(1) 53c-d: Either (a) life is not worth living in a poorly governed city or (b) Socrates's particular life is not worth living in a poorly governed city. I'm inclined to see it as (b), but what is peculiar to Socrates's style of living that would make life in a poorly governed city not worth living? Socrates goes on to say that it would be "unseemly" (ἀσχήμων -- LSJ says it could also be "shameful") to continue discussing the virtues with people in his new home. Would it be unseemly because his new city would be poorly governed, or because Socrates' escape from Athens would somehow make his attempts discuss the virtues fraudulent, or both?
If I don't chime in tomorrow, I will have done the reading. I will just be out of town, and I'm not sure if I will have internet access.
Some interesting points, IanH. I am somewhat more inclined to see the Laws' speech as making some claims that are general for all human beings, and some that are specific for Socrates. I take it that there is a sense in which it is bad for anyone to be brought up in an undisciplined and uncivilized city: so much the worse for Crito's friends in Thessaly.
ReplyDeleteBut there is also a sense in which it is particularly bad for Socrates, because:
(a) in continuing to speak about law and justice, and having fled Athens and punishment, he will come off as a hypocrite;
(b) living in Thessaly, he will have to become a sycophant, hanging out with Thessalians at fancy banquets, and telling them wretched stories that they enjoy hearing.
So, I think that IanH is right to say that S's discussions of virtue, post-escape, would be fraudulent. And I have to admit that I am not sure why S would have to become a sycophant if he lived in Thessaly. Any ideas?
IanH and Pryio: I'm also very curious about the relationship between the virtuous life and a life worth living in these first few dialogues. It can't be that only a good life, supported by a good political constitution, is worth living. A suggestion: maybe the point is that excellence is the standard according to which life is more or less worth living, i.e., as you fall further away from the standard, your life becomes not only less good for you, but less worthwhile and worth living in general? This might be one sense in which anyone's relocation to a less virtuous city would make their lives less worth living: insofar as a less excellent city provides fewer opportunities and encouragements for individual excellence, the person (e.g., Socrates) would be living a less excellent life over all, and would therefore have descended into a life *less* worth living ... though hopefully not entirely worthless.
ReplyDelete