socrates essay about self

The Perception of the Self according to Socrates Essay

The perception of the self, according to Socrates explains the nature of man and the rationale on which man thinks. Socrates believed that, man is a product of his thoughts. Socrates questioned the way we attach importance to what people say without understanding the principle of individual thinking.

The capacity of a man is a product of the self in him; this formed the basis of Socrates argument. He emphasized that; man must believe in his or her principles and should not follow the wagon effect of the society. We find ourselves in situations that will require our careful examination, but we often accept what people say on the issue. Socrates proposed that logical thoughts would be more productive than accepting a patterned way of doing things.

The product of logical thinking is a patterned thought which is not influenced by the majority. To further his arguments, Socrates proposed a method of logical thinking. He believed that this would help each person evaluate his or her actions and thoughts based on the strength of logical thinking (Noe 4).

• Critically examine people’s comment and assumption: The common belief should be subjected to examination. The belief that it pays to work hard or that marriage makes a man responsible.
• Put forward a reversal to these statements: It is true that the society follows fashioned assumptions. One should be able to find a reversal to these assumptions. Provide a proof that man can be responsible without being married, and show that hard work do not always pay in the end. These reversals to a patterned way of life will help an individual build his or her confidence.
• There are no credible statements than yours: When you are able to fine the reversals to the statements, you will conclude that many statements and assumptions are misleading. This will help you build your confidence in logical thinking.
• Formulate your statements from observations: The examination of logical thinking will provide the basis of new statements. Marriage can make a responsible man live happily and wrong work is different from hard work.
• Develop yourself: Make it a habit to always examine the statements of people and find the reversal to those statements.

The strength of a man is weighed by his actions and statements; this is the defining principle on which we must stand. Socrates argued that philosophy can be analyzed not only by the elites, but by the common man. The ability to make a statement devoid of what people think or say is a product of self.

Socrates emphasized that the human soul is immortal and is a product of different perceptions. Socrates believed that the human soul exists in two forms; the transformation realm and the constant position. The evil in the human mind is a product of the benefits he or she imagined. An individual will act based on his or her perceived thoughts which is based on what good he or she will derive from the action (Noe 3).

In conclusion, we are what we think of ourselves and we must act accordingly. Socrates provided examples to show that philosophical thinking can be done even by the common man. Logical thinking is the ability to examine each statement independently not minding the opinion of the majority.

Works Cited

Noe, Alva 2009, Direct Perception . Web.

• Finding a Foundation for Knowledge
• Paulo Freire's Life, Philosophy and Teachings
• The Impact of Rhythms on Society
• Child Psychology and Behaviorism
• Use of Reversal Technique in Literature
• Hume’s View of Miracles
• “Death” by Thomas Nagel: The Issue of Death and How People Think of It
• David Hume’s Reflection on Religion
• Analysis of Nagel’s Death: The Assumptions and Theories
• Hegelian Dialectics
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, December 19). The Perception of the Self according to Socrates. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-perception-of-the-self-according-to-socrates/

"The Perception of the Self according to Socrates." IvyPanda , 19 Dec. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/the-perception-of-the-self-according-to-socrates/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'The Perception of the Self according to Socrates'. 19 December.

IvyPanda . 2018. "The Perception of the Self according to Socrates." December 19, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-perception-of-the-self-according-to-socrates/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Perception of the Self according to Socrates." December 19, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-perception-of-the-self-according-to-socrates/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Perception of the Self according to Socrates." December 19, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-perception-of-the-self-according-to-socrates/.

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

• Basic site functions
• Ensuring secure, safe transactions
• Secure account login
• Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
• Remembering privacy and security settings
• Analyzing site traffic and usage
• Personalized search, content, and recommendations
• Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

• Remembering general and regional preferences
• Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .

PHILO-notes

Free Online Learning Materials

Socrates’s Concept of the Self

Socrates was an ancient Greek philosopher considered to be the forerunner of Western philosophy. He was, in particular, a scholar, teacher and philosopher who influenced countless of thinkers throughout generations. His method of questioning, famously known as the “Socratic Method”, laid the groundwork for Western systems of logic in particular and philosophy in general.

Plato was considered to be his greatest student. In fact, it was Plato who wrote his philosophy. As is well known, Socrates did not write anything. It was Plato who systematically articulated Socrates’s philosophy through his famous dialogues, which also chronicled Socrates’s life.

Socrates was eventually accused of corrupting the youth of Athens and sentenced to death by drinking hemlock. He could have opted for exile, but chose death instead. It can be surmised that Socrates used his death as a final lesson for his students to face the adversities of life calmly and squarely rather than flee like chickens and ducks when faced with storms in life.

Socrates was fully convinced that philosophy must obtain practical results for the greater wellbeing of society. And for Socrates, the very first step towards the realization of this goal is the acquisition of wisdom through “knowing one’s Self”. As Socrates famously said, ultimate wisdom comes from knowing oneself.

So, how does Socrates view the self ?

The key to understanding Socrates’s concept of the self is through the philosopher’s take on the “Soul”.

But Socrates’s concept of the soul should not be viewed from the vantage point of Christianity, that is, a religious conception of the soul. It is important to note that the ancient Greeks lived long before the existence of Christianity so that for them, the concept of the soul did not have the same religious connotations that it has for us today.

But what does Socrates actually mean by soul?

Of course, we cannot know for certain what Socrates really meant by the term soul. But most scholars in philosophy agreed with Frederick Copleston, a famous historian of philosophy, who believes that when Socrates speaks of the soul, the philosopher refers to a “thinking and willing subject”.

With this conception of the soul as a thinking and willing subject, it is safe to assume that the soul for Socrates is the intellectual and moral personality of humans. So, when Socrates said that the soul is the essence of the human person, he meant that it is the essence of humans to think and will. For this reason, the soul or the self for Socrates is the responsible agent in knowing and acting rightly or wrongly.

This is because for Socrates, the soul is the seat of knowledge and ignorance, of goodness and badness. Again, as the seat of knowledge and ignorance, of goodness and badness, the soul, for Socrates, is the essence of the human person. In other words, for Socrates, the soul is the person’s true self. In fact, Socrates said that when we turn inward in search for self-knowledge, we would eventually discover our true self. Viewed from this vantage point, the self is our “inner being”.

Now, because the soul or the self is the essence of the human person, and because it constitutes our personality, Socrates urges us to take care of our soul.

But why should we take care of our soul?

According to Socrates, we need to take care of our soul to attain the “Good Life”. As we can see, this is the ultimate goal of Socrates’s philosophy. As Socrates said, the human person must see to it that her life is geared towards knowledge of the Good Life. And for Socrates, the Good Life simply means being wise and virtuous. This explains why for Socrates, the Good Life is attained through the acquisition of knowledge, wisdom, and virtue.

Now, it is important to note that for Socrates, knowledge of the Goof Life cannot be acquired exogenously, but endogenously. For this reason, it is paramount that we devote considerable amount of attention, energy, and resources to making our soul as good and beautiful as possible. This conviction is expressed most visibly in perhaps Socrates’s most famous statement: “The unexamined life is not worth living.”

