|
The Trial of Socrates | 
 enlarge | Author: I.f. Stone
Publisher: Anchor
Category: Book
List Price: $14.95
Buy Used: $0.01
You Save: $14.94 (100%)
New (29) Used (109) from $0.01
Avg. Customer Rating:  31 reviews
Sales Rank: 176747
Media: Paperback
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 304
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.5
Dimensions (in): 8 x 5.2 x 0.7
ISBN: 0385260326
Dewey Decimal Number: 183.2
EAN: 9780385260329
ASIN: 0385260326
Publication Date: February 27, 1989
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Shipping: International shipping available
Condition: Help save a tree. Buy all your used books from Green Earth Books. Read -> Recycle -> Reuse!
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
In unraveling the long-hidden issues of the most famous free speech case of all time, noted author I.F. Stone ranges far and wide over Roman as well as Greek history to present an engaging and rewarding introduction to classical antiquity and its relevance to society today. The New York Times called this national best-seller an "intellectual thriller."
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 26 more reviews...
 Journalist Makes Fool of Himself March 24, 2008
2 out of 8 found this review helpful
Thinking an historical account about Socrates' trail would be an interesting and informative read, I read this book only to find a spiteful bashing of Socrates, Plato and anything smacking of wisdom - but what can you expect from a New York Times bestseller and a journalist to boot? Is there anything more disgraceful than a modern journalist?
I.M. Stone is obviously not a philosopher, not a man of wisdom, and his loyalties to extreme leftism, if not Marxism, are laid bare in this obnoxious attempted debunking of Socrates, who nevertheless will retain his honor as one of the greatest men to ever live.
Stone has the audacity to agree with Socrates' enemies by calling him every name in the book and building up the case against him. He uses Aristophanes to show why we should have contempt for Socrates, as if a comedic playwright should be an arbiter of truth.
I am sure Stone would have felt very comfortable alongside Robespierre in the disgraceful French Revolution, dutifully executing anyone who had any semblance of nobility or aristocracy, which in Stone's lowly mind is a sinful attribute. For that matter, I am surprised he did not write a book on the defense of Pontius Pilate against Christ.
Perhaps not entirely accurate - but it does inspire some thought March 22, 2008
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
With regard to the veracity of Stone's claim concerning the anti-democratic leaning of Socrates, Plato, and others in the circle...I'm on the fence. There are many who would argue semantics and misinterpretation are at the core of the claim. When it comes to translations of Attic Greek and the subtleties of philosophy readings in academia, I won't venture a guess. I've read the dialogues and several books concerning them, but I'm by no means an expert.
In any case...whatever the truth might be, I believe it's important to view every person within their historical context at the least. Let's assume for a moment that Stone is right and Socrates was in fact the fly in the ointment of democracy...
Athens was the test bed for this new form of government, brought on by the reforms of Solon and Cleisthenes in the 6th century BCE. The majority of Greek states were still oligarchies, with tyrants thrown in every now and then to shake things up. So what the Athenians did was quite unprecedented...and as such, there would obviously be blunders aplenty in the implementation.
The same system that would allow Pericles to run wild with building projects that today define Classical Greek architecture would also permit a host of demagogues to carve out their own niches of power following his death. These folks knew exactly how to play to the hopes and fears of the mob...and ultimately, they led them to ruin in the final Peloponnesian War against Sparta, Corinth, and allies.
Socrates and company lived through this difficult time of Athenian history. They watched as fickle crowds were swayed from one disaster to another by inexperienced wannabes who knew only how to manipulate the system. In this, certain members of the Socratic circle may have decided that the fault was in the very system itself. But rather than fix a damaged gem, they might have sought to discard it entirely and return to a form of tyranny - in spirit, if not in name.
