What do you think?
Rate this book
Socrates: A Man for Our Times
A brilliant portrait of the Greek philosopher who personified philosophy. Socrates was undeniably one of the greatest thinkers of all time, yet he wrote nothing. Throughout his life, and indeed until his very last moment alive, Socrates fully embodied his philosophy in thought and deed. It is through the story of his life that we can fully grasp his powerful actions and ideas. In his highly acclaimed style, historian Paul Johnson masterfully disentangles centuries of scarce sources to offer a riveting account of a homely but charismatic middle-class man living in Athens in the fifth century b.c., and how what this man thought still shapes the way we decide how to act, and how we fathom the notion of body and soul. Johnson provides a compelling picture of the city and people Socrates reciprocally delighted in, as well as many enlightening and intimate analyses of specific aspects of his personality. Enchantingly portraying "the sheer power of Socrates's mind, and its unique combination of steel, subtlety, and frivolity," Paul Johnson captures the vast and intriguing life of a man who did nothing less than supply the basic apparatus of the human mind.
224 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2011
344 people are currently reading
2,690 people want to read
About the author
Paul Johnson
133Ìýbooks798ÌýfollowersPaul Johnson works as a historian, journalist and author. He was educated at Stonyhurst School in Clitheroe, Lancashire and Magdalen College, Oxford, and first came to prominence in the 1950s as a journalist writing for, and later editing, the New Statesman magazine. He has also written for leading newspapers and magazines in Britain, the US and Europe.
Paul Johnson has published over 40 books including A History of Christianity (1979), A History of the English People (1987), Intellectuals (1988), The Birth of the Modern: World Society, 1815�1830 (1991), Modern Times: A History of the World from the 1920s to the Year 2000 (1999), A History of the American People (2000), A History of the Jews (2001) and Art: A New History (2003) as well as biographies of Elizabeth I (1974), Napoleon (2002), George Washington (2005) and Pope John Paul II (1982).
Paul Johnson has published over 40 books including A History of Christianity (1979), A History of the English People (1987), Intellectuals (1988), The Birth of the Modern: World Society, 1815�1830 (1991), Modern Times: A History of the World from the 1920s to the Year 2000 (1999), A History of the American People (2000), A History of the Jews (2001) and Art: A New History (2003) as well as biographies of Elizabeth I (1974), Napoleon (2002), George Washington (2005) and Pope John Paul II (1982).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 194 reviews
February 4, 2014
Holy Contortions, Batman!
Paul Johnson has made up his mind. Need I say more?
In his earlier writings Plato presented Socrates as a living, breathing, thinking person, a real man. But as Plato’s ideas took shape, demanding propagation, poor Socrates, whose actual death Plato had so lamented, was killed a second time, so that he became a mere wooden man, a ventriloquist’s doll, to voice not his own philosophy but Plato’s. Being an intellectual, Plato thought that to spread his ideas was far more important than to preserve Socrates as a historic, integrated human being. Using Socrates as an articulate doll was, he saw, the easiest way to bring about this philosophical dispersal. So the act of transforming a living, historical thinker into a mindless, speaking doll—the murder and quasi-diabolical possession of a famous brain—became in Plato’s eyes a positive virtue. That is the only charitable way of describing one of the most unscrupulous acts in intellectual history. Thus Plato, with no doubt the best intentions, created, like Frankenstein, an artificial monster-philosopher. It is particularly damaging to our understanding of Socrates in that the line of demarcation in Plato’s writings between the real Socrates and the monster is unclear. It has been argued about for centuries, without any universally accepted result, and anyone who writes on the subject must make up their own mind, as I have done in this account.
That ought to do, really. The rest of this review is really not required.
However, let me say more in any case. Such astonishingly superficial an understanding is demonstrated by PJ that it would be entertaining at the least to examine his method.
A Pigeonhole For Socrates
Socrates as a nationalist, a monotheist and a patriot - is the new pigeonhole invented by PJ for the more gullible readers to follow. He was that and nothing else, mind you. Don’t even think about it. No!
Comparisons with the Jewish civilization and then with the Romans and finally with the British (with Churchill, no less!) abound - “man of our times�, after all. The essential aim of these are to draw strict parallels b/w the ancient Greeks to the Hebrew civilization and thus to the modern Christian empires.
Socrates did not believe in the traditional pantheon of Greek religion, with gods specializing in particular services and leading tumultuous lives that were more mythology or fiction than serious religion. When Socrates was at his most devout, he always refers to “god� or “the god,� not “the gods.� He was a monotheist.
The first book is a dialogue, Euthyphro, set before the trial, in which Socrates, suddenly becoming aware that he is shortly to be tried for impiety, realizes that he is not quite sure what impiety is, or piety for that matter, and seeks definitions. As usual, he is frustrated by his own methods of examination, and all he shows is the muddle and confusion that arise when humans, anxious to appease or gratify the gods by offering sacrifices, are unable to explain the practical value of these pious actions or why the gods should want them. Socrates was by instinct and reason a monotheist and could perfectly well have argued that a human soul does indeed please an omnipotent god by offering him a pure and virtuous life on earth, and that this is the only form of sacrifice (which involves dispensing with carnal pleasures and all forms of self-indulgence) that matters. But to argue on this line would merely give hostages to his legal opponents, so he does not take it.
Plato, The Sideshow (PlatSoc!)
Religious patriotism - is the perfect virtue mined from Socrates while relegating Plato to the background - an impossible feat, achieved with ease, by making up of mind, which we already referred to.
so, he is not Socrates but a hybrid creature I callÌý Platsoc.
Even though PJ’s thesis is built on the assumption that early plato was a true follower while late Plato was not, he could hardly write half a book without referring to the magnificent late dialogues. So what does he do? Luckily, PJ finds it easy to bend over backwards if necessary to get just what he wants from any given work. Talk about being picky:
In the first book of the Republic, Socrates, who is still himself at this point�
***
In book 2 of the Republic (not a text where, in general, the real Socrates speaks, though I think he does in this particular passage)...
And it is not just Plato. PJ has no qualms on how he twists the sources available to him:
Example: He likesÌýÌýso he decides conclusively that Aristo and SÌýmust haveÌýbecome friendsÌýafterÌýhe wrote the cloudsÌý - based on? Them sharing a party in ‘Symposiumâ€� which was in fact a veiled attack on poor Aristo.
Aristophanes attacked them in Clouds before he got to know Socrates, and when he thought he was one of them, a mistake made by some others.Ìý
And just as Aristophanes is exonerated, so is Socrates completely freed of any negativity. PJ meticulously strips away everything he doesn’t like about the Historical Socrates.
PJ’s got moves, I am telling ya:
His failure to examine slavery is the greatest lacuna in his otherwise comprehensive view of justice, indeed in his entire philosophy. Given his influence after his death, a sharp and reasoned condemnation of slavery would have had incalculable consequences, and perhaps have led to the abolition of this scourge of humanity many centuries ago. Of course it is possible that Socrates habitually questioned the justice of slavery in his conversations. I think it possible, indeed quite likely. If so, the implied rejection of slavery, like the explicit rejection of retaliation, would have played a part in the hostility to Socrates among some Athenians that led to his prosecution, conviction, and death.Ìý
Socrates: The Christian Precursor
So by the end, we have a Socrates who has been twisted beyond recognition by PJ.
PJ wanted to establish Socrates as a Path-paver to Christianity and hence picks and highlights only those aspects of the Platonic oeuvre that conforms to this view and relegates the rest as purely platonic distortions of an early christian insight into Philosophy. All the while introducing his own distortions and interpolations and assumptions in addition to the picky choosing among the Dialogues by makingÌý claims that are nothing more than assertions that amount to “This is S &ÌýThisÌýis P, ‘cuz I say so!â€�
& Socrates� Greatest Dream? - A Democratic Theocracy!
That is the stunning conclusion that the reader is slapped with in the end where we have a Socrates who is militaristic and endorsing three main virtues to the exclusion of all else:Ìý, Moral Absolutism & Anti-Retaliation.
The wise and humble Socrates who made it his life’s quest to keep searching for questions and never impose answers on anybody has all but disappeared in PJ’s hands.
The success with which Socrates did this, worked out over numerous generations, gave clarity and power to the Greek world’s reception of Christianity and so made it more fruitful. That in itself was an enormous achievement, beside which the work of Plato and Aristotle, important though they were in the establishment of Christendom and so of the Western world that succeeded it, were peripheral contributions.
PJ just wants to use the convenient bits of the Platonic philosophy that conforms to his own idea and discard the rest. That is how the ‘mind was made up�, in case you were wondering.
One is reminded ofÌýÌýgrand summary of Socratesâ€� work:Ìý
“He was the first to call philosophy down from the sky and establish her in the towns, and bring her into homes, and force her to investigate the life of men and women, ethical conduct, good and evil.�
And PJ wants to make that grand Philosophy into populist religious propaganda. How Noble.
Post Script
I must admit that I read this with the fore-knowledge that I am reading it to bury it.
I read PJ mainly to know how NOT to read Plato and to learn of the many distortions that may easily creep into commentaries. PJ is the expert and it is always good to learn security from the worst of the crooks.
One thing is for sure when reading PJ, regardless of which of his works you may pick, you should keep looking for which axe he is grinding.
PPS: You MUST not miss message #1 by Ian below! v v
January 29, 2013
Short and enjoyable intro or refresher to the life and thought of Socrates. Johnson is a good writer, and this goes down easy.
Many reviewers are hard on Johnson. Maybe they think he should have written a different book, but I'm OK with the one he did write. I think it's OK for a historian to insert his own views into the work. The references to more modern events and times are meant to illuminate Socrates' ideas for modern readers. If you're looking for an in-depth description and analysis of Socrates' thought, this is not the book for you. But if you read it on its own terms, it'll do just fine.
Many reviewers are hard on Johnson. Maybe they think he should have written a different book, but I'm OK with the one he did write. I think it's OK for a historian to insert his own views into the work. The references to more modern events and times are meant to illuminate Socrates' ideas for modern readers. If you're looking for an in-depth description and analysis of Socrates' thought, this is not the book for you. But if you read it on its own terms, it'll do just fine.
October 26, 2011
Paul Johnson's Socrates is an Ancient Greek Paul Johnson. In his hands, Socrates becomes an anti-gay monotheist. Yup. To give you an idea of Johnson's reasoning, see this passage:
"When Socrates was at his most devout, he always refers to 'god' or 'the god,' not 'the gods.' He was a monotheist." 107
So, you can be sure that if Socrates mentions "gods" in the plural, he is not being very devout.
A similar reasoning comes into play when Johnson discusses Plato. If Johnson likes the Socrates that Plato is portraying, it is a real, historical portrait. If he doesn't like the Socrates, he is really "Platsoc"--his term for Plato speaking through Socrates. I blinked twice when I read this: "in the early dialogues, when Plato is producing the real, actual, and historic Socrates and recording accurately what he said..." How can an eminent historian like Paul Johnson write that?? Does he have access to a secret tape recording of Socrates?
He also credits to Socrates anything good that happens at all. Some examples:
"Diodotus says, 'I think it better for the empire to allow ourselves to suffer wrong than to destroy, however justly, those whom we ought not to destroy.' The last phrase reveals a Socratean thought peering out among the general argument of expediency, and it pursuades me that Diodotus allowed himself to be guided by the philosopher, in part at least."
"The committee, no doubt prompted by Socrates, protested the illegality and unconstitutionality of the proceedings." 144 No doubt.
About the debates over the use of the atomic bomb (I'm not kidding):
"The fact that these debates took place at all is due to the initial moral revelation of Socrates and its subsequent illumination of the universal conscience." 121
If Socrates had never been born, clearly we would all still be "primitives" (a term Johnson actually uses in the book--no political correctness here).
"When Socrates was at his most devout, he always refers to 'god' or 'the god,' not 'the gods.' He was a monotheist." 107
So, you can be sure that if Socrates mentions "gods" in the plural, he is not being very devout.
A similar reasoning comes into play when Johnson discusses Plato. If Johnson likes the Socrates that Plato is portraying, it is a real, historical portrait. If he doesn't like the Socrates, he is really "Platsoc"--his term for Plato speaking through Socrates. I blinked twice when I read this: "in the early dialogues, when Plato is producing the real, actual, and historic Socrates and recording accurately what he said..." How can an eminent historian like Paul Johnson write that?? Does he have access to a secret tape recording of Socrates?
He also credits to Socrates anything good that happens at all. Some examples:
"Diodotus says, 'I think it better for the empire to allow ourselves to suffer wrong than to destroy, however justly, those whom we ought not to destroy.' The last phrase reveals a Socratean thought peering out among the general argument of expediency, and it pursuades me that Diodotus allowed himself to be guided by the philosopher, in part at least."
"The committee, no doubt prompted by Socrates, protested the illegality and unconstitutionality of the proceedings." 144 No doubt.
About the debates over the use of the atomic bomb (I'm not kidding):
"The fact that these debates took place at all is due to the initial moral revelation of Socrates and its subsequent illumination of the universal conscience." 121
If Socrates had never been born, clearly we would all still be "primitives" (a term Johnson actually uses in the book--no political correctness here).
March 23, 2021
When Paul Johnson writes biography, the intent is not simply to recount the facts of someone's life: it is didactic. Johnson is an historian who intends to teach a lesson with his writings, to show us what we should draw from the subject's life, works, and thoughts to better our own lives.
Thus it is with Johnson's biography of Socrates, the first and perhaps still the greatest of the moral philosophers. Rather than a dry recitation of what we know of Socrates's life and works, Johnson looks at themes in Socrates' life --bravery; his love for Athens; an absolute commitment to doing what was right and just; and irony-- and uses them to illustrate those things that should be valuable in our own lives, and thus improve our lives for being valued. Johnson reads much into the texts and context, sometimes making assumptions and presenting them as facts because he's sure they must be true, and there is the occasional odd error --see my notes-- but the broad lessons Johnson teaches (or, rather, relates what Socrates taught) and the beauty in his writing make them forgivable.
Recommended as an introduction to the person, to help make the philosophy more accessible.
Thus it is with Johnson's biography of Socrates, the first and perhaps still the greatest of the moral philosophers. Rather than a dry recitation of what we know of Socrates's life and works, Johnson looks at themes in Socrates' life --bravery; his love for Athens; an absolute commitment to doing what was right and just; and irony-- and uses them to illustrate those things that should be valuable in our own lives, and thus improve our lives for being valued. Johnson reads much into the texts and context, sometimes making assumptions and presenting them as facts because he's sure they must be true, and there is the occasional odd error --see my notes-- but the broad lessons Johnson teaches (or, rather, relates what Socrates taught) and the beauty in his writing make them forgivable.
Recommended as an introduction to the person, to help make the philosophy more accessible.
July 16, 2017
I would like to preface this by stating that I am not one who delights in polemics. But when a person employs a flagrant neglect of distinction between fact and opinion, or worse, complete fiction, with an air of supreme arrogance and supposed historical knowledge, to facilitate the description of a key historical figure in a way that mars what little of truth we possess of said figure, in the name of bolstering one’s own ethical and moral agenda, then I cannot remain silent.
I have never read any of Paul Johnson’s works previous to reading this one. I’m not a fan of popular history � of popularizing anything, for that matter. But I am engaged upon a sort of miniature study of Socrates at the moment, and so I picked up this book at the local used bookstore. No book in my memory has ever filled me with more virulent, vitriolic fury � not even Mein Kampf. Paul Johnson is a hack, not a historian, and I shall never read another of his books. I can only hope that this open letter shall meet as many eyes as possible, and dissuade them from approaching either this book or any other written by this man who seems to me to have little respect for anything besides himself, or that which casts him in a positive light.
The important thought of many figures have been abused historically to promote an ideology or a belief that is foreign to that thought or thinker (I am thinking here of the abhorrent misuse of Nietzsche by the Nazis; a case that marred the reception of Nietzsche’s thought for many years afterwards, and still taints it with many misconceptions, in some cases to this day). The figure of Socrates that is presented by Johnson is highly deceptive � he mixes aspects of what we know of Socrates with opinions and speculations, at times based on spurious historical accounts, and at his worst Johnson utilises Socrates to promote and advocate his own ethical beliefs. Johnson writes Socrates as he would like to imagine him, which would be alright if he didn’t pass this off as an objective view of the historical Socrates. I would hate to read what Johnson has to say about Jesus in his book on him, based on what he does with Socrates � that he hated the sickly, the poor, and the prostitutes perhaps?
I’m sorry, I let my anger get the better of me with that last comment � let us continue. My intention is not to attack Johnson; I aim simply to reveal the aspects of his character that are evinced in his writing and in what he chooses to say about Socrates. Let us turn to the book itself.
The aspect that first strikes the reader upon beginning to read this “historical� work is its absolute lack of reference list or bibliography. Quite often Johnson does not even cite or give credit to his sources. Such omissions cast the validity of his statements into question. If this absence of sources to refer back to in order to check the truth value of his claims were not enough, on top of this Johnson will also often fail to provide any proof or reasoning for a claim � the most glaring example, perhaps, being on page 152 where, after having devalued Plato in the preceding pages, he claims that we can trust Plato as a source here “for once.� Of course, he does not go on to explain why we can believe Plato on this point but not on others, or what makes the particular dialogues in question acceptable as veritable accounts. Johnson, here as elsewhere, makes a bold claim and then proceeds to provide nothing to back it up or validate it. This leaves his claims empty and hollow, and does nothing for his accountability or the veracity of his writings on the whole.
The example just referred to leads me to the next problem that Johnson’s text reveals: his inability to separate fact from fiction. This is a fatal error for someone who proclaims to be a historian. Early on, on page 10, Johnson writes that Plato’s Apology and Phaedo are “authentic records of Socrates the man.� And what evidence does he offer to prove the authenticity of these records as historically accurate? None. Plato’s works are generally known to be works of fiction. Even the early dialogues are examples that approach the style of Socrates� dialectical method of questioning; they are not historical accounts of conversations, as Johnson so naively seems to understand them as. Plato wrote these dialogues to typify Socrates� style, while also addressing some of the general topics that Socrates questioned with his interlocutors, such as piety, justice, and language. In fact, in the text of the Phaedo it is said that Plato was not there at Socrates� death. So how then could this dialogue be a historical account, or an “authentic record?� Further examples of the lack of distinction between fiction and historical account in Johnson’s understanding and reading of Plato’s dialogues can be found on pages 127 and 128 as well. And then, of course, there is the previously mentioned statement made late in the book that we can trust Plato “for once� (152, mentioned above) when it comes to his dialogue on Socrates� defence, and the events following up to his death. And yet, in the pages preceding this he has constantly belittled Plato for having used Socrates as a puppet to propound his own ideas, and did not present a portrait true to the original man. But, on closer examination, does Johnson act any different in regards to his portrayal of Socrates in these pages?
It is unquestionable that the figure of Socrates has been widely and diversely interpreted throughout history. What is questionable, however, is Johnson’s portrait of Socrates as historically accurate. The figure of Socrates that Johnson presents is not the historical Socrates � many positive beliefs and doctrines that Johnson assigns to him are untrue, and are alien to Socrates no matter which interpretation of Socrates that we take up or consider. Johnson, as a “historian� (I question according him such a title) and definitely not a philosopher, fails to adequately think along with the thought of Socrates. Without this thinking, how is he to understand a man who was first and foremost a thinker, whose sole vocation was thought and questioning (Socrates was notoriously neglectful of his career as stonemason or sculptor, preferring to wander the agora speaking with the local populace)? Such an attempt at thinking reveals that Socrates thought is negative (in a Hegelian sense), and not positive as Johnson suggests by attributing much religious and ethical claims to Socrates. (I will note here that I am not going to offer my own interpretation of Socrates� thought, beyond these scant words � this is neither the place nor the time. For those interested, however, there are glimpses of such to be found in my short review of Xenophon’s works, /review/show...)
Johnson’s writings reveal his ineptitude as a thinker and as a writer of any quality. In his text he makes claims about Socrates or the Greeks that the rest of the work does nothing but either disprove or provide an opposite example of. He presents an ideal figure of Socrates, and not the man that Socrates was � despite all the stress he lays on remembering that Socrates was a historical person. He speaks of Socrates as though he was a man who did no wrong, and who also had a hand in every good of which Athens was a part (including that Socrates helped to edit and write some of Euripides� plays; a “fact� based upon a spurious claim from Diogenes Laertius, whose works on the ancient philosophers, though an invaluable source of information, must be read carefully and critically, for they are known to promulgate rumors and falsities at times). Johnson’s hyperbolic, exaggerated image of Socrates propels him far beyond the bounds of a single, fallible man, no matter how great (remember, even Socrates knew that he was imperfect � that he was ugly and that he knew nothing). In his perfecting and purifying transubstantiation, Johnson makes a Christ figure out of Socrates. And yet, on page 188, he claims that “Socrates was not a Christian precursor.� But then why does this work present Socrates so? For Johnson’s greatest misunderstanding of Socrates, perhaps, is concerning his religious standpoint.
Let us keep in mind that near the end of the text, as noted above, Johnson claims that “Socrates was not a Christian precursor.� And yet, on page 107 he claims that Socrates was a “monotheist� because he speaks of “the god� or “god� instead of the usual pantheon recognised by the ancient Greeks (at least, this is why I think he calls Socrates a monotheist; for once again he fails to explain why he makes such a claim, or what evidence backs it up. All he does is present Socrates as having an intimate relationship with a personal God (which is, if you ask me, Christianity, or, at that time in history, would be a precursor to Christian faith)). But this does not make Socrates a monotheist, believing in some Semitic God. In fact, in Socrates� time, Greeks often spoke of “the god� or “god,� and in so doing they were referring to all divinity, taken as aspects assembled under the symbolic aegis and name of Zeus. This is a far cry from monotheism � especially the very Christian monotheism that Johnson appears to attribute to Socrates. For the religiosity that he attributes to Socrates is Christian in all but its name. Johnson also fails to understand Socrates� concept of the daimon. He refers to the daimon, on page 108, as a medium through which God (note the capital letter) communicates with Socrates (akin, perhaps, to the Holy Spirit?). But this is an uncritical, naïve Christian misreading, for the daimon is the god � the internal reflection of the divine. The daimon did nothing but direct Socrates towards reflection by telling him what he should not do � its negativity guides him towards thought and question. And then, perhaps the most blatant claim of Johnson’s that portrays Socrates as the “Christian precursor� that he states Socrates is not, appears just a few pages preceding this statement. For on page 185 Johnson writes that Socrates “[made] more substantial the presence of an overriding divine force, a God who permeated all things and ordained the universe.� How he derives this from what Socrates says of his daimon is beyond me. This was never what Socrates did � such a positive doctrine (tending towards a personal God and even determinism perhaps) is a pure fiction; a willful Christian misreading.
Socrates sought never to do wrong, it is true � but he also questioned what justice is, and did not know what was right or wrong. He sought these things out � he did not possess a positive doctrine concerning them. Was this not the entire impetus for his questioning dialectical method? The error that Johnson makes concerning Socrates� moral teachings is that he makes up these teachings. Socrates is claimed to have noted himself that he was not a teacher or a Sophist (cf. Plato’s Apology), and Johnson mistakes the choices in Socrates� life (assuming, of course, that these are not based on fictitious accounts as well) for an ethical doctrine. An ethos, or way of life, must be distinguished from an ethical doctrine. One is lived, and is entirely individual; the other is an objectification from out of the former, and is didactic. And speaking of assumptions, this work is rife with them, again, as stated above, often passed off as fact. Take page 118 for example, where Johnson assumes that Socrates played an important role in a political episode of Greek history � despite Socrates� avoidance of politics � and of course, he provides no proof or evidence to back up this assumption. Johnson bases his assumption here in the ethical figure that he takes Socrates to be, which is already steeped in speculation on Johnson’s part.
Such assumptions played off as fact bring the entirety of Johnson’s work into question regarding the nature of truth. It is appalling how on page 12 Johnson claims that the ancient writers had a “low regard � for truth.� Perhaps we could say they were naïve, not knowing then what we do now (in part, of course, thanks to them) or possessing our historical methods. But to say that they had a low regard for truth is absolutely ignorant. The ancients had a very high regard for truth � hence why they sought it out, laying the foundations for all of the sciences in the process. And what makes Johnson so assured that we (or should I say he) possesses the truth, or is in any different a relation to truth as the ancients were? One is better off to be wary of Paul Johnson’s low regard for truth, as this book and its assumptions and misinterpretations disclose. The Greek’s naivety, after some 2500 odd years or so, is pardonable; what excuse does Johnson, writing in 2011, have? Let this work stand in account of his character.
Johnson seeks to fool less academically schooled readers � that is to say, his popular audience � into thinking that just because he appears to have read more than they have that what he writes is historical truth, that he knows what he is talking about. From how it appears to me, from outside of the catchment area of the “popular reader,� Johnson is taking advantage of what people do not know. And that, of course, is low, and nothing to be lauded. It saddens me that a work so historically spurious, so riddled with misunderstanding and misleading misinterpretation, is so lauded by the likes of the Washington Post and the Times Literary Supplement. What happened to truth, accountability, or integrity? Once again, I must remind the reader that my aim is not to directly attack Paul Johnson. I seek only to set the record straight. I seek to defend Socrates against this man, and allow his own work to reveal the “historical validity� of his writings and what this may tell us about his personal character. I can only ask that any reader keep this in mind if they choose to read this or any other of Johnson’s works.
To end, let us address what stands at the head of the text under examination � the title. Socrates is not a man for our times � he was not even a man of his own times, being an untimely figure who disrupted and shattered the ancient Greek way of life with his questioning, and so needed to be put to death. The interruption that Socrates existence is opens up subsequent history; it is often the untimely figures who are able to transform history, shifting its flow, for they exist outside of the milieu of their time and are thus able to view its flaws � to view their time for what it is and to more acutely diagnose its ailments. Socrates was not a man of his own times, shaking up the Athenian establishment, and as much as Johnson may wish to believe, he is not a man for our times either, unless we understand this to mean that we too require a Socrates to bring into question all of our assumptions and our conceptually rooted understandings � to wake us from the malaise of knowledge. Socrates is a purely untimely figure (a figure of pure negativity, one might say, speaking along with Hegel and Kierkegaard). Our times do require such an inquisitive and negative figure, but such a figure would not be as the Socrates that Johnson presents; this figure would have to be absolutely untimely in relation to our times similarly as Socrates was to the golden age of Athenian Greece.
The Socrates that Johnson presents has less the features of Socrates than he does of Paul Johnson. Let it be said here then, as it cannot be found anywhere on the book’s cover: those seeking to learn facts on Socrates, steer clear; one will only learn of Paul Johnson here.
(As an appended postscript of sorts, I would like to express that it would be a great joy for me to see this critique published in the likes of the Washington Post or the Times Literary Supplement, or even for this open letter to simply be disseminated as widely as possible, but I know that it would never be published. Alas, the state of truth remains destitute, in tatters�)
I have never read any of Paul Johnson’s works previous to reading this one. I’m not a fan of popular history � of popularizing anything, for that matter. But I am engaged upon a sort of miniature study of Socrates at the moment, and so I picked up this book at the local used bookstore. No book in my memory has ever filled me with more virulent, vitriolic fury � not even Mein Kampf. Paul Johnson is a hack, not a historian, and I shall never read another of his books. I can only hope that this open letter shall meet as many eyes as possible, and dissuade them from approaching either this book or any other written by this man who seems to me to have little respect for anything besides himself, or that which casts him in a positive light.
The important thought of many figures have been abused historically to promote an ideology or a belief that is foreign to that thought or thinker (I am thinking here of the abhorrent misuse of Nietzsche by the Nazis; a case that marred the reception of Nietzsche’s thought for many years afterwards, and still taints it with many misconceptions, in some cases to this day). The figure of Socrates that is presented by Johnson is highly deceptive � he mixes aspects of what we know of Socrates with opinions and speculations, at times based on spurious historical accounts, and at his worst Johnson utilises Socrates to promote and advocate his own ethical beliefs. Johnson writes Socrates as he would like to imagine him, which would be alright if he didn’t pass this off as an objective view of the historical Socrates. I would hate to read what Johnson has to say about Jesus in his book on him, based on what he does with Socrates � that he hated the sickly, the poor, and the prostitutes perhaps?
I’m sorry, I let my anger get the better of me with that last comment � let us continue. My intention is not to attack Johnson; I aim simply to reveal the aspects of his character that are evinced in his writing and in what he chooses to say about Socrates. Let us turn to the book itself.
The aspect that first strikes the reader upon beginning to read this “historical� work is its absolute lack of reference list or bibliography. Quite often Johnson does not even cite or give credit to his sources. Such omissions cast the validity of his statements into question. If this absence of sources to refer back to in order to check the truth value of his claims were not enough, on top of this Johnson will also often fail to provide any proof or reasoning for a claim � the most glaring example, perhaps, being on page 152 where, after having devalued Plato in the preceding pages, he claims that we can trust Plato as a source here “for once.� Of course, he does not go on to explain why we can believe Plato on this point but not on others, or what makes the particular dialogues in question acceptable as veritable accounts. Johnson, here as elsewhere, makes a bold claim and then proceeds to provide nothing to back it up or validate it. This leaves his claims empty and hollow, and does nothing for his accountability or the veracity of his writings on the whole.
The example just referred to leads me to the next problem that Johnson’s text reveals: his inability to separate fact from fiction. This is a fatal error for someone who proclaims to be a historian. Early on, on page 10, Johnson writes that Plato’s Apology and Phaedo are “authentic records of Socrates the man.� And what evidence does he offer to prove the authenticity of these records as historically accurate? None. Plato’s works are generally known to be works of fiction. Even the early dialogues are examples that approach the style of Socrates� dialectical method of questioning; they are not historical accounts of conversations, as Johnson so naively seems to understand them as. Plato wrote these dialogues to typify Socrates� style, while also addressing some of the general topics that Socrates questioned with his interlocutors, such as piety, justice, and language. In fact, in the text of the Phaedo it is said that Plato was not there at Socrates� death. So how then could this dialogue be a historical account, or an “authentic record?� Further examples of the lack of distinction between fiction and historical account in Johnson’s understanding and reading of Plato’s dialogues can be found on pages 127 and 128 as well. And then, of course, there is the previously mentioned statement made late in the book that we can trust Plato “for once� (152, mentioned above) when it comes to his dialogue on Socrates� defence, and the events following up to his death. And yet, in the pages preceding this he has constantly belittled Plato for having used Socrates as a puppet to propound his own ideas, and did not present a portrait true to the original man. But, on closer examination, does Johnson act any different in regards to his portrayal of Socrates in these pages?
It is unquestionable that the figure of Socrates has been widely and diversely interpreted throughout history. What is questionable, however, is Johnson’s portrait of Socrates as historically accurate. The figure of Socrates that Johnson presents is not the historical Socrates � many positive beliefs and doctrines that Johnson assigns to him are untrue, and are alien to Socrates no matter which interpretation of Socrates that we take up or consider. Johnson, as a “historian� (I question according him such a title) and definitely not a philosopher, fails to adequately think along with the thought of Socrates. Without this thinking, how is he to understand a man who was first and foremost a thinker, whose sole vocation was thought and questioning (Socrates was notoriously neglectful of his career as stonemason or sculptor, preferring to wander the agora speaking with the local populace)? Such an attempt at thinking reveals that Socrates thought is negative (in a Hegelian sense), and not positive as Johnson suggests by attributing much religious and ethical claims to Socrates. (I will note here that I am not going to offer my own interpretation of Socrates� thought, beyond these scant words � this is neither the place nor the time. For those interested, however, there are glimpses of such to be found in my short review of Xenophon’s works, /review/show...)
Johnson’s writings reveal his ineptitude as a thinker and as a writer of any quality. In his text he makes claims about Socrates or the Greeks that the rest of the work does nothing but either disprove or provide an opposite example of. He presents an ideal figure of Socrates, and not the man that Socrates was � despite all the stress he lays on remembering that Socrates was a historical person. He speaks of Socrates as though he was a man who did no wrong, and who also had a hand in every good of which Athens was a part (including that Socrates helped to edit and write some of Euripides� plays; a “fact� based upon a spurious claim from Diogenes Laertius, whose works on the ancient philosophers, though an invaluable source of information, must be read carefully and critically, for they are known to promulgate rumors and falsities at times). Johnson’s hyperbolic, exaggerated image of Socrates propels him far beyond the bounds of a single, fallible man, no matter how great (remember, even Socrates knew that he was imperfect � that he was ugly and that he knew nothing). In his perfecting and purifying transubstantiation, Johnson makes a Christ figure out of Socrates. And yet, on page 188, he claims that “Socrates was not a Christian precursor.� But then why does this work present Socrates so? For Johnson’s greatest misunderstanding of Socrates, perhaps, is concerning his religious standpoint.
Let us keep in mind that near the end of the text, as noted above, Johnson claims that “Socrates was not a Christian precursor.� And yet, on page 107 he claims that Socrates was a “monotheist� because he speaks of “the god� or “god� instead of the usual pantheon recognised by the ancient Greeks (at least, this is why I think he calls Socrates a monotheist; for once again he fails to explain why he makes such a claim, or what evidence backs it up. All he does is present Socrates as having an intimate relationship with a personal God (which is, if you ask me, Christianity, or, at that time in history, would be a precursor to Christian faith)). But this does not make Socrates a monotheist, believing in some Semitic God. In fact, in Socrates� time, Greeks often spoke of “the god� or “god,� and in so doing they were referring to all divinity, taken as aspects assembled under the symbolic aegis and name of Zeus. This is a far cry from monotheism � especially the very Christian monotheism that Johnson appears to attribute to Socrates. For the religiosity that he attributes to Socrates is Christian in all but its name. Johnson also fails to understand Socrates� concept of the daimon. He refers to the daimon, on page 108, as a medium through which God (note the capital letter) communicates with Socrates (akin, perhaps, to the Holy Spirit?). But this is an uncritical, naïve Christian misreading, for the daimon is the god � the internal reflection of the divine. The daimon did nothing but direct Socrates towards reflection by telling him what he should not do � its negativity guides him towards thought and question. And then, perhaps the most blatant claim of Johnson’s that portrays Socrates as the “Christian precursor� that he states Socrates is not, appears just a few pages preceding this statement. For on page 185 Johnson writes that Socrates “[made] more substantial the presence of an overriding divine force, a God who permeated all things and ordained the universe.� How he derives this from what Socrates says of his daimon is beyond me. This was never what Socrates did � such a positive doctrine (tending towards a personal God and even determinism perhaps) is a pure fiction; a willful Christian misreading.
Socrates sought never to do wrong, it is true � but he also questioned what justice is, and did not know what was right or wrong. He sought these things out � he did not possess a positive doctrine concerning them. Was this not the entire impetus for his questioning dialectical method? The error that Johnson makes concerning Socrates� moral teachings is that he makes up these teachings. Socrates is claimed to have noted himself that he was not a teacher or a Sophist (cf. Plato’s Apology), and Johnson mistakes the choices in Socrates� life (assuming, of course, that these are not based on fictitious accounts as well) for an ethical doctrine. An ethos, or way of life, must be distinguished from an ethical doctrine. One is lived, and is entirely individual; the other is an objectification from out of the former, and is didactic. And speaking of assumptions, this work is rife with them, again, as stated above, often passed off as fact. Take page 118 for example, where Johnson assumes that Socrates played an important role in a political episode of Greek history � despite Socrates� avoidance of politics � and of course, he provides no proof or evidence to back up this assumption. Johnson bases his assumption here in the ethical figure that he takes Socrates to be, which is already steeped in speculation on Johnson’s part.
Such assumptions played off as fact bring the entirety of Johnson’s work into question regarding the nature of truth. It is appalling how on page 12 Johnson claims that the ancient writers had a “low regard � for truth.� Perhaps we could say they were naïve, not knowing then what we do now (in part, of course, thanks to them) or possessing our historical methods. But to say that they had a low regard for truth is absolutely ignorant. The ancients had a very high regard for truth � hence why they sought it out, laying the foundations for all of the sciences in the process. And what makes Johnson so assured that we (or should I say he) possesses the truth, or is in any different a relation to truth as the ancients were? One is better off to be wary of Paul Johnson’s low regard for truth, as this book and its assumptions and misinterpretations disclose. The Greek’s naivety, after some 2500 odd years or so, is pardonable; what excuse does Johnson, writing in 2011, have? Let this work stand in account of his character.
Johnson seeks to fool less academically schooled readers � that is to say, his popular audience � into thinking that just because he appears to have read more than they have that what he writes is historical truth, that he knows what he is talking about. From how it appears to me, from outside of the catchment area of the “popular reader,� Johnson is taking advantage of what people do not know. And that, of course, is low, and nothing to be lauded. It saddens me that a work so historically spurious, so riddled with misunderstanding and misleading misinterpretation, is so lauded by the likes of the Washington Post and the Times Literary Supplement. What happened to truth, accountability, or integrity? Once again, I must remind the reader that my aim is not to directly attack Paul Johnson. I seek only to set the record straight. I seek to defend Socrates against this man, and allow his own work to reveal the “historical validity� of his writings and what this may tell us about his personal character. I can only ask that any reader keep this in mind if they choose to read this or any other of Johnson’s works.
To end, let us address what stands at the head of the text under examination � the title. Socrates is not a man for our times � he was not even a man of his own times, being an untimely figure who disrupted and shattered the ancient Greek way of life with his questioning, and so needed to be put to death. The interruption that Socrates existence is opens up subsequent history; it is often the untimely figures who are able to transform history, shifting its flow, for they exist outside of the milieu of their time and are thus able to view its flaws � to view their time for what it is and to more acutely diagnose its ailments. Socrates was not a man of his own times, shaking up the Athenian establishment, and as much as Johnson may wish to believe, he is not a man for our times either, unless we understand this to mean that we too require a Socrates to bring into question all of our assumptions and our conceptually rooted understandings � to wake us from the malaise of knowledge. Socrates is a purely untimely figure (a figure of pure negativity, one might say, speaking along with Hegel and Kierkegaard). Our times do require such an inquisitive and negative figure, but such a figure would not be as the Socrates that Johnson presents; this figure would have to be absolutely untimely in relation to our times similarly as Socrates was to the golden age of Athenian Greece.
The Socrates that Johnson presents has less the features of Socrates than he does of Paul Johnson. Let it be said here then, as it cannot be found anywhere on the book’s cover: those seeking to learn facts on Socrates, steer clear; one will only learn of Paul Johnson here.
(As an appended postscript of sorts, I would like to express that it would be a great joy for me to see this critique published in the likes of the Washington Post or the Times Literary Supplement, or even for this open letter to simply be disseminated as widely as possible, but I know that it would never be published. Alas, the state of truth remains destitute, in tatters�)
January 13, 2017
This book answered a question I've had since reading The Republic in the 1990s. Is Socrates really speaking or is Plato speaking through Socrates. According to Johnson it varies from dialogue to dialogue. In The Republic it's Socrates voice in the first book and then Plato plays ventriloquist from there on. We know this because Socrates wasn't a prescriptive philosopher. Philosophy was a practical way to discover virtue. He liked talking with people and he desired to teach them to think about conventional wisdom and decide things for themselves. The utopia that Plato creates in The Republic would have been comical to Socrates. He didn't think men were wise enough to create what Plato envisioned.
I'm guessing many people who read this book already know this about Socrates and Plato. I'm sure the information exists in many places. It turns out the question wasn't nagging enough for me to look it up any other way. I wouldn't have known except I like Paul Johnson. He is such an interesting writer. Pick up Modern Times at any spot and try not to read it for an hour. I love how he put this book together giving me just what I needed to know about Socrates. It makes sense now that he would be considered dangerous by some in Athens. It also makes sense that he would choose to be a martyr rather than an exile, although I would have chosen differently.
Here are a few other thoughts that I learned from Johnson in this book.
-Socrates first identified what we consider the soul. He was monotheistic in a culture of pluralism.
-He had an optimistic view of human soul. He thought most people want to do good, but they don't know what good is.
-He was a moral absolutist. If you know a thing is wrong never do it. Retaliation is bad.
-His reputation was hurt by Aristophanes play, Clouds, but instead of being angry he befriended the playwright.
-Socrates trial was not all that rare in Athens. Any citizen could bring a prosecution and that's what happened to him. Had there been an Attorney General the case would have been thrown out.
-The essence of Socrates is seeking virtue. How to be a good man.
I'm guessing many people who read this book already know this about Socrates and Plato. I'm sure the information exists in many places. It turns out the question wasn't nagging enough for me to look it up any other way. I wouldn't have known except I like Paul Johnson. He is such an interesting writer. Pick up Modern Times at any spot and try not to read it for an hour. I love how he put this book together giving me just what I needed to know about Socrates. It makes sense now that he would be considered dangerous by some in Athens. It also makes sense that he would choose to be a martyr rather than an exile, although I would have chosen differently.
Here are a few other thoughts that I learned from Johnson in this book.
-Socrates first identified what we consider the soul. He was monotheistic in a culture of pluralism.
-He had an optimistic view of human soul. He thought most people want to do good, but they don't know what good is.
-He was a moral absolutist. If you know a thing is wrong never do it. Retaliation is bad.
-His reputation was hurt by Aristophanes play, Clouds, but instead of being angry he befriended the playwright.
-Socrates trial was not all that rare in Athens. Any citizen could bring a prosecution and that's what happened to him. Had there been an Attorney General the case would have been thrown out.
-The essence of Socrates is seeking virtue. How to be a good man.
September 4, 2023
Paul Johnson makes sound observations about what made Socrates different and groundbreaking: He was interested not in forms or logic but in people and what constitutes a virtuous life, the defining ingredient in his view of a happy life. He was a punster and a talker, the guy having meaningful conversations in a cab or at the counter of a diner. His insights last to this day in part because of the way they were arrived at, through conversation instead of in proof of a theory and, significantly, because he lived his commitment to his conception of a virtuous life even if it killed him. Which it did. Socrates felt that doing the wrong thing when you knew it was wrong was about the worst mistake a person could make. When he was arrested and tried for a variety of pretty vague and general crimes against Athens, he refused to flee although he could have. His example still shines and inspires, a simple seeming guy who wanted to live an honest life to the best of his ability and would not waver, kneel or compromise on that.
Something bothered me though reading this book and it was not until I read a review by Florina of another of his essays that it became obvious. Although he writes well and has a gift for seeing the important heart of the matter, there is a bias so strongly tied to his apparent Christian and paternalistic, quite possibly homophobic beliefs that it permeates what would otherwise be a great book. It's clear that the highest accolade, not achieved but nearly so, was for Socrates to have been a Christian. I have no problem with Christianity, a beautiful religion espousing tolerance and forgiveness (attributes seemingly missed by its right wing adherents), but one's own beliefs can not seep into a scholarly work like I supposed this to be (unlike a review, seep on!). Drawing a connection to Socrates and later philosophies and religions makes sense, but the bias toward a "right answer" in Christianity was oppressive.
Something bothered me though reading this book and it was not until I read a review by Florina of another of his essays that it became obvious. Although he writes well and has a gift for seeing the important heart of the matter, there is a bias so strongly tied to his apparent Christian and paternalistic, quite possibly homophobic beliefs that it permeates what would otherwise be a great book. It's clear that the highest accolade, not achieved but nearly so, was for Socrates to have been a Christian. I have no problem with Christianity, a beautiful religion espousing tolerance and forgiveness (attributes seemingly missed by its right wing adherents), but one's own beliefs can not seep into a scholarly work like I supposed this to be (unlike a review, seep on!). Drawing a connection to Socrates and later philosophies and religions makes sense, but the bias toward a "right answer" in Christianity was oppressive.
August 21, 2022
This book is a good summary of Socrates' work and the time and city in which he lived.
Its huge advantage is that it discusses the person of Socrates in a historical, political and cultural context. I have always been attracted to the "warrior-philosopher" character. Actually, if I were to write anything positive about the book, I would write it about Socrates, and the book itself does that.
Its huge advantage is that it discusses the person of Socrates in a historical, political and cultural context. I have always been attracted to the "warrior-philosopher" character. Actually, if I were to write anything positive about the book, I would write it about Socrates, and the book itself does that.
November 28, 2020
Fun, quick, engrossing read. Very occasionally funny, and a very easy way to get acquainted or reacquainted with the life and thought of Socrates, with helpful references for those who'd like to do further reading. It was not explained, however, how Socrates is "an man for our times", as the title suggests. However, writing this in 2020, I can see many parallels between the climate of Socrates' Athens and our own. In any event, a book that you might see in a used book store for a few dollars, and it's worth your time.
Read
September 9, 2021sorry for the amount of philosophy books i’ll be reading I’m taking intro to phil rn I’m in my eleanor shellstrop era
October 17, 2020
A bit reductive
It’s good at providing general insight and for synthesizing multiple sources. However, it’s not really giving me much more besides that.
Also, it goes off on the tangent of Socrates� negative views on homosexuality that the author himself admits is hard to prove but he persists. He also equates homosexuality to the pedophilic power dynamics in Athens and like...that ain’t it, chief.
It’s good at providing general insight and for synthesizing multiple sources. However, it’s not really giving me much more besides that.
Also, it goes off on the tangent of Socrates� negative views on homosexuality that the author himself admits is hard to prove but he persists. He also equates homosexuality to the pedophilic power dynamics in Athens and like...that ain’t it, chief.
October 17, 2020
First, I need to tip my hat off to Paul Johnson. This is the author of a mind-boggling 60+ books last time I checked, including his extraordinary History of the American People that is enough to enlighten you on the subject if you never read another one in your life. This man is a force of nature, so there is very little he can do to put a dent in my respect for him. With this in mind, his book about Socrates was a less memorable experience. It’s true that its topic is a guy more than 2,000 years old who never wrote a word, so personal details are scant and a thin book is in order, but it was still way too full of extraneous details that a reader of such a work is expected to already know.
Other than a few personal details, I had to wait until around page 70 (in a volume of less than 200 pages) to seriously get into the meat of the problem. While some sketching of the historical background is always necessary in a book of this kind, I felt this one went way too far. At a certain point, I had the feeling that the author gave up organizing his thoughts and started to ramble. When I got to the paragraph about the musical scenes depicted on Greek pottery and realized that a quarter of the book was already behind me, I started to lose my patience. Luckily, we did end up turning the magnifying glass onto Socrates, and what an entertaining magnifying glass that was.
Another thing is his modern references while discussing Socrates. I’m a little torn about it. On one hand, coming back to the modern era to drive similarities to the Greek period seemed to me, if no doubt original, somewhat strange. Paul Johnson talks about Rodin, Bertrand Russell, Jane Austen, traffic jams, and even relates anecdotes about contemporary politicians. On the other hand, why not? This is a book written for a modern audience, and making such connections - much accepted in the oral discourse - have their own charm, even though the detours are sometimes tiring.
Other than that, Paul Johnson truly humanizes Socrates, and the love for him is obvious in his writing. The personal details are charming. Socrates as a man who didn’t like emotions to show on his face; who was a formidable figure as a soldier, one that enemies preferred to leave alone feeling in him “a zest for combat they could do without�; a man who made a pact with poverty early on and would exclaim, while observing the shop display in Athens agora: "How many things I can do without!� and “Poverty is a shortcut to self-control.� (Oh, the humor!) And beyond all this, his genuine love for people. You get the feeling that this was a man who fully drank the cup of life before drinking that of death.
Then comes Socrates the philosopher, with his instinctive need to interrogate, his ironic and democratic approach to the process of questioning others, a man interested in people, rather than ideas, who prefers to show them how rather than what to think. A thinker who entertained serious suspicions of the obvious, who disliked the idea of any “right answers� and would have probably despised today’s multiple-choice tests that are part of any university student's life. A monotheist who had no appetite to destroy the traditional pantheon of Greek religion, and whose ideas of the body-soul relationship made Christianity able to take a hold on Greece later on much easier. Finally, a man with an optimistic view of human nature and, beyond everything else, a guy who rejected the idea of retaliation and preferred moral absolutism � a pill that not even Plato and Aristotle would prove ready to swallow yet.
There is one more thing that runs like a main idea through this book. Paul Johnson - how can I put it? - doesn’t exactly hide his disdain for Plato. He has a few things to say about him, like � lemme check � he is the murderer of Socrates� brain, who turned his mentor into a ventriloquist’s dummy with his “irritating habit of foisting his personal views on others�; a “frustrated poet� who performed a “quasi-diabolical� act that was “the most unscrupulous in intellectual history"; and the first intellectual, that is, someone who thinks ideas matter more than people. Ouch.
To summarize all these, he calls this character thief "Platsoc" - Plato’s fraudulent creation and a made-up philosopher that has Socrates� face and Plato’s ideas. It’s true that Paul Johnson gives it to Plato that he is “a great artist�, but he doesn’t take much space stating that and prefers to quote Karl Popper who called him “the ultimate progenitor of the twentieth century totalitarian state.�
And so on. The discussion goes deeper into their philosophical incongruities later on, and this makes Socrates� character jump off the page even more. All in all, a great and pleasant introductory book that also manages to extract a tear from you when forcing you to witness this great man’s end. Three stars just because of the rambling.
Other than a few personal details, I had to wait until around page 70 (in a volume of less than 200 pages) to seriously get into the meat of the problem. While some sketching of the historical background is always necessary in a book of this kind, I felt this one went way too far. At a certain point, I had the feeling that the author gave up organizing his thoughts and started to ramble. When I got to the paragraph about the musical scenes depicted on Greek pottery and realized that a quarter of the book was already behind me, I started to lose my patience. Luckily, we did end up turning the magnifying glass onto Socrates, and what an entertaining magnifying glass that was.
Another thing is his modern references while discussing Socrates. I’m a little torn about it. On one hand, coming back to the modern era to drive similarities to the Greek period seemed to me, if no doubt original, somewhat strange. Paul Johnson talks about Rodin, Bertrand Russell, Jane Austen, traffic jams, and even relates anecdotes about contemporary politicians. On the other hand, why not? This is a book written for a modern audience, and making such connections - much accepted in the oral discourse - have their own charm, even though the detours are sometimes tiring.
Other than that, Paul Johnson truly humanizes Socrates, and the love for him is obvious in his writing. The personal details are charming. Socrates as a man who didn’t like emotions to show on his face; who was a formidable figure as a soldier, one that enemies preferred to leave alone feeling in him “a zest for combat they could do without�; a man who made a pact with poverty early on and would exclaim, while observing the shop display in Athens agora: "How many things I can do without!� and “Poverty is a shortcut to self-control.� (Oh, the humor!) And beyond all this, his genuine love for people. You get the feeling that this was a man who fully drank the cup of life before drinking that of death.
Then comes Socrates the philosopher, with his instinctive need to interrogate, his ironic and democratic approach to the process of questioning others, a man interested in people, rather than ideas, who prefers to show them how rather than what to think. A thinker who entertained serious suspicions of the obvious, who disliked the idea of any “right answers� and would have probably despised today’s multiple-choice tests that are part of any university student's life. A monotheist who had no appetite to destroy the traditional pantheon of Greek religion, and whose ideas of the body-soul relationship made Christianity able to take a hold on Greece later on much easier. Finally, a man with an optimistic view of human nature and, beyond everything else, a guy who rejected the idea of retaliation and preferred moral absolutism � a pill that not even Plato and Aristotle would prove ready to swallow yet.
There is one more thing that runs like a main idea through this book. Paul Johnson - how can I put it? - doesn’t exactly hide his disdain for Plato. He has a few things to say about him, like � lemme check � he is the murderer of Socrates� brain, who turned his mentor into a ventriloquist’s dummy with his “irritating habit of foisting his personal views on others�; a “frustrated poet� who performed a “quasi-diabolical� act that was “the most unscrupulous in intellectual history"; and the first intellectual, that is, someone who thinks ideas matter more than people. Ouch.
To summarize all these, he calls this character thief "Platsoc" - Plato’s fraudulent creation and a made-up philosopher that has Socrates� face and Plato’s ideas. It’s true that Paul Johnson gives it to Plato that he is “a great artist�, but he doesn’t take much space stating that and prefers to quote Karl Popper who called him “the ultimate progenitor of the twentieth century totalitarian state.�
And so on. The discussion goes deeper into their philosophical incongruities later on, and this makes Socrates� character jump off the page even more. All in all, a great and pleasant introductory book that also manages to extract a tear from you when forcing you to witness this great man’s end. Three stars just because of the rambling.
April 19, 2014
"I prefer a broad-brush approach that makes a general contrast between the Socratic and Platonic mentalities and then counsels the reader to study the dialogues and make up his or her own mind." Never were truer words spoken. This broad-brush technique works like this: what Johnson finds sympatico in Plato, belongs to Socrates; otherwise Plato, who is, by the way, an intellectual academic, ergo bad. How bad? His transformation of Socrates from the real McCoy (because, according to Johnson, the Apology is a verbatim transcription--who knew? and the early dialogues are pure Socrates) into a "mindless, speaking doll--the murder and quasi-diabolical possession of a famous brain..." Now, I have, and have had for many many years, some serious issues with Plato, but...really?
Back to the 'painting in Johnson's own image': So, for example, Socrates is pretty much absent in the Republic except for a bit in Book 2 where Socrates credits God with being the cause only of good things. Also, Socrates (not Plato) is a monotheist and a lot like Jesus. And anything that is a bit twingy (why is Aristophanes making fun of Socrates? He must not have gotten to know him as the teddy bear he was yet) gets air-brushed out.
This cherry-picking keeps going: Socrates might have had a hand in writing the line in Euripides' Medea where she chastises herself for her 'impious deed'; then too, he,(Johnson "I like to feel--indeed,I am pretty certain") had a significant say in the reversing of the Mytilene decision. Johnson even picks out a bon mot that surely is really Socrates as recorded by Thucydides. Diotima of the Symposium becomes not only a historical character (and she may have been) but a friend of Socrates' mother and a midwife as well.
The book is an easy read, not badly written, and, as the man says, everyone gets to do his own interpretation, so if you like this kind of thing, knock yourself out. But please, don't take it as more than what it is: one guy's encounter with the very limited evidence that the ancient world has left us about Socrates.
Back to the 'painting in Johnson's own image': So, for example, Socrates is pretty much absent in the Republic except for a bit in Book 2 where Socrates credits God with being the cause only of good things. Also, Socrates (not Plato) is a monotheist and a lot like Jesus. And anything that is a bit twingy (why is Aristophanes making fun of Socrates? He must not have gotten to know him as the teddy bear he was yet) gets air-brushed out.
This cherry-picking keeps going: Socrates might have had a hand in writing the line in Euripides' Medea where she chastises herself for her 'impious deed'; then too, he,(Johnson "I like to feel--indeed,I am pretty certain") had a significant say in the reversing of the Mytilene decision. Johnson even picks out a bon mot that surely is really Socrates as recorded by Thucydides. Diotima of the Symposium becomes not only a historical character (and she may have been) but a friend of Socrates' mother and a midwife as well.
The book is an easy read, not badly written, and, as the man says, everyone gets to do his own interpretation, so if you like this kind of thing, knock yourself out. But please, don't take it as more than what it is: one guy's encounter with the very limited evidence that the ancient world has left us about Socrates.
July 18, 2022
This is a necessarily short book. We know little about Socrates's life and all of it indirectly. He lived, after all, twenty-five hundred years ago. I would like to give it a higher rating, and please note that the rating I gave it is purely a reflection of the biographer, not its subject, whom I admire.
Mostly I was annoyed by Johnson's lack of objectivity. He's primarily a journalist not a historian, and it shows---particularly after having read Oleg Khlekniuk's careful biography of Stalin.
Johnson's book is rife with opinion presented as fact. An example: ``[Athens] was the cultural capital of the civilized world.'' So much for objectivity, to say nothing it being offensive to any of a number of contemporaneous civilizations (China's Zhou dynasty was 500 years old at the time of Socrates). Hell, at least acknowledge this is a matter of opinion not fact, you arrogant ass.
A judgmental gem: Plato's ideas about the soul are referred to as ``absurd.'' Oh, pray tell us, Mr. Johnson, what is the true nature of the soul and how did you come by this information? Smug bastard.
As an account of Socrates's life, it seems fine. The biographer's first task is to make the biographee sympathetic. Hard with some subjects, but easy enough with Socrates. Johnson manages this, but too much. He's more a cheerleader than a proper biographer. It's technically well-written, but the writing is academically shitty.
January 17, 2012
Isolating the historical Socrates is made difficult by the fact that he himself wrote nothing down and we are able to see him only through the eyes of his friends and, less reliably, later historians. Plato and Xenophon are the primary sources, with Diogenes Laertius adding details later on, and Johnson makes use of all three. What is somewhat troubling is that he doesn't cite these sources (at least not in the Kindle edition that I read). He does acknowledge them (and in the sticky case of Plato tips his hat to Gregory Vlastos) but he does not note in specific instances where his information comes from. Maybe I'm being too picky with that, but I found it slightly irritating, and I was disappointed in the overall superficiality of the book.
Socrates would not have wasted his time with a book like this. He would have gone for a walk with his friends and bickered about the nature of justice or knowledge instead. At the end of the book I felt like I should have done the same.
Socrates would not have wasted his time with a book like this. He would have gone for a walk with his friends and bickered about the nature of justice or knowledge instead. At the end of the book I felt like I should have done the same.
July 11, 2013
A helpful perspective on Greece around 500-400 BC; Johnson, as usual, describes varied aspects of the life and times, from the political to the artistic. Of particular interest is Socrates' involvement in Athenian life and the links between him and secular and Christian thought. His influence on Western civilization is enormous, though Johnson perhaps overemphasizes the debt we owe him. Ultimately, I think this book achieves its object (at least for those who are willing to be convinced) by showing Socrates, through his questioning of everything to obtain knowledge, is a man for our times.
February 8, 2017
Blergh. This was a good book to sort of string together the different events of Socrates' life, but I don't think Johnson presents the nuance required to separate Plato's presentation of Socrates from the reality of Socrates. There were far too many unsubstantiated claims to make me trust Johnson's account. Unreliable narrators do not make good biographers. Also, I still don't quite know how Johnson sees Socrates as "a man for our times," but maybe this was where the nuance happened and I failed to pick up on it. This is not the Socrates biography I would recommend.
May 8, 2022
I feel like I have to give this book 5 stars because it’s helped me want to study classics in college! It’s got some flaws and times when I disagreed with the author a lot, but nonetheless, Socrates was a cool dude with good thoughts and I love him even more because he was a gay man 💕 Also big props to this book for being a super accessible read. It wasn’t too dense or complicated and allowed for a pretty enjoyable time!
November 1, 2011
It's always disheartening when a scholar of Mr. Johnson's caliber infuses his Christian ideals and perspectives into a study of a vastly important philosopher such as Socrates. It doesn't belong there.
April 12, 2018
I couldn't finish this book. The author is, as far as I can tell, some kind of Christian homophobe who loves to put his ideas into the mouth of Socrates... After 100 pages, I just couldn't take it anymore.
January 25, 2022
A wonderful synopsis of the true father of natural philosophy. Socrates was an observer, he merely wished to glean insight and connection to the human spirit by connecting with the citizens of his beloved Athens.
November 27, 2018
Good intro if you want to read something more reliable than a Wikipedia article.
June 15, 2024
This serves to be one of the most laborious reads I’ve ever endured. It came off as a flurry of information with very little storytelling and personality chin to Socrates. Some of the information presented left me scratching my head as to why the author decided to include them: some things didn’t serve to move the story along in any direction.
The reading experience was one that left me constantly checking to see how much I had left to read. And I feel this is a disservice to Socrates, considering how much he contributed to modernity.
The reading experience was one that left me constantly checking to see how much I had left to read. And I feel this is a disservice to Socrates, considering how much he contributed to modernity.
September 8, 2024
Malé opakovánà starovÄ›ké filosofie. Nejde o žádný hluboký rozbor nebo studii, ale Johnsonův pohled, komentáře, glosy a srovnánà jsou neuvěřitelnÄ› osvěživé. PÅ™i tom jsem se dozvÄ›dÄ›l spoustu zajÃmavých vÄ›cà a souvislostÃ. NapÅ™Ãklad jsem neznal Sokratovu argumentaci proti pravidlu "oko za oko", tedy že nespravedlnost a zlo nelze oplácet dalÅ¡Ã nespravedlivostà nebo zlem.
November 2, 2017
I always appreciate Johnson's concision, but while he satisfactorily covers Socrates' life, death, and the relevant history of Athens, I wish he would have expounded more on Socrates' philosophy and how it was altered by his student, Plato.
August 17, 2024
Decent book. Little disappointed with the authors disdain for Plato, did a disservice to the book as a whole .
October 3, 2024
Óriási félszopás de valamennyire jogos úgy állÃtja be mintha Socrates találta volna fel a spanyol viaszt
June 27, 2020
Uma obra de introdução a Sócrates,um resumo de sua vida e ensinamentos feita de forma bastante isenta e técnica por Paul Johnson, fazendo uma divisão clara do que pode ser atribuÃdo a Sócrates e o que foi acrescentado por aqueles que escreveram sobre ele.
April 1, 2022
This book isn't for everyone, but it sure was for me. It took me a little to get into it, but the patience and the persistence paid off. When I put it down, I couldn't wait to get back to it again. I'd like to read it over and over so I can fully grasp depth of Socrates' personality and philosophy.
June 3, 2019
In the constellation of philosophers in the intellectual firmament, Socrates's star shines on on humanity, ranging from academic disciplines to everyday cultural memes, and its resounding decibel strikes the chords with the contemporary minds at its simplest form. It is this ministry of Socrates’s simple but profound moral philosophy for the benefit of the universal minds that has been enshrined in the pantheon of Immortal Knowledge of our collective human civilization for thousands of years. In Socrates by Paul Johnson, this immortal philosopher is hard to resist and difficult to find fault with through the author’s cicerone guide to the streets of the ancient Athens, where Socrates is in his usual convivial mood to speak in public and eagerly invites the reader to meet the famous thinker as if he were a good-hearted, intellectual friend of his.
The stratagem of moral education in the form of philosophy is to tame the appetites (the senses or the id) and to guide spirits (emotions or the ego) in man to reach the highest level of humanness, which is the reason (the judgment or the superego). The process of this moral education is civilization, a standard by which barbarism is judged and separated from the educated mind, and Socrates thought it essential to implement in all aspects of Athenian life because it was