The Trial of Socrates

Even nowadays philosophy teachers will bore anyone silly if given the chance to tell people how Socrates was a champion of individual liberty. How he is a model that can be looked up to today and he was brought down by the mob.

Stone shows that Socrates in fact was a political conservative. Athens at the time when he lived was a democracy. It had an "empire" which in fact was a series of allied states that had a democratic form of government. Sparta it opponent was the head of a series of states which had aristocratic governments. As the battle between Athens and Sparta went on they would battle over cities and territories of Greece. If Athens was successful in taking over a city, democracy would be introduced. If Sparta did an oligarchic form of government would be put in place.

In the end Athens lost and Sparta imposed on it an aristocratic government called the thirty. This government summarily executed a large number of the democrats and many more had to flee in exile. Eventually this government was thrown out and democracy was restored. It was after the restoration of democracy that Socrates was put on trial and executed. Stone goes through the record and shows that the reason for his execution was that he had taught the young aristocrats. That is the group who had collaborated with Sparta and who had betrayed their fellow citizens.

In fact if one reads the works of Plato, Socrates disciple one can see that he was profoundly anti-democratic and favored government by an un-elected elite. Socrates rather than being a champion of liberty was just an ideologue for the rich and should be a role model for an autocratic state such as Czarist Russia rather than being relevant to modern society.

The book is short well written and reads like a detective story. A must read for anyone with an interest in philosophy.


Interesting argument--not sure if I agree with it.   July 7, 2000
 9 out of 10 found this review helpful

I think a person would have to dig into many primary and secondary sources to validate or refute I.F. Stone's interpretation of the trial of Socrates. Stone argues that among other things, Socrates was anti-democratic and that he deliberately martyred himself. Stone justifies the Athenian condemnation of Socrates on the basis that Socrates undermined Athens' democratic foundation.

Even if we were to scrutinize this argument with research material, we may never learn more about the trial than what Plato--a biased source--tells us. It is also difficult to judge percisely how democratic Athens really was. One historian has convincingly argued that Athens was democratic in name, but like the U.S., it persued the interests of its elite more than the spirit of its ideology. So was Socrates attacking Athenian democracy or a hypocritical exploitation of democracy by the Athenian elite? It doesn't really matter whether or not Stone provides the right answer because he asks the right question,and that is what makes his book interesting.

Stone also argues that Socrates was a dead beat who refused to work and who placed a heavy burden of responsibility on his wife while he hung out with the boys and dispensed philosophy. I can almost picture a Monty Python skit, but it is an interesting personal examination of an otherwise idealized figure.

I recommend that people read this book for its interesting new interepretation of a hallowed Western thinker. Don't be so quick to condemn it--being right is not always the most important thing.


Plato and Socrates on Trial   June 30, 2000
 5 out of 5 found this review helpful

Stone's book is a well-laid out, prosecution view of the trial of Socrates. Certainly, Stone brings up some very interesting points about whether Socrates "got what he deserved," but some of his evidence is far from compelling. For instance, even those who study Plato for a living have a hard time agreeing on what the "historical" aspects of Socrates are, and which are just Plato's own idealized "fictional" Socrates. In my opinion, Stone uses Plato to support his points when it is convenient for his argument, and draws on other sources when it is not.

I encourage people to read this book, if only to hear the prosecution's possible case against Socrates. Those who love philosophy, especially Plato's works, will find Stone's case interesting, if not necessarily convincing


A brilliant book   May 23, 2000
 29 out of 31 found this review helpful

I.F. Stone, one of the few honourable journalists in recent US history, wrote this book in his retirement as an attempt to answer a question that had dogged him for years: How could Athens, a genuine democracy, condemn a man like Socrates to death? I mean, this was Socrates, the first major hero of western philosophy (if you don't count the pre-Socratics), the master of dialectic, the hero of all those who value intellectual independence, right?

Wrong. Stone's initial puzzlement hardens into a damaging case against Socrates. He never defends the Athenians' decision to execute him (because he finds it indefensible), but he produces a case for the prosecution that's hard to answer. If, like me, you'd always vaguely considered Socrates to be a model upholder of free thought, free speech and liberty in general, you're in for a shock. Socrates' contempt for democracy and the democratic process was all but a gauntlet thrown in the Athenians' faces. He claimed at his trial to be a gadfly, a reminder of uncomfortable moral truths which the polis was inclined to forget, but on the occasions when Athens was faced with tough moral decisions, Socrates was nowhere to be seen, and had nothing to say. His favourite disciple, Alcibiades, was a right-wing thug. He never ceased to praise the totalitarian government of Sparta, and to heap contempt on the participatory government of Athens (okay, women and slaves didn't have the vote in Athens, but it would be a couple of thousand years before they got it _anywhere_.) He especially hated Pericles, one of the greatest statesmen of all time, because Pericles was popular, and Socrates hated the power of popular opinion (he considered anybody who didn't have philosophical training to be simply unworthy of having a say in how the state ought to be organised. He was, in short, the first great elitist of western political theory.)

Stone shows how Socratic dialogues are frequently weighted in Socrates' favour - the game is rigged. Socrates is constantly arguing with dimwitted yes-men who can't come up with the obvious counter-arguments. This is a sobering and a sweetly rigorous book; for many years, Stone applied his intelligence to sorting out the manifold lies from the grubby truth in American politics (he was no more a Communist than John Milton) and it's a pleasure to see him apply that intelligence to another great untouchable.

For all the passages of wonderful poetry in Plato, there are times when the Sage comes across as little more than a more intelligent, toga-clad William F. Buckley. Good for Stone, that he told this story.