Would it really be so disagreeable if the tyrant possessed wisdom and a keen eye for the needs of the state? Something of a return to the days of Peisistratus, perhaps? It might not be so bad if they can keep the water flowing and the empire intact, after all. Seriously...regardless of the translation or the slant, it's difficult to buy the notion of the Philosopher King and the stratified society beneath him (or her) in Plato's "Republic" as anything more or less than a recasting of the same old monarchic/aristocratic nonsense that capsized the Athenian ship in the first place.
But this was where they'd landed as a society. The democracy had essentially drained the coffers and served up thousands of citizens to death on battlefields from the Greek mainland all the way to Sicily. They'd gone from leaders of the Delian League, to Athenian Empire...and finally to a defeated, broken city-state as the Spartans under Lysander sailed into the Piraeus and took control. New philosophies (or in some ways, old ones in new clothes) are born of such times...
Considering the state of affairs in Athens at the end of their golden age, it's not surprising that some would be looking for a different path. In the end, Socrates did condemn himself and jeer at the citizens deciding his fate. He'd been admonishing them all as fools for quite some time before Meletus and crew brought the charges (of impiety and corrupting the youth) against him. If you're a post-war state desperate to recover while being raked through the muck from various angles, taking one rabble-rouser out of the picture might look like a good thing.
Anyway...the reader must decide on their own if Stone's argument makes sense in the context of what we know about Socrates, Plato, and the city of Athens at the end of the Peloponnesian War. I recommend it as a good read, even if it's not 100% accurate. How can anyone really claim to know?
 Weak effort December 13, 2007
1 out of 2 found this review helpful
The analysis in this book seems to be that Socrates did a really bad job of defending himself at trial and insulted the jury, therefore he was put to death. Stone glosses over the Peloponnesian War and subsequent rule of tyrants, context much more useful for understanding the death of Socrates than anything in Plato's Apology.
 A new look at an old question September 24, 2007
2 out of 3 found this review helpful
Over 2000 years ago, Plato wrote beautifully of his ideas on various subjects. Two of the most striking were that the world should be governed by professors of philosophy, and that general arguments (ideals) were more important than specific examples. Both these ideas reverberate today. The second finds expression in complaints that the American public spends too much of its time following sensational scandals, such as the one associated with Monica Lewinsky. An anti-Platonist (such as the nominalist, John Locke) might respond that such specific cases are extremely useful in challenging plausible generalizations, such as the one that says that men in positions of power should never be forgiven for having sex with a subordinate. But it is the first idea that Stone challenges in his book.
It is hardly surprising that most professors of philosopy appreciate Plato - most of them grew up being told that getting good grades etc. was the supreme virtue and they became professors by doing just that. It must be very confusing for them to find that students who got inferior grades often go out into the world and make far more money than professors. That philosophy professors admire Plato's assertion that this is wrong, and deride someone like Stone who disagrees, is entirely predictable.
It is commonplace to buttress one's arguments by reference to authorities (preferably dead, so they cannot refute the reference). Plato did so by putting his words into the mouth of Socrates, a famous man who had been executed for treason in Plato's youth. The extent to which Plato quoted Socrates' views accurately is an interesting question: the views Plato expressed can also be discussed without concern for who first uttered them. Stone does both in this book.
The most thorough attempt to put Plato's (or, if you prefer, Socrates') ideas into practice was made by V.I. Lenin in Russia in 1917. The United States is the supreme example of a country founded on the opposite ideas of John Locke. In many ways, this book is a discussion of the foundations of the difference.
The Hobo Philosopher September 19, 2007
1 out of 3 found this review helpful
Gosh, I haven't enjoyed a book this much in a long, long time. Stone actually learned to read Greek so that he could go back and research all of this from the originals. What a point of view, so obvious when one thinks about it but nevertheless so shocking because no one ever does. If you have always admired and loverd the tale of Socrates this book will knock your socks off. You will never believe it. Leave it to Mr. Stone.
This is a great book for Greek philosophy fans. You're going to love it. It is a classic.
|
|
|
Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| |