This gives us a clear idea of what Socrates meant by knowledge in this context: “to know” is “to know oneself”. Indeed, for us to attain the Good Life, we need to examine our life. The reason for this is quite obvious: virtue (which for Socrates is identical with knowledge) is intrinsic to the human person, and which can be accessed through self-examination. Since virtue is intrinsic to the human person, Socrates was convinced that the human person can discover the truth, that is, the truth of the Good Life. And once the human person discovers the truth, she then does what she thinks is the right thing to doꟷthus the famous Socratic dictum: “Knowing what is right is doing what is right.”

If knowing what is right is doing what is right, what about the problem of evil?

This seems to be a problem in Socrates’s concept of the self. Socrates seems to think that humans were angels, that once they know the right thing to do, they act accordingly.

Of course, Socrates was very much aware of the existence of evil in the world. However, for Socrates, those who commit evil acts are ignorant of the truth. They are ignorant in the sense that they don’t have an immediate realization of the “Good”. Thus, again, examining one’s self is the most important task one can undertake, for it alone will give her the knowledge necessary to answer the question “how one ought to live her life”. So, the famous Socratic dictum “Knowing what is right is doing what is right” means that once the person knows her “Self”, she may then learn how to care for it.

Finally, and contrary to the opinion of the masses, one’s true self, according to Socrates, should not be identified with what one owns, with one’s social status, reputation, or even with one’s body. For Socrates, it is the state of the soul, that is, the person’s inner being, which determines the quality of one’s life. It’s not money, fame, elegant clothes, nice house, beautiful and expensive car, or high-tech gadgets that makes life meaningful, but knowledge, wisdom, and virtue.

Therefore, the true self, for Socrates, is one that is lived in accordance with knowledge, wisdom, and virtue. The true self is the virtuous self.

• Philosophers

What does Socrates say about the self?

Self-awareness as virtue.

Filed under:

• self-knowledge

People mentioned:

Dive into Socrates' quest for self-knowledge: a journey not just to know, but to reflect and grow within.

Socrates famously stated, "Know thyself," emphasizing self-awareness and the pursuit of knowledge about one's own nature, virtues, and vices. He believed understanding the self is crucial for wisdom and ethical living.

Know thyself. Socrates --> Socrates This succinct command, inscribed at the Temple of Apollo at Delphi and central to Socratic philosophy, underscores the importance of self-knowledge as the foundation of wisdom and ethical living. Socrates believed that understanding oneself is crucial to understanding one's place in the world and living a virtuous life. This pursuit of self-knowledge is not merely an intellectual exercise but a moral imperative, guiding one's decisions and actions in accordance with true knowledge of what is good and just.

To thine own self be true. Socrates --> Socrates While this specific phrasing is famously attributed to Polonius in Shakespeare's "Hamlet," it captures the essence of Socratic thought on the importance of authenticity. Socrates' teachings encourage individuals to live according to their own reasoned convictions and to seek alignment between their actions and their understanding of the good. This alignment is seen as essential for personal integrity and the foundation of a meaningful life.

The improvement of the soul is the highest goal of one's life. Socrates --> Socrates This perspective underscores Socrates' belief in the paramount importance of focusing on one's inner development and moral character over external achievements or material success. He advocated for a life dedicated to cultivating the virtues of the soul, suggesting that true fulfillment and happiness are found in the pursuit of wisdom and ethical living.

• Self-knowledge is central to Socratic thought.
• Socrates equates the self with the soul and virtue.
• Socratic philosophy encourages continuous self-examination.

Socrates mentions the self in the following books:

Plato's Apology (c. 399 B.C.) : Socrates' defense at his trial, as recounted by Plato, offers profound insights into his views on the self, particularly his commitment to living a virtuous and examined life. Socrates argues that the unexamined life is not worth living, highlighting the importance of self-knowledge and integrity.

Plato's Phaedo (c. 360 B.C.) : This dialogue covers Socrates' last day before his execution, discussing the immortality of the soul and the philosopher's readiness to die. It reflects Socrates' beliefs on the soul's relationship to the self and the pursuit of truth and virtue.

Plato's Symposium (c. 385-370 B.C.) : Through a series of speeches on the nature of love, Socrates discusses the concept of the true self and the idea of beauty as a pathway to understanding truth and the essence of one's being.

Plato's Republic (c. 380 B.C.) : Socrates explores justice in the individual and the state, examining the role of the rational, spirited, and appetitive parts of the soul. This work offers a comprehensive view of his ideas on how a well-ordered self contributes to a just society.

Xenophon's Memorabilia (c. 371 B.C.) : This collection of dialogues and recollections of Socrates focuses on his teachings and interactions with others. Xenophon presents a more practical side of Socrates, emphasizing his ethical teachings and the importance of self-discipline and virtue.

The Concept of the Self in Socratic Philosophy

The philosophy of Socrates hinges on an understanding of the self as a driving force towards wisdom and virtue. Let's explore how Socrates articulated the nature of selfhood, emphasizing the importance of self-knowledge and acknowledging our own ignorance.

Defining the Socratic Self

Socrates, a foundational figure in Western philosophy, conceptualized the self in relation to the capacity for reason and introspection . You might have heard the famous Socratic dictum, "Know thyself," which underscores the belief that understanding one's self is central to living a fulfilled life. For Socrates, the self is not simply an isolated entity but deeply connected to a broader moral framework.

The Soul and Self-Knowledge

For Socrates, the soul is paramount; it's the essence that enables self-knowledge and virtue. He argued that care for your soul is the highest pursuit, as it aligns you with the true form of the good ( Socrates's Concept of the Self ). This self-knowledge isn't just knowing facts about oneself but involves a profound understanding of one's true self , reaching the underlying truths through rigorous introspection .

Socratic Ignorance and the True Self

Socrates famously claimed to know nothing except the fact of his own ignorance . This declaration isn't a claim to total knowledgelessness but an admission that recognizing your own ignorance is a vital step to genuine knowledge and, therefore, to understanding your true self. He invites you to regularly examine your life and beliefs to ensure they withstand the test of reason and truth , distancing yourself from false understanding ( Socratic Ignorance ).

Socratic Dialogues and the Exploration of the Self

In your journey through philosophy, you'll find that Socratic dialogues are a window into understanding the concept of self. These conversational forms, primarily penned by Plato, reflect Socrates' process of inquiry and self-reflection.

The Role of Dialogues in Understanding the Self

Dialogues serve as a mirror for you to examine the self. Socrates believed in the power of questioning as a tool for self-discovery. These discussions, often between teacher and student, allow you to dive deep into personal virtues, beliefs, and knowledge. In works like the Meno , Socrates employs the method of elenchos , which is a series of questions that aims to dismantle preconceptions and lead you to more profound self-awareness.

