The Socratic practice, as presented in The Apology through Socrates’s explanation of it and his way of implementing it, relies on its implementer being perceived as truthful and disinterested in wealth, while simultaneously questioning the perceived knowledge amongst individuals of authority. Socrates’s form of philosophical discussion forced the burden of the conversation upon his opponents though this questioning. In the Republic, Socrates provides an apt example of the Socratic practice as he argues against Thrasymachus. The first and foremost aspect of Socrates’s rhetoric is that he claims to speak only the truth. In the Apology, Socrates begins his speech by saying to his fellow Athenians that “From me you will hear the whole truth, though not, by Zeus, gentlemen, expressed in embroidered and stylized phrases like theirs, but things spoken at random and expressed in the first words that come to mind” (Apology 17c). It is not necessarily important whether Socrates fulfills his promise here or not — there is a strong argument to be made that he does speak in a calculated way. When Socrates asserts his truthfulness, it is less about the reality of his arguments and more about the way in which he hopes to be perceived. It is important, in the Socratic practice, to appear truthful. In the Apology, Socrates once again begins in his discussion by asserting his devotion to the truth. When Thrasymachus challenges Socrates and calls him dishonest, Socrates responds by saying “don’t be hard on us. If we are making any mistake in the consideration of the arguments, Polemarchus and I, know well that we’re making an unwilling mistake” (Rep. 336e). Here, Socrates is setting himself up in the argument in the same way as he did in the Republic. Even when he admits to the possibility of making a mistake, Socrates does not negate his attempt towards looking truthful. If anything, this humility makes him seem even more dedicated to the truth. Mirroring this is Socrates’s treatment of wealth. In the Apology, Socrates makes it very clear that wealth is not of great interest to him or, at least, he has not bothered to pursue it. Socrates argues to the Athenian jurors that because of the life he has lived—one of questioning— he “do[es] not have the leisure to engage in public affairs to any extent, nor indeed to look after [his] own, but [he] live[s] in great poverty because of [his] service to the god” (Apology 23b). Moreover, the Socratic practice seems to lie in a rejection of money, as Socrates goes onto insist that he is no man’s teacher because he “do[es] not converse when [he] receive[s] a fee” (Apology 30). Of course, in the context of the quote, Socrates is trying to refute the charges of corrupting the youth that have been brought against him. Still, if his words are taken at face value, then refusing money appears to be a part of the Socratic practice. If so, that would certainly align with Socrates’s actions in the Republic. When Thrasymachus first begins his
…show more content…
By appearing earnestly truthful and purely motivated, his audience and opponents will have an easier time accepting the rest of his argument – especially the reason for why Socrates engages in his inquiries. The reason for his practice is presented in the Apology as an “investigation in the service of the god” in which he finds “that those who had the highest reputation were nearly the most deficient, while those who were thought to be inferior were more knowledgeable” (Apology 22a). Assuming this is true, then it makes a great deal of sense as to why Socrates would engage with Thrasymachus. From his presence in Cephalus’s house, one can discern that Thrasymachus is a relatively influential man, since he is clearly not a slave, or else he would not speak so freely, nor would he have demanded a fee. He is known by name amongst the other attendants, as well, furthering the claim that he is of a high reputation. Thrasymachus as described by Socrates is also full of himself and confident in his debating abilities, since after listening to Socrates and Polemarchus, “he could no longer keep quiet; hunched up like a wild beast, he flung himself at us as if to tear us to pieces” (Rep. 336B). By choosing to engage with such a man, Socrates is following one of the basic principles of the Socratic practice as laid out in the
By appearing earnestly truthful and purely motivated, his audience and opponents will have an easier time accepting the rest of his argument – especially the reason for why Socrates engages in his inquiries. The reason for his practice is presented in the Apology as an “investigation in the service of the god” in which he finds “that those who had the highest reputation were nearly the most deficient, while those who were thought to be inferior were more knowledgeable” (Apology 22a). Assuming this is true, then it makes a great deal of sense as to why Socrates would engage with Thrasymachus. From his presence in Cephalus’s house, one can discern that Thrasymachus is a relatively influential man, since he is clearly not a slave, or else he would not speak so freely, nor would he have demanded a fee. He is known by name amongst the other attendants, as well, furthering the claim that he is of a high reputation. Thrasymachus as described by Socrates is also full of himself and confident in his debating abilities, since after listening to Socrates and Polemarchus, “he could no longer keep quiet; hunched up like a wild beast, he flung himself at us as if to tear us to pieces” (Rep. 336B). By choosing to engage with such a man, Socrates is following one of the basic principles of the Socratic practice as laid out in the