s – with Franklin already in his 50’s – that he began to advocate first for stronger rights for the colonies, and later for the separation from England.
It’s commonly asked why the American Revolution went as well as we it did, while the French Revolution went as poor as it did.
Well, there’s a lot of reasons – but perhaps none so striking as that Maximilien Robespierre was 25-years-old when the French Revolution broke out, and became one of its most important thought leaders, whereas Franklin was 59-years-old when the American Revolution broke out, and he became one of its most important thought leaders.
Wheras Franklin was born poor and had to develop a tremendous mastery over the environment, Robespierre was born to a noble family, and then became a lawyer – a profession that is paid through influencing people largely independently of the environment.
Franklin was 84-years-old when he died in 1790 – obviously the work he’d put into temperance and good health had paid off; the last major act of Franklin’s life was overseeing the writing and ratifying of the United States Constitution from 1787-1789.
Robespierre, of course, was executed in 1794 in the French Terror that he himself had started – at the age of 36. His mastery of self was far less than Franklin’s; his mastery of the environment was virtually nil; he tried to master people alone, unmaking France and himself in the process. The last major act of his life – aside from overseeing the denunciation and execution of so many people in the Terror – was almost unilaterally creating a “Cult of the Supreme Being” and having it named as the official religion of France.
The Cult, of course, faded rapidly from view after Robespierre’s execution until being officially banned by Napoleon Bonparte in 1804.
The United States, meanwhile, is still organized under the American Constitution some 227 years later.
***
NATURAL PHILOSOPHY
“A false man found a religion? Why, a false man cannot build a brick house! If he do not know and follow truly the properties of mortar, burnt clay and what else be works in, it is no house that he makes, but a rubbish-heap. It will not stand for twelve centuries, to lodge a hundred and eighty millions; it will fall straightway. A man must conform himself to Nature's laws, be verily in communion with Nature and the truth of things, or Nature will answer him, No, not at all! Speciosities are specious—ah me!—a Cagliostro, many Cagliostros, prominent world-leaders, do prosper by their quackery, for a day. It is like a forged bank-note; they get it passed out of their worthless hands: others, not they, have to smart for it. Nature bursts up in fire-flames, French Revolutions and such like, proclaiming with terrible veracity that forged notes are forged.” – Thomas Carlyle, On Heroes
A final thought before our guidance.
Few people realize that science grew out of philosophy – originally, science lived within philosophy; it was called “natural philosophy.”
Isaac Newton was a natural philosopher, his famous Principia’s long title was “Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica” – "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy."
Benjamin Franklin, likewise, was a natural philosopher. To him, there was no huge difference in studying electricity and studying working forms of government and constitutions.
Almost all of the greatest philosophers – those who have sound theories, which lead to a better life individually and can organize society effectively – are also philosophers who studied the-world-as-it-is.
Aristotle, of course, studied physics and did experiments in biology in addition to what are thought of (now) as his “philosophical” works; there was not much difference to Aristotle in studying the biology of an island and the nature of governments.
The only truly great philosopher of the last 100 years, Wittgenstein, was trained as an engineer and wrote his Tractatus while serving on a patrol ship and in the extremely dangerous artillery observer’s post during World War I.
Science began to leave philosophy in the 1800’s. I find the following random internet comment to be insightful –
“The [word] scientist was coined in 1836 by William Whewell by merging the terms science and artist. Making people that practice it "artists of knowledge" maybe this is just a fancy term for sophist.”
Perhaps harsh, but there is something there.
Wikipedia: Sophist –
“From the word σοφός (sophos) is derived the verb σοφίζω (sophizo), which means "to instruct or make learned," but which in the passive voice means "to become or be wise," or "to be clever or skilled in a thing." In turn, from this verb is derived the noun σοφιστής (sophistes), which originally meant "a master of one's craft" but later came to mean "a prudent man" or "wise man." The word for "sophist" in various languages comes from sophistes.”
Philosopher has the same root word in it, Sophia – wisdom – but treads down very different lines. “Philosopher” came from “Philo Sophos” – love of wisdom. It was a
characteristic of loving wisdom, and actively seeking it, whereas a sophist was someone who wished to appear as a “wise man.”
Robespierre was, by almost any commonly understood definition, a sophist.
When “natural philosophy” became “science,” it did huge damage to philosophy. Henceforth, the aspect of philosophy concerned with mastery over the environment no longer belonged to the same school of thought. Almost all professional philosophers these days are sophists, they are concerned with persuading humans first and foremost.
To the extent that any good philosophy is happening these days, it’s happening among computer scientists like Paul Graham, financiers like Ray Dalio and Charlie Munger, and soldiers like John Boyd. These fields require one to master the environment and to master oneself to some extent to thrive in them, and provide the crucial rejection and hardship needed to develop one’s mind, become tougher and more sound, and to actually develop one’s philosophy – in the old sense of the word.
***
GUIDANCE
In fairness, I’ve been more partisan in this final chapter – but also in fairness, I do believe that this is the rare Dubious Battle type concept with right and wrong answers.
MACHINA Page 55