Plato's Portrayal of Socrates' Teachings

Plato presents Socrates not just as a philosopher but also as a guide in the quest for self-knowledge. Through Plato’s writings, particularly in dialogues such as the Phaedrus , you observe Socrates engaging in dialectic , an art form constituting logical argumentation, to help others unfold their understanding of the self. These Platonic dialogues depict Socrates highlighting the inseparable bond between knowledge and virtue .

Prominent Dialogues Discussing the Self

You'll encounter pivotal discussions on self-knowledge in several Socratic dialogues. In the Apology , Socrates discusses the essential nature of self-awareness in relation to a well-lived life. The dialogue encourages you to live a life of philosophical inquiry, continually challenging your beliefs and understanding. In these conversations, the role of the philosopher transitions from an instructor to a facilitator of personal and ethical improvement.

Socratic Ethics and the Good Life

Socrates, a classical Greek philosopher, believed that living a virtuous and wise life was essential for the good life. He asserted that by focusing on self-improvement and moral integrity, you could achieve true happiness.

The Pursuit of Virtue and Wisdom

For Socrates, virtue and wisdom are intertwined and at the core of the good life. He suggested that to live well, you must strive for intellectual and moral excellence. By constantly seeking wisdom , you foster a better understanding of yourself and the world, which leads to more virtuous actions. Socrates believed that knowing the good directly influences your ability to do good, as knowledge inherently aims at the good.

Understanding and Achieving the Good Life

The good life , according to Socrates, isn't about wealth or pleasure but about living in a way that's in harmony with your own nature and values. By practicing sôphrosunê , or self-control, you achieve a balance between your desires , emotions , and rational thoughts. This equilibrium is essential for harnessing passions and pleasures in a manner that contributes positively to your personal growth and wellbeing.

Self-Control and Moral Psychology

Socrates saw self-control as a critical part of moral psychology; it's what allows you to resist the pull of immediate pleasures that might lead you away from a virtuous life. By examining your life and your actions, you develop greater wisdom and insight, which equips you with the fortitude to act in accordance with what you've determined to be good . For Socrates, this is the epitome of a philosophical life , where self-awareness and ethical conduct steer you towards a fulfilling and meaningful existence.

Society, Politics, and the Socratic Self

Exploring the relationship between individual identity and the larger community, you'll uncover Socrates's views on how one's self is shaped by and interacts with society and its political structures.

The Individual and the Polis

In Socrates's view, your identity cannot be separated from the polis , or city-state. Socrates believed that the self is inherently social and posited that your personal virtues are reflective of the health of your society. He argued that the good of the individual was intertwined with the good of the community.

Philosophy's Role in Democracy

Philosophy , according to Socrates, plays a vital role in democracy by fostering critical thinking and self-examination. Socrates encouraged you to question prevailing ethical standards and the rhetoric of politicians and sophists alike, promoting a democratic society built on rational discourse.

Critique of Sophistic Influence

Socrates was critical of the sophists , who often prioritized persuasion over truth. He viewed their influence as potentially corrupting both individual piety and political integrity. By advocating for a life of critical self-analysis, Socrates sought to protect the democratic agoras —the very heart of Athenian democracy—from the sophists' manipulative techniques.

Socrates' Legacy and Influence on Philosophy

Socrates left a profound impact on philosophy, shaping the discourse through his questioning methodology and his students. His legacy continues to influence philosophical thought, from antiquity to modern times.

Plato's Interpretation and Expansion

Plato, a steadfast student of Socrates, not only chronicled many of Socrates' discussions but also expanded upon his ideas. Through Plato's dialogues , Socrates' philosophical methods received a framework which later generations of scholars could study and interpret. Central to this is the Socratic method , a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue that stimulates critical thinking, a technique still prevalent in philosophical and general education.

Aristotle and Hellenistic Philosophers

Aristotle , another towering figure in Greek philosophy, was indirectly influenced by Socrates through Plato. Although Aristotle diverged from some of Socratic and Platonic thought, the fundamental ways that Socrates approached questions of ethics and reasoning echoed in his work. Furthermore, Hellenistic philosophers like the Stoics and Epicureans also inherited Socratic themes, integrating the concepts into their philosophies that varied from personal ethics to the nature of happiness.

Socratic Themes in Modern Philosophy

Socrates’ reach extends far into modern philosophy with thinkers like Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Heidegger drawing on his approach. Kierkegaard , for instance, explored Socratic irony, while Nietzsche and Heidegger engaged with Socratic themes in their works. His relentless pursuit of truth and self-knowledge set a precedent in Western philosophy that resonates with your understanding of philosophical inquiry today within cultural and academic studies.

Examining Socrates' Final Days

In his final days, Socrates delivered poignant thoughts on ethical living and the significance of an examined life. Your exploration into his final moments will shed light on the profound impact of his teachings and the circumstances of his death.

The Trial and Sentencing

During his trial, as documented in Plato's "Apology", Socrates faced charges of corrupting the youth of Athens and impiety. Despite his compelling defense centered around the unyielding pursuit of virtue, the jury found him guilty. Sentenced to death by drinking hemlock , Socrates stood firm in his beliefs, choosing integrity over acquiescence to an escape from prison.

Reflections on Death and the Afterlife

As recounted in the "Phaedo", Socrates approached his impending death with both curiosity and a fearless demeanor, contemplating the soul's immortality. He mused on the afterlife as a continuation of an individual's philosophical journey. His last moments were remarkably spent in a discussion on the ethical implications of an examined life , further instilling the importance of seeking truth up until one's final breath.

The Significance of Socrates' Death to the Self

Socrates' death embodies the ultimate expression of his philosophical convictions. His choice to accept the verdict without bowing to the pressure to flee underscored a life dedicated to ethical principles, where the pursuit of knowledge is seen as integral for a life of virtue. His legacy encourages you to reflect on your own life, to examine your choices, looking beyond the physical confines, much like the prisoners of Athens, and to embrace philosophical inquiry as a path to true fulfillment.

End of content

No more pages to load

• Corrections

Why Did Socrates Focus on Self-Knowledge and Introspection?

Fundamental to Socrates’ philosophy was his insistence on learning as an internal process of self-discovery.

Socrates had a profound impact on the trajectory of Western philosophy despite insisting “all I know is that I know nothing.” This claim alone could be misconstrued to suggest Socrates didn’t think there was anything that could be known, but this couldn’t be further from the truth. The existence of eternal truth is fundamental to Socrates’ philosophy and Ancient Greek philosophy as a whole. It is almost paradoxical that this hope for possessing real knowledge—something so far outside oneself—is supported by the realization that learning is a deeply internal process.

Living a Good Life

Socrates’ main goal throughout his life was figuring out what it meant to be a good person. The culture of 5 th century Athens was incredibly social; as much as the presence of aristocrats and festivals shaped the character of ancient Athens , it was also responsible for cultivating superficiality and indulgence. Nonetheless, Socrates loved Athens and Athenians, regularly engaging in conversations with his fellow citizens and preserving an authentic yet counter-cultural presence.

