The Socratics

To the same Socrates, from whom the movement of ideas – the philosophy of the concept – came, history connects a group of contemporary schools called Socratic; they are all in decided hostility to this movement of ideas, although, moreover, they are hostile to each other. These are the Megaric school, founded by Euclid of Megara, the Cynic school whose head is Antisthenes, the Cyrenaic school which is linked to Aristippus of Cyrene.

The historical importance of these schools is difficult to determine for various reasons: firstly their prestige is diminished by the proximity of Plato and Aristotle; then there remains little of the works of their followers other than collections of titles, sometimes themselves suspect; of their doctrines as oxographic summaries, often written in the language of later schools; about people as collections of anecdotes or chries, intended for the edification of the reader and which are more hagiography than history; finally their memory is eclipsed by that of the great dogmatic schools, Epicureanism and Stoicism, which were founded after the death of Alexander.

However, it must be recognized that these great schools would have been impossible without the “little Socratics”; the Platonic spirit, which they secretly undermined, did not recover from their attacks; they made way for the schools which dominated the intellectual life of the Roman era. Furthermore, some of the Socratic schools existed for more or less time alongside the doctrines of Epicurus and Zeno; for example, Cyrenaism which retains, in the face of the hedonism of Epicurus, its own originality; another of these schools, the Cynic school, after an eclipse (at least apparent), reappeared around the beginning of our era and continued to exist until the 6th century, the last survivor of pagan philosophy.

Between them and Platonic-Aristotelian philosophy, it is a question of something deeper than a doctrinal conflict: what is in question is the place and the role of philosophy. Externally, most of the Socratics already preserve one of the traits that Plato most harshly criticized the Sophists; their teaching is paid; nothing similar, in these Socratic schools, simple meetings of listeners around a master whom they paid, at the Academy or the Lyceum, legally recognized religious associations, capable of possessing and surviving their founder. Same contrast in the inspiration of teaching: as much as Plato demanded serious scientific preparation from the philosopher, Antisthenes or Aristippus diverted their disciples from astronomy or music, considered to be completely useless sciences; ”What good is mathematics, says Aristippe, since it speaks neither of goods nor of evils?” (1) At the same time as mathematics, all dialectics, that is to say the use of discussion in the establishment of truth, were rejected.

It is therefore no longer a question of teaching, of discussing, of demonstrating; it is suggested, persuaded by means of rhetoric, appealed to direct and personal impression. It is not possible to take the opposite view of Plato’s method more clearly.

Also we have a tendency to see convention and artifice in everything that is a work of thought, a work elaborated by reflection: such are notably the laws, and, with the laws, the cities of which they are the structure. Hence the complete indifference to politics, which contrasts so sharply with Plato’s tastes.

(1) Alexander of Aphrodisias, In metaphysicam, ed. Hayduck, p. 182, 23 (after Aristotle).1., Alexandre d’Aphrodisias, In metaphysicam, éd. Hayduck, p. 182, 23 (d’après Aristote).