In 424 B.C. the Peloponnesian War entered its seventh year. The Athenians, wishing to end the war on two fronts planned an invasion of Boetia. Accordingly, they sent a force north with the intention of knocking Thebes out of the war. The plan was overly ambitious and the Athenians were surprised by the Theban army at the town of Delium. Serving in the phalanx that day was a forty-five year old stone mason and teacher of little note named Socrates. After a seesaw battle, the Athenians were defeated. Their retreat turned into a rout and the Theban cavalry pursued the withdrawing Athenians killing thousands. Socrates, with much luck and a good deal of bravery, was able to escape and make his way safely back to Athens.

But supposing Socrates hadn't survived; suppose he was among those killed that day. What would the consequences and ramifications be for us today if Socrates had not been able to continue his studies and teaching, dying later in old age only when forced to drink that cup of hemlock?

That's an interesting question. Socrates' key contribution to philosophy was his interest in ethics. People didn't really understand this in his day: Aristophanes lampoons Socrates as a star gazer and, at his trial, he was accused of teaching that the moon is made of earth and the sun is made of stone. In fact, of course, Socrates wasn't interested in such quasi-scientific investigations (which had occupied the pre-Socratic philosophers), and was instead more interested in how to lead a good life.

So if Socrates had died at Delium, he wouldn't have been hanging around Athens asking people what piety is. Now no doubt Plato and certainly Aristotle would have been interested in philosophy even without Socrates' influence, but I suspect they would not have turned their attention to ethics in the way that they did. What would the effects of that be? I'm not sure...

I think someone would have turned their attention to ethics. But when
that would have happened, and the methods used, is anyone's guess. And given the influence of Aristotle in our history, it wouldn't be easy to guess how it would have changed things.

I think Socrates is given too much credit here.The main reason we are familiar with his assertions and conjectures is Plato. Now, this is an influential figure. Even if Socrates(as a philosopher) actually lived and was not a fictional character to express Plato's ideas, he is nothing without his most famous student.

But then you might equally say that Plato would have been nothing without the inspiration of Socrates. Also, of course, Plato is by no means our sole source for Socrates, although he is certainly the most important one.

I am usually very sceptical to contrafactual speculations, and it smacks a bit too much of gentleman's history to put too much emphasis on single individuals, but since I remember not without a certain degree of annoyance the hero-worshipping of this figure from my philosophy studies some 20 years ago, the question is not without interest.
And personally, for the sake of Sokrates himself; I wouldn't mind him having been killed before getting to adjusted to moving in aristocratic circles.
As for us, I don't think that incident would have changed much.

But then you might equally say that Plato would have been nothing without the inspiration of Socrates. Also, of course, Plato is by no means our sole source for Socrates, although he is certainly the most important one.

The bolded part might be a problem in a fair assessment of Sokrates.
I think it would be fair, before I comment more on this and the rest, that you and the OP would inform about what other sources you base your image of Sokrates on.
But anyway, if he is to be considered to be such an important figure in Athens, then it is worth reflecting over how much responsibility he does have for his political influence on people like Kritias, Alkibiades and Kefalos.

Xenophon, for one. Aristophanes uses his name, but as sort of an amalgam of the Sophists in general, so it's not really that reliable. You are right, though, that the most proximate sources we have are from his disciples. That's just the nature of the beast, I guess.

I loved reading Xenophon. I'm gonna have to reread him. It's been to long since I have.

One of my favorite quotes is attributed to Socrates: A wise man knows only that he knows nothing. I know that's not an exact translation, but it gets the idea across. That quote changed me forever.

Socrates wrote nothing; it is primarily from Plato and Xenophon that we have any knowledge of his thought or methods. So yes, it is true that without these two Socrates would largely be unremembered and would be so perhaps only in the comic figure described by Aristophanes. But at the same time we cannot understimate the profound effect that Socrates had on many around him, particularly Plato. Plato himself said that it was the influence of Socrates which led him to turn away from a career in politics and to devote himself to philosophy.

Socrates's legacy comes only in the twenty-five years of his life after Delium. At the time of Delium Plato was five and Xenophon seven. Had Socrates died at Delium these two would never have known him and would have had no knowledge of Socrates's thinking on ethical and moral behavior. Fully a third of Plato's works revolve around Socrates. In a non-Socratic world, Plato, had he even chosen philosophy, would have been a completely different person. I see him as being just another in a long line of mainstream Greek thinkers with nothing to mark him as anything particularly different.

Without the martyred Socrates there would have been no neo-Platonists to influence the early Christian thinkers such as Augustine and Boethius. Without the martyred Socrates Athenian democracy would not have gotten the bad rap it had with later Western thinkers bolstering their arguments against democracy.