For Socrates, living a good life meant acting in a good and just manner, rather than just pursuing pleasure. He believed that the only sure way to act properly was to know what goodness or justice was. Looking for clarity, he turned to friends and fellow Athenians, asking them what their answers to such nebulous questions were and what reasoning was behind them. Nobody, not even Socrates, had conclusive answers. However, Socrates was never one to accept inconclusive matters and move on. His conversations aimed for profound, resolving answers, and while Plato’s dialogues show how evasive these answers are, they also reveal some strong convictions Socrates held with near certainty.

Death Before Dishonor

Get the latest articles delivered to your inbox

Please check your inbox to activate your subscription.

Socrates never compromised on doing what he thought was the right thing to do, even when his life depended on it. During his trial , Socrates argued against accusations of impiety and corrupting the youth when expressing regret and pleading for mercy would have likely spared him a death sentence . In the Crito , one of Socrates’ friends, Crito, sneaks into his prison cell before his execution with a plan to help Socrates flee Athens and avoid an unjust death. Socrates refuses to accept this offer unless they can both agree that fleeing would be good and proper recourse.

As they talk, they both first agree on the importance of always acting in a good and just manner. Socrates takes this further by addressing whether the opinions of all others matter, or only the opinions of those who are good and just (or at least act as such). Crito’s main counterpoint is that the opinions of the masses, namely, Socrates’ jury, are responsible for his death sentence. Even if others are unwise, their opinions must be considered for the sake of self-preservation at least. Socrates doubles down, asserting that a good life be valued above all other possibilities.

Socrates must accept his fate, because avoiding it would mean throwing away his goal of a good life. He argues that he has lived in Athens all his life, having been nurtured and supported by the state to become who he is, and that this has always represented his acceptance of all the laws of Athens. Had he been dissatisfied, he could have left legally or tried to change any unjust laws. Now that it is too late for either, fleeing would only suggest that his good character and actions were never more important than his own self-interest. Furthermore, Socrates could not resume his way of life in any other city, since the people there would know that he fled Athenian persecution, and this alone would render anything he has to say about virtue and justice insincere.

The Immortality of the Soul

Considering the Crito alone, Socrates would have needed some other motivation for staying true to his values. If he were pursuing a good life for the sake of others’ opinions towards him, he likely wouldn’t have been sentenced to death in the first place. His motivation comes from within, and the importance of a good life depends on more than the time he has on earth. The final moments of Socrates life are narrated in the Phaedo , where he describes death as a separation of the body and the soul.

For Socrates, being a philosopher has meant being attracted to wisdom, ideas, and truth. Death gives the soul its chance to be freed from the body’s desires and intellectual inefficacy, meaning that it can finally grasp the knowledge and eternal truths which Socrates, like all true philosophers, has spent his life searching for.

The concept of an immortal soul comes up in many of the Platonic dialogues. While the chronology of these dialogues does not match up perfectly with Socrates’ life, this doesn’t further confound the question surrounding the soul. The latter half of the Phaedo explores the quandary by explaining the duality of opposites, namely, the material and immaterial world. While the soul and its vessel can be analogized to other things (e.g., fire is to the body as heat is to the soul), this is not enough to conclusively prove what happens to a soul after death, or if it is truly indestructible. There is agreement in the Phaedo of the soul’s preexistence, which is addressed in other dialogues with greater reference to individual experience. 

Virtue and Knowledge as Objects of the Soul

The Phaedrus also explores the immortality of the soul as Socrates tries to account for all people, the passions and drives they show, and how these correspond to divine exuberances. Better yet, the Meno focuses on the nature of learning and knowledge itself to suggest an immortal soul. When Socrates and Meno discuss what all virtues have in common, their dialogue shifts from explaining how specific virtues are often conditional, and that for any individual, they must recognize their own virtue within; it isn’t enough to just be told they’re virtuous.

Socrates and Meno agree that virtue is unlike any other field of inquiry because it cannot be taught. However, even knowledge which can be taught is never imposed onto a student or pupil, but rather brought out from within them. It is that universal feeling of a concept or lesson finally clicking which suggests both the existence of an immortal soul and a nexus of objective knowledge which the soul accesses. The Greek word for this is “anamnesis,” the idea that all learning is actually recollection—a gap being bridged between an immaterial soul and immaterial truth. Both exist before individuals live, yet their reunion is fundamental to the human condition.

“All I Know Is That I Know Nothing”: What Did Socrates Mean?

By Brian Daly BA Philosophy, BA English Brian holds BAs in Philosophy and English from Quinnipiac University and currently lives in New York. Whether through writing, teaching, or tutoring, he is always eager to spur interest in pondering and discussing complex ideas. His other interests include writing poetry, listening to music, and gardening.

Frequently Read Together

The Ancient Festivals Of Dionysus In Athens: ‘Euhoi Bacchoi’

Delian League: Rise & Fall of the Empire of Athens

Plato: A Complete Overview of His Life, Work, and Philosophy

early greek philosophy

Socrates and Self-Knowledge

Ca. 410 BC (Ath. Arch. Mus. 765)

Published by Cambridge U.P. in 2015, Socrates and Self-Knowledge , now available in inexpensive paperback , and previewable on Google, has now been reviewed in the following journals:

• Classical Philology (A. Callard)
• Philosophical Quarterly (B. Hennig)
• Phronesis (D. Scott)
• Revue de Philologie (P. Pontier)
• Polis (T. Brickhouse)
• Ancient Philosophy (W. Prior)
• Classical Journal (B. Norton)
• Plato Journal (A. Pichanick)

In this book, I provide a new approach to Greek philosophy’s fundamental concern with the Delphic “Know yourself” — with the nature and accessibility of self-knowledge. I focus on the open question of “selfhood” and on the nature of the activities that count as gignôskein (“recognizing,” “knowing,” “acknowledging”). The critical aspect of the book argues against the standard “theoretic” interpretation of ancient self-knowledge, that knowing oneself amounts to having (justified) true beliefs about some object, e.g. soul, human nature, or god. I also assess two more plausible views — that knowing oneself is simply identifying one’s set of beliefs or accepting that one is ignorant — and show they are inadequate to capture Socrates’ views of self-knowledge.

The reconstructive aspect of the book vindicates a trio of claims.

(i) The Delphic injunction interpellates a self, and so knowing oneself takes determining what, for oneself, ought to count as this “self” that, in turn, one ought to know.

(ii) We are to model “knowing yourself ” on knowing someone else ; thus the practices, sympathies, and sensitivities—including affective and bodily comportment—appropriate to recognizing, knowing, and really understanding a friend, say, are just those appropriate to and regulative of understanding oneself.

(iii) But knowing oneself is, ultimately, a therapeutic goal, one of appraising and affixing oneself to one’s ideals. By succeeding in owning up to one’s commitments, one becomes, from the moral and epistemological perspectives, both a “self” and a “knower.” Plato identifies this accomplishment elsewhere as knowing the good, becoming sôphrôn (“disciplined”) and dikaios (“just”), or having virtue and wisdom. We might identify it, with Korsgaard, Larmore, or Varga, as becoming an agent or a paragon of authenticity.

The book proceeds as a series of close readings of the Platonic dialogues and contemporaneous philosophy and literature. It gives its most continuous attention to Socrates’ conversations, both in the way he holds his interlocutors responsible for themselves by drawing out their deepest hopes and passions, and the way he shows that the practices and attitudes of philosophical investigation are constitutive of the moral and intellectual virtues. This book contributes to a retelling of the history of conceptions of selfhood, a broadening of our understanding of ancient epistemology, and a intervention into contemporary questions about wholeheartedness, frank speech, agency, and authenticity.

Chapter summaries

Contrary to popular and scholarly belief, no documentation for a pre-philosophical meaning of the gnôthi sauton remains. The precept arises earliest in Heraclitus; then in the tragic meditation on the rise of the intellectual disciplines, Prometheus Bound ; then in a fragment from a probable friend of Socrates’, the tragedian and belletrist Ion of Chios; and finally, before Plato, in Aristophanes’ Clouds , where it is treated as a Socratic refrain. These extant references to the gnôthi sauton show that by the fifth century, the precept was taken as at once familiar, mystifying, and profound. Socrates’ interpretation of the precept cannot, then, be treated as radical; and in fact it looks continuous with earlier reflections. Whereas some scholars have thought that ancient self-knowledge must be impossible, concerned solely with impersonal universals, reducible to more familiar concepts like knowledge of justice, or merely propaedeutic, a careful study shows that Socrates treats self-knowledge as self-constitution, the practice of making oneself able to be known and to know.

The Charmides analyzes self-knowledge in three ways. Critias glosses the injunction “Know yourself” engraved at the entrance to the Temple of Apollo at Delphi as a greeting; the dialogue opens with a series of successful and delayed greetings that illustrate his point. Socrates exhorts Charmides to investigate his views about sôphrosunê (“soundmindedness” or “discipline”) – and thereby to know himself – in a sequence of five increasingly normative routes; the final one is to test candidate ideas for acceptance. The dialogue’s latter half presents Socrates’ testing of Critias’ definition of sôphrosunê as knowing oneself; Critias’ image of this definition leads to him coming to allege the impossibility and uselessness of self-knowledge. Yet this is inconsistent with his views about its Delphic provenance. The problem with his idea is that it abstracts self-knowledge too far from the person who is to know himself. In fact, self-knowledge is possible and valuable only for a person who has some knowledge, some ignorance, and needs to figure out, in order to live well, which is which.

Three times in his pedagogical seduction of Alcibiades Socrates brings up the gnôthi sauton . Each time, he reveals an important aspect of self-knowledge. The first time, Socrates describes to Alcibiades his real competitors for the regional influence he desires, namely the Spartan and Persian kings, and says that he can satisfy his desire only by developing himself to overmatch their preparations. This means that self-knowledge involves proper an acknowledgment of and responsiveness to the extent of, obstacles to, and means toward one’s goals. The second time, Socrates says that for them to know what “knowing yourself” and thereby “caring for yourself” means, they will have to understand what “the self itself” means. He is saying that the notions of unity, selfhood, and even agency cannot be avoided in talk of self-knowledge. The third time, Socrates says that knowing yourself is usefully understood on the model of reflexive perception, eyes looking at themselves – responding to an exhortation to do so – in the mirror of another’s eyes. This most famous imagery shows that self-knowledge is evaluative, dialogical, and aspirational. After this third reference to the gnôthi sauton , Socrates links self-knowledge to sôphrosunê and political success; self-knowledge has an eminently personal and practical effect.

The Phaedrus , ostensibly concerned with rhetoric, erôs , and the career of the soul in philosophy, twice takes up self-knowledge in a serious way: in Socrates’ introductory remarks about myth-rectification, and in his later “Palinode” speech. In the Palinode, Socrates uses an analogy of a mirror to describe maturation and self-constitution through engagement with another person; its differences from the Alcibiades model illuminate the obscurer aspects of that model. In his remarks at the dialogue’s opening, about Boreas and plausible explanations for mythic tales, Socrates claims not yet to have been able to follow the Delphic command to know himself, and therefore to have too little time for providing new explanations of myths. His inability to know himself follows not from some mercurial nature, knotted soul, or conceptual impossibility, but from the fact that testing one’s beliefs and desires must go stepwise, one at a time, and this task will take a lifetime. This fact is suggested by his careful comparison of self-knowledge with myth-rectification, which also tests individual historical claims stepwise, one at a time. This is its difficulty, not, as usually assumed, its reliance on plausibility ( eikos ) reasoning.

In his argument against the hedonist Philebus, Socrates raises several points whose connection to self-knowledge has been little appreciated by scholars but which vivify the themes pursued in these chapters. In distinguishing types of pleasures, Socrates observes that people with sôphrosunê and thoughtfulness get pleasure from their very sôphrosunê and thoughtfulness, that is, from their normative unity, by contrast with undisciplined and thoughtless people, who get their pleasure in other ways. Socrates later addresses normative unity head on, observing that thinking about the unity of the self generates paradoxes, some of which debaters exploit for dialectical ends, but others of which actually have depth and importance. One serious paradox is the presence of pleasure, given that pleasure as such appears independent of reason, but its realization into a unified life appears dependent on reason. In an extremely compressed passage, Socrates argues for four ways that pleasure contributes to the choiceworthy life only if recognized by reason. The precept gnôthi sauton itself arises in Socrates’ argument about mixed pleasures, where he claims that we laugh at those who lack self-knowledge. This means that we all expect people to have self-knowledge; it must be normative of personhood, and thus of the unified self.

Euthydemus collects books of wisdom to effect his maturity into a great statesman; but Xenophon’s Socrates shows him to have failed to leverage his reading into the knowledge of justice. Not only that; he has failed to know himself, which includes knowing his powers ( dunameis ). Most scholars think that “knowing your powers” is all this Socrates means by self-knowledge, and thereby judge this view to be impoverished or uninteresting relative to Plato’s. Yet this is not all Socrates means. He relates self-knowledge to the knowledge of justice and the good; discerning one’s ideal and actual conditions as a human; achieving self-ownership and avoiding self-slavery; knowing the possibilities of other people; and having improving conversations.

As Socrates debates the meaning of “philosophy” in the Platonic Rival Lovers ( Erastai ), he sets self-knowledge at the foundation of any beneficial practice. Unlike in the dialogues studied earlier in this book, here he acknowledges no special obstacles to knowing oneself. By contrast, in the Platonic Hipparchus , Socrates observes with purported admiration that the tyrant Hipparchus dismissed the Delphic gnôthi sauton in favor of his own moral injunctions. Hipparchus’ view must be that commanding a person to know himself has less value than telling him, for example, to “walk with justice in mind” or “not to deceive a friend.” The view of the Hipparchus might seem to have more contemporary adherents than that of the Rival Lovers ; talk of self-knowledge can appear expansive, vague, indirect, and even metaphysically or epistemologically presumptuous. Yet Socrates’ commitment to the injunction, and therefore to understanding what it means, tells against assuming that we can so readily dismiss its claim on us. His reflections on the Delphic injunction depicted in the texts studied in this book support a renewed confidence in the value of thinking about self-knowledge.

↞ Previous Post

Next Post ↠

• Help & FAQ

Socrates and self-knowledge

Research output : Book/Report › Book

In this book, the first systematicstudy of Socrates's reflections on self-knowledge, Christopher Moore examines the ancient precept 'Know yourself' and, drawing on Plato, Aristophanes, Xenophon, and others, reconstructs and reassesses the arguments about self-examination, personal ideals, and moral maturity at the heart of the Socratic project. What has been thought to be a purely epistemological or metaphysical inquiry turns out to be deeply ethical, intellectual, and social. Knowing yourself is more than attending to your beliefs, discerning the structure of your soul, or recognizing your ignorance-it is constituting yourself as a self who can be guided by knowledge toward the good life. This is neither a wholly introspective nor a completely isolated pursuit: we know and constitute ourselves best through dialogue with friends and critics. This rich and original study will be of interest to researchers in the philosophy of Socrates, selfhood, and ancient thought.

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

• General Arts and Humanities

Access to Document

• 10.1017/CBO9781316401248

Other files and links

• Link to publication in Scopus
• Link to the citations in Scopus

Fingerprint

• Self-knowledge Keyphrases 100%
• Socrates Keyphrases 100%
• Self-Knowledge Psychology 100%
• Selfhood Psychology 50%
• Aristophanes Keyphrases 33%
• Plato Keyphrases 33%
• Good Life Keyphrases 33%
• Xenophon Keyphrases 33%

T1 - Socrates and self-knowledge

AU - Moore, Christopher

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © Christopher Moore 2015.

PY - 2015/1/1

Y1 - 2015/1/1

N2 - In this book, the first systematicstudy of Socrates's reflections on self-knowledge, Christopher Moore examines the ancient precept 'Know yourself' and, drawing on Plato, Aristophanes, Xenophon, and others, reconstructs and reassesses the arguments about self-examination, personal ideals, and moral maturity at the heart of the Socratic project. What has been thought to be a purely epistemological or metaphysical inquiry turns out to be deeply ethical, intellectual, and social. Knowing yourself is more than attending to your beliefs, discerning the structure of your soul, or recognizing your ignorance-it is constituting yourself as a self who can be guided by knowledge toward the good life. This is neither a wholly introspective nor a completely isolated pursuit: we know and constitute ourselves best through dialogue with friends and critics. This rich and original study will be of interest to researchers in the philosophy of Socrates, selfhood, and ancient thought.

AB - In this book, the first systematicstudy of Socrates's reflections on self-knowledge, Christopher Moore examines the ancient precept 'Know yourself' and, drawing on Plato, Aristophanes, Xenophon, and others, reconstructs and reassesses the arguments about self-examination, personal ideals, and moral maturity at the heart of the Socratic project. What has been thought to be a purely epistemological or metaphysical inquiry turns out to be deeply ethical, intellectual, and social. Knowing yourself is more than attending to your beliefs, discerning the structure of your soul, or recognizing your ignorance-it is constituting yourself as a self who can be guided by knowledge toward the good life. This is neither a wholly introspective nor a completely isolated pursuit: we know and constitute ourselves best through dialogue with friends and critics. This rich and original study will be of interest to researchers in the philosophy of Socrates, selfhood, and ancient thought.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84953862055&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84953862055&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/CBO9781316401248

DO - 10.1017/CBO9781316401248

AN - SCOPUS:84953862055

SN - 9781107123304

BT - Socrates and self-knowledge

PB - Cambridge University Press

Socrates’ Search for Self-Knowledge

• First Online: 13 March 2024

Cite this chapter

• Catherine H. Zuckert 12  

Part of the book series: Philosophical Studies Series ((PSSP,volume 155))

111 Accesses

Early in the Phaedrus , Socrates tells his interlocutor that he does not have time to formulate naturalistic reinterpretations of old stories, because he is not yet able, according to the Delphic inscription, to know myself. Indeed, it appears laughable to me for one who is still ignorant of this to examine alien things. … [So] I examine not them but myself: whether I happen to be some wild animal more multiply twisted and filled with desire than Typhon, or a gentler, simpler animal having by nature a share in a divine fate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Plato ( 1998 ). Phaedrus (J. H. Nichols, Trans).

Attempting to present a historical account of the Socratic search for self-knowledge Moore ( 2015 ) constructs a view of the activity of this extraordinary individual from a variety of different ancient sources. Acknowledging that the Platonic dialogues constitute the primary source of our knowledge of Socrates, Moore does not limit his reconstruction of nature of the self-knowledge Socrates seeks to Plato, because he wants to avoid the characteristics of ancient philosophy that make it unattractive to contemporary students: ‘metaphysical’ claims about the existence of purely intelligible, eternal and unchanging ‘ideas’ and ‘elitist’ restrictions to a very few philosophically inclined individuals. As a result his contention that Socrates’ search for self-knowledge consists in a process of self-constitution, beginning with a clarification of one’s ‘ideals’ followed by an attempt to learn how best to achieve these ‘commitments’ in conversations with others aiming at mutual improvement, does not correspond very closely to what we find in Platonic dialogues.

At 33d-34a he mentions the fathers and brothers of individuals (including Plato) that have spent time with him who are present at his trial but have not joined his accusers in charging him with corrupting the young.

Applying the techniques used in Biblical ‘higher criticism’ to classical texts, scholars in the nineteenth century cast doubt on the ‘authenticity’ of the Alcibiades, and the importance attributed to it has diminished. Before the nineteenth century, however, the Alcibiades was often said to be the place one should begin to study Plato, because the dialogue deals so explicitly with the question why a human being needs to seek self-knowledge and how one might begin to acquire it. Recently Gill ( 2007 ), Belfiore ( 2012 ), and Moore ( 2015 ) have emphasized the contribution the Alcibiades makes specifically to our understanding of Socrates’ search for self-knowledge.

That ‘respect’ proves to be a crucial one, however, because Socrates claims that the daimonion which keeps him out of politics is a better guardian than Pericles, but the impious young man dismisses Socrates’ suggestion as a jest.

This could be the reason that ‘the self itself’ ( auto tauto ) does not occur in other dialogues. The ‘self’ is and always remains a combination of understanding with desire, both elements of which may change, although the fact that they exist in combination does not. The ‘self’ ( autos ) is not the same as itself in the same respect; it is the same in constitution, but different in activity.

Annas ( 1985 ) and Brunschwig ( 1996 ) have thus adopted the later ‘neoplatonic’ understanding of the object of the ‘self-knowledge’ that Socrates claims to be seeking as abstract, general and purely rational like the ‘ideas’ he often describes in other dialogues as ‘in themselves’. Gill ( 2007 ) agrees with Brunschwig ( 1996 ) that the order of the arguments suggests that the first emphasis on a cooperative endeavor is only preliminary and that the neoplatonic understanding of the search for an impersonal, de-individualized self, which is pure, god-like mind ( nous ) takes us further, but does not think that either constitutes a definition of the auto tauto. Observing that Alcibiades would certainly not have understood or taken up the search for a god-like mind, Gill thinks it inappropriate simply to jettison the first cooperative presentation of the endeavor stressed more than once in the dialogue. Instead, he argues that both descriptions of self-knowledge explore the auto hekaston, i.e., what each of us is as an individual. As Gill points out, there is no need to introduce the idea of the pupil of one eye reflecting another, if the god serves as a superior mirror. The two pupils resemble each other in being active capacities, whereas the mirror is not active, and when one active capacity looks at another, they recognize their shared aretē. The image implies a ‘triangular’ model in which the two psuches are related to each other and where their shared capacity and goal is god like, but I find the ‘triangular’ relation of two lovers to an intelligible object of desire depicted more fully in the Phaedrus.

If Socrates had convinced Alcibiades to continue engaging with him in philosophical investigations of what constitutes the best way of life for a human being before he entered politics, the philosopher would have performed a great service to the city of Athens by removing from the public sphere the individual Thucydides shows not only convinced his fellow citizens to undertake their disastrous invasion of Sicily but also told the Spartans how to defeat them.

Critias and Charmides were both cousins of Plato. Although he is often said to have been a member of the Thirty (oligarchs who overthrew the democratic government after Athens was defeated by Sparta in 404), his name does not appear in the list in Xenophon, Hellenica 2.3.2–3; but he was one of the ten chosen by the Thirty to govern the Piraeus and is listed along with Critias as one of those who died defending the tyrannical regime (ibid., 2.4.19).

For this reason, West and West (Plato,  1986 ) translate sōphrosunē as ‘sound-mindedness’, citing the connection between sōphrosunē and sōphron (clever, prudent, skilled or wise) as well as the noun’s common root with the verb phronein (think) and phronimos (a practically wise man).

As Hyland ( 1981 ), pp. 41–2, suggests, Charmides’ complaint might indicate his own lack of moderation in drinking wine the night before.

Although West and West translate sōphrosunē as ‘sound-minded’, I adhere to the usual translation here to maintain the link to Socrates’ precondition for achieving self-knowledge in the Alcibiades.

Cf. the description of virtuous behavior in young men by the “just speech” and the criticisms of these views by the “unjust speech” in Aristophanes, Clouds 890–1104.

As Lampert ( 2010 ), pp. 148–242, argues.

Prodicus is shown to be one of the three sophists whom Socrates, Alcibiades, and Critias encounter in the Protagoras, dramatically set 4 years before the Charmides in 432 BCE.

By specifically jettisoning the connection between knowing oneself and moderation as usually understood, Lampert ( 2010 ), pp. 148–242, points out, Critias erases all limits on human knowledge and action. Benardete ( 1986 ), pp. 9–36 , Levine ( 2016 ), pp. 2–3, 30–31, 34, 52n5, 167, 283–330, and Stern ( 1999 ) emphasize the connection between the implicit denial of divine superiority in Critias’s interpretation of the inscription and his later tyranny as well as the irony involved in Plato’s showing Socrates discussing the meaning of ‘moderation’ with two men his readers would know had later imposed a tyrannical regime on the Athenian demos .

Ignoring the significance of the difference between the human and the divine upon which Socrates insists in both the Apology and the Alcibiades , Tuozzo, 2011 and Moore, 2015 , 57–87, argue that Critias’ re-interpretation of the inscription as a greeting is consistent with the understanding of the search for self-knowledge advocated by Socrates as an inquiry one undertakes with others.

Although Socrates begins his examination by asking Critias whether moderation is gignōskein, Bruell ( 1977 ), p. 166, points out, Socrates collapses the distinction between recognizing or knowing in some loose sense and science by obtaining Critias’s agreement that sōphrosunē is epistēmē tis kai tinos (165c).

Both Bruell ( 1977 ), pp. 172–174, and McKim ( 1985 ), pp. 60–61, argue that it is Critias’s acceptance of Socrates’ reformulation of Critias’s understanding of self-knowledge from knowledge of oneself ( heautou, 165c) to knowledge of itself ( heautēs, 166c) that leads to the very abstract definition to which Socrates objects.

They thus threaten to treat Socrates in the tyrannical manner Critias and Charmides later ruled. Although Socrates protests (176d) that if they use violence, no human being will be able to resist them, in Ap. 32c-d he informs the jury that he disobeyed the command of the oligarchs, although he would probably have been killed as a result if their government had not been overthrown soon thereafter. At that point in his life, he also reminds the jury that he expects to die soon in any case.

E.g., Levine ( 2016 ) and Lampert ( 2010 ).

Charmides is said to be a follower of Protagoras when Socrates comes upon him in the eponymous dialogue (315a) but that dialogue is usually thought to have taken place before the Charmides. And in the Theages (129a) Socrates says that he urged Charmides not to train for the Nemean games, because his daimonion opposed it, but that Charmides rationalized the opposition and trained anyway.

Until recently, Griswold ( 1986 ) was one of the few commentators to emphasize the centrality of Socrates’ search for self-knowledge to the argument of the dialogue as a whole. Most commentators have understood the dialogue to be primarily about eros or rhetoric. Or, like Derrida ( 1981 ), pp. 61–172, and Burger ( 1980 ), they have concentrated on the problematic critique of writing at the end.

In the Protagoras (315c) Phaedrus (444–393) is closely linked to Eryximachus, the physician, who stands with him around the sophist Hippias in 432, and again in the Symposium (176d) at Agathon’s house in 416. Like Alcibiades and Charmides, he was accused of sacrilege in profaning the Eleusinian mysteries and fled into exile, whereupon his possessions were confiscated and sold.

Lysias (445–380) was born the son of a wealthy resident alien in Athens who went with his older brother Polemarchus (shown to be a companion of Socrates in Rep. I.327b-335e) to the colony of Thurii, but returned by 412 when the Athenian colonists were expelled after their defeat in Sicily. As depicted in the Phaedrus, he had already acquired a reputation as an orator.

“Since Socrates does not give us a definite number of beings in his account, and since he introduces the issue of the duration of the visions different souls attain,” Nichols ( 2009 ), p. 110, observes, “there are in principle an infinite number of human types.”

At first, Socrates explains, the youth does not understand what has happened to him when his soul is filled with love. It has escaped his notice that he is seeing himself in the mirror, in the lover; and he calls his own desire to be loved as he now loves, “friendship.” Like the best form of friendship Aristotle describes at NE VIII.5.1157b25–35, the relation between Socrates’ pair of lovers is aspirational, because each desires to help his friend become as good and virtuous as he can be. But unlike Aristotle’s friends, Socrates lover and beloved are not equal, certainly not at the beginning, and the love each feels for the other is initially experienced as a bodily erotic passion, even though that bodily desire is first overcome by awe and understood more rationally later. The older lover becomes a teacher both by precept and example. As a result of the passion aroused by the sight and later company of the beloved, the understanding of the beauty or nobility that attracts him changes as he strives to become more virtuous in order to become attractive to his beloved. Socrates does not agree with Aristotle, who also distinguishes erotic relations from friendships, that over time the erotic relation can become a friendly and affectionate, but not passionate relationship. According to Socrates, a passionate desire to become closer to the beauty they admire is necessary to keep both partners seeking to make each other more virtuous, and the search must continue, because no human is perfect.

Looking back at the Alcibiades in light of the Symposium, we see this is the kind of love that Socrates offered Alcibiades, but that Alcibiades was unable to understand or reciprocate.

Socrates pointed to the limitations of his poetic presentation of philosophic love when he stated that “no poet has yet sung or ever will sing of” the eternally existing, perfectly intelligible beings beyond the heavens” (247c). As Griswold ( 1986 ), Ferrari ( 1987 ), and Nichols ( 2009 ) observe, the relation between the “whole” or “all” soul and the specific individual souls is not clear in Socrates’ image. Nichols ( 2009 ) notes that the version of the theory of “recollection” presented in the palinode does not, like Socrates’ presentation of this “theory” in the Meno and Phaedo, suggest that each human soul has the truth within it and only needs to be reminded of it. Nussbaum ( 1986 ), p. 218, recognizes the irreducible individuality that follows the presentation of the soul as self-motion, but removes the paradox by downplaying the ‘recollection’ side of the teaching, as does Moore ( 2015 ) in his presentation of Socratic self-knowledge as self-constitution. Griswold ( 1986 ), pp. 113–114, reconciles self-motion with love by arguing that “love of the forms is self-fulfillment.” But Nichols ( 2009 ), p. 115, concludes that the seeker of self-knowledge cannot be self-sufficient if self-knowledge can be acquired only through an interaction between the seeker or lover and his beloved in which both aim at improving the other as well as themselves. For Griswold, the possibility of change is one reason Socrates can never achieve self-knowledge fully. In sum, there was much Phaedrus could have asked Socrates to explicate further.

In the Gorgias at 456a-c, 457a, Plato shows the famous rhetorician making precisely this claim.

Instead of opposing the erotic character of philosophy to the technical character of the ‘art’ ( technē ) of rhetoric, as Griswold ( 1986 ) argues, Socrates shows that rhetoric and his kind of erotic philosophy have the same kind of cognitive requirements. That is why at the end of the dialogue Socrates urges Phaedrus to tell Lysias, as he proposes to tell Isocrates, that a rhetorician needs to study philosophy, just as he has studied rhetoric. (It is not clear whether Isocrates [436–338], who was younger than Lysias, ever became an associate of Socrates. Shortly after Socrates’ death in 399, he founded a school of rhetoric that made him an extremely rich man.)

In contrast to the Symposium, there is no mention in the Phaedrus of the generative results of bodily erotic attraction and intercourse.

The abstraction from any consideration of the necessity of such generation points to the incompleteness of Socrates’s description of the pederastic erotic relation as a description of his own philosophical practice. As he emphasizes at the end of the Apology, he himself had a family, although he pretty clearly neglected them as a result of his attempts to serve the god and improve the souls of his fellow citizens. In his palinode he never suggests that the souls of the lover and beloved are disembodied or that the ‘black’ horses in their souls will cease resisting the combined control of the ‘white’ horses (moderation) and charioteers (minds that have acquired a view, if in passing, of one of the eternally intelligible ideas, beauty). And in returning to the city, he recognizes that he will have to deal with the misunderstandings of his activity on the part of his fellow citizens.

Annas, J. (1985). Self-knowledge in early Plato. In D.J. O’Meara (ed.) Platonic investigations ( Studies in philosophy and the history of philosophy ) (pp. 111–138). The Catholic University of America Press.

Google Scholar  

Belfiore, E. S. (2012). Socrates’ daimonic art . Cambridge University Press.

Benardete, S. (1986). On interpreting Plato’s Charmides . New School Graduate Faculty Philosophy Journal, 11 , 9–36.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bruell, C. (1977). Socratic politics and self-knowledge: An interpretation of Plato’s Charmides . Interpretation, 6 , 141–203.

Brunschwig, J. (1996). La deconstruction du ‘connais-toi toi-mēmem’ dans l’ Alcibiade Majeur . Recherces sur la Philosophie et le Language, 18 , 61–84.

Burger, R. (1980). Plato “Phaedrus”: A defense of a philosophic art of writing . University of Alabama Press.

Derrida, J. (1981). Plato’s pharmacy. In Dissemination (B. Johnson, trans) (pp. 61–172). University of Chicago Press.

Ferrari, G. R. F. (1987). Listening to the cicadas: A study of Plato’s Phaedrus . Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Gill, C. (2007). Self-knowledge in Plato’s Alcibiades. In Reading ancient texts: Essays in honour of Denis O’Brien (pp. 95–112). Leiden.

Griswold, C. (1986). Self-knowledge in Plato’s Phaedrus . Yale University Press.

Hyland, D. (1981). The virtue of philosophy: An interpretation of Plato’s Charmides . Ohio University Press.

Lampert, L. (2010). How philosophy became Socratic . University of Chicago Press.

Levine, D. (2016). Profound ignorance . Lexington.

McKim, R. (1985). Socratic self-knowledge and ‘knowledge of knowledge’ in Plato’s Charmides . Transactions of the American Philological Association, 115 , 59–77.

Moore, C. (2015). Socrates and self-knowledge . Cambridge University Press.

Nichols, M. P. (2009). Socrates on friendship and community . Cambridge University Press.

Nussbaum, M. (1986). The fragility of goodness: Luck and ethics in Greek tragedy and philosophy . Cambridge University Press.

Plato. (1986). Charmides (T. G. West & G. S. West, Trans) (pp. 53–70). Hackett Press.

Plato. (1998). In J. Burnet (Ed.), Platonis opera (Vol. III). Oxford University Press.

Stern, P. (1999). Tyranny and self-knowledge: Critias and Socrates in Plato’s Charmides . American Political Science Review, 93 , 399–411.

Tuozzo, T. (2011). Plato’s Charmides: Positive elenchus in a “Socratic” dialogue . Cambridge University Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IL, USA

Catherine H. Zuckert

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catherine H. Zuckert .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Center for the Philosophy of Freedom, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

Department of Philosophy, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, USA

Christopher Shields

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Zuckert, C.H. (2024). Socrates’ Search for Self-Knowledge. In: Keyt, D., Shields, C. (eds) Principles and Praxis in Ancient Greek Philosophy. Philosophical Studies Series, vol 155. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51146-2_4

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51146-2_4

Published : 13 March 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-51145-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-51146-2

eBook Packages : Religion and Philosophy Philosophy and Religion (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research