Socrates: A Man for Our Times, by Paul Johnson, is also worth a read, but, again, be careful: You can tell a Catholic wrote it (for one thing, by his cavalier dismissal of discussions of a composite soul); and Johnson for some reason is awfully damn sure as to which of Plato’s Dialogues authentically recount Socrates’ philosophy, and which used Socrates as a mouthpiece for Plato’s own.
I am the real Matt McGann.
No, *I’m *Matt Mcgann, and so is my wife.
That presents some complications that might best be described as “creepy”. Or best not described at all, come to think on it.
I started a whole thread about this awhile back, and the following summarizes my impression based on I.F. Stone’s The Trial of Socrates
[QUOTE=Lumpy]
Stone wondered how it was possible that democratic Athens put a renowned philosopher to death simply for speaking his mind. Stone went back to the original Greek sources that are all we know of Socrates and his life and teachings, and came up with the following scenario:
Socrates was a lifelong critic of democracy. He felt that democracy was simply the sheep trying to herd themselves, and that a perfect government would be led by “philosopher kings”, who would impose their wisdom on the populace. For many years Socrates was tolerated as a sort of ivory tower radical, annoying but harmless. But the political climate soured after a dictatorial junta seized power and the democratic counter-revolution was much less tolerant of his views. Brought to trial accused of advocating the overthrow of democracy he engaged in a fit of self-righteous martyrdom, deliberately baiting the judges at his trial and managing to get the death sentence when ordinarily he would have gotten off with exile.
In short, Stone portrays Socrates as the prototype of the liberal/radical crank: forever denigrating the very society that made it possible for him to promote his views, and promoting an antidemocratic ideology.
[/QUOTE]