Ripples in the pond become more indistinct the farther they move from the cast stone, so it's hard to say just what a non-Socratic world would be like today. I think it is safe to say though that without Socrates the history of Western thought would be much different.

Also, of course, Plato is by no means our sole source for Socrates, although he is certainly the most important one.

If nothing else Aristophanes ripped Socrates in his play The Clouds

Aristophanes didn't really know anything about Socrates, though. The Socrates who appears in The Clouds bears pretty much no relation to the real Socrates, who was interested above all in ethics, not in speculating about astronomy. Aristophanes basically assumes that Socrates is pretty much the same as his more physics-minded predecessors. The tragic part is that just such a misunderstanding played an important role in Socrates' subsequent condemnation. As a result, I suspect that Aristophanes is not entirely guiltless in that matter.

Perhaps I am mistaking Xenophon for someone else. Xenon maybe? The Xenophon/Xenon I was referring to was one of Alexander's soldiers & wrote a great memoir about his march back home to Greece after Alexander's death. The Xenophon/Xenon I am thinking of got the term xenophobia named for him because of the way he described the cultures he encountered on his journey. I was in college when I read it so it was many years ago & my memory has grown cobwebs.

You're thinking of Xenophon's Anabasis, an account of his experiences fighting for Cyrus of Persia. Alexander the Great read and used it.

Surely the word "xenophobia" comes not from anyone's name, but from its literal meaning - "fear of strangers/foreigners".

Aristophanes didn't really know anything about Socrates

Aristophanes and Socrates were contemporaries in what was effectively a small town; they were almost certainly personally acquainted - just how well
is anybody's guess. [I]The Clouds[I] was written when Plato was a small boy.
It is entirely possible that the younger Socrates had different interests than the mature one of Platonic legend; it is a common intellectual path in life to turn from the material sciences to spiritual things over time. More common still is it for posterity to see a man in a light different from that of his contemporaries.

Victor Hanson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Davis_Hanson) wrote an interesting article about this very thing, which I have in an anthology of counterfactual historical scenarios.

Victor Hanson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Davis_Hanson) wrote an interesting article about this very thing, which I have in an anthology of counterfactual historical scenarios.

What is the name of the book? Do you recommend it and does it say anything which adds to our discussion?

The anthology is just called What If? 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_If%3F_2) - I find it interesting, and would recommend it in general, although it focuses far more on the 19th and 20th centuries. But the article on Socrates is basically saying the same things - Socrates would be the sophist from The Clouds (I actually read that for a theater course in college) and Plato just a politician.

All I can say is that it is silly to indulge on the "what if" of the past since it carries out unlimited possibilities of the present.

Asking "what if" Socrates died during the war and having effected Plato inspirations of his works can easily remedied with other characters such as Parmenides (Socrates mentor),Theaetetus and many others that have some similiaritieis of one another,the difference is that each character represent many reasonings and methods of Plato .Historical Socrates does and do indeed exist in some sense but our concept of who was Socrates was and teaching is plainly demostrated by Plato's dialogues.Socrates from Plato's point-of-view is simply Plato not Socrates and I am sure that removing the name of Socrates for some other name will make no substantiative difference as being just the name itself;which says the truth of there is no evidence on why the selection and motives of Plato using the name Socrates as the pivotal mouthpeice in his many dialogues.

Socrates from Plato's point-of-view is simply Plato not Socrates

It's not as simple as that. The character of "Socrates" is different in different dialogues - he is not fixed throughout Plato's corpus. Historians generally think that in the earlier works, such as the Euthyphro and the Apology, the character "Socrates" is very similar to what the real Socrates was probably like. In the later dialogues, Plato uses the character in different ways - and not necessarily to convey his own viewpoint, either. For example, in some dialogues, such as the Lesser Hippias, Socrates presents an argument so obviously invalid that it is clear Plato intends it to be taken as such, for rhetorical purposes. In the Parmenides, the character of Socrates is a weak philosopher.

Anyway, I thought that you believed it impossible even to understand any work of antiquity (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5134805&postcount=229), so I don't see how you can consistently attribute any views or methods to Plato...

It's not as simple as that.Of course it is not simple since you imply it in this post of yours that it is not simple and making more it obfuscated.:confused:

The character of "Socrates" is different in different dialogues - he is not fixed throughout Plato's corpus. Historians generally think that in the earlier works, such as the Euthyphro and the Apology, the character "Socrates" is very similar to what the real Socrates was probably like.
Is there any proof of these so-called historians that can establish any verification of these claims that Plato's interlocutor such as Socrates is modeled off the archetype of the historical Socrates?

Wish we had a camera and a video tape of Socrates teaching amongst the Athenian youths and the likes.:lol:

In the later dialogues, Plato uses the character in different ways - and not necessarily to convey his own viewpoint, either. For example, in some dialogues, such as the Lesser Hippias, Socrates presents an argument so obviously invalid that it is clear Plato intends it to be taken as such, for rhetorical purposes. In the Parmenides, the character of Socrates is a weak philosopher.
I guess that Plato choosen Socrates to be the b!tch in that dialogue with the inpenatrable Parmenides.:lol:

Seriously:Just because your assumption that the character Socrates is somewhat different to another character Socrates in another dialogue does not necessary prove and validate that these are in fact are the same historical Socrates but only a demostration of Plato's choice to portray Socrates in many different light.

Anyway, I thought that you believed it impossible even to understand any work of antiquity (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5134805&postcount=229), so I don't see how you can consistently attribute any views or methods to Plato...I can speculate as much as can on asking the question on what the motives of the authors of any text does not mean that my presupposition is implying that i favor contemporary historian's "blind faith" of knowing who those authors really are.

Don't forget that Historians are merely metaphysicians that exclaim history as a reality in the context of facts.

Dear Mr Fart:

Plato is a writer of extraordinary subtlety. It is often very difficult for the reader to discern his meaning. People even today can make a living off interpretations of his metaphors. One thing in his writings is very clear, however. That is that the character called "Socrates" is not consistent. Not in tone, personality, interests, speech patterns, or much else. What are called by convention "the early dialogues" present a Socrates that we can recognize as the same one Xenophon remembers. Hence that Socrates is considered to be the one most like the Socrates who walked and talked in Athens.

Don't forget that Historians are merely metaphysicians that exclaim history as a reality in the context of facts.

If this sentence meant anything, it would be false.

CartesianFart, if you really care about this and are not just carping for the sake of it, then I suggest you read The play of character in Plato's dialogues by Ruby Blondell (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2002).

Dear Mr Fart:

Plato is a writer of extraordinary subtlety. It is often very difficult for the reader to discern his meaning. People even today can make a living off interpretations of his metaphors.
Dear Mr. Naskra:

More like hijacking and changing its meaning is what those hack writers do today.It does nothing to our furtherance of the knowledge and understandings of Plato's writings.

One thing in his writings is very clear, however. That is that the character called "Socrates" is not consistent. Not in tone, personality, interests, speech patterns, or much else. What are called by convention "the early dialogues" present a Socrates that we can recognize as the same one Xenophon remembers. Hence that Socrates is considered to be the one most like the Socrates who walked and talked in Athens.Tell me,is it plausible to say "one most less likely?":scan:

If this sentence meant anything, it would be false.Then tell me,what make you reason to believe by denying it to be true?

CartesianFart, if you really care about this and are not just carping for the sake of it, then I suggest you read The play of character in Plato's dialogues by Ruby Blondell (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2002).Since you suggested this little book of yours,then give me something of an advertisement (an brief account of your understanding of this book that you claim to know) for inorder to entice me to spend my precious dollars to buy it.

Tell me,is it plausible to say "one most less likely?"

No, it's not even English. And neither is this:

Then tell me,what make you reason to believe by denying it to be true?


Learn a language. It will give structure to your misunderstandings.

Since you suggested this little book of yours,then give me something of an advertisement (an brief account of your understanding of this book that you claim to know) for inorder to entice me to spend my precious dollars to buy it.

It's not little and it's not mine. If you're not capable of discussing these things sensibly without resorting to such a patronising tone then I don't want to continue it. It's bad enough wading through your pretentiously gnomic pronouncements as it is.

If you go to the publisher's website, which you're perfectly capable of doing since I told you who the publisher is, you can not only read a description of the book but read excerpts from it too. It's a study of the characterisation in Plato's dialogues, particuarly the character of Socrates as he appears in different works. And it might just address some of the points you sort of made on the previous page. What's more, it does it with evidence and examples.

It's not little and it's not mine. If you're not capable of discussing these things sensibly without resorting to such a patronising tone then I don't want to continue it. It's bad enough wading through your pretentiously gnomic pronouncements as it is.
Ah!Come on!Buddy!I am being tawdry in my replies to you but just not capable of such sophistication that you like to characterize yourself as being.:rolleyes:

I apologize for the remarks eventhough my malicious intentions by your perception is erroneous.:)

If you go to the publisher's website, which you're perfectly capable of doing since I told you who the publisher is, you can not only read a description of the book but read excerpts from it too. It's a study of the characterisation in Plato's dialogues, particuarly the character of Socrates as he appears in different works. And it might just address some of the points you sort of made on the previous page. What's more, it does it with evidence and examples.I don't care for what they think.I just want to see from your own words on what the book is about so i will not percieve it as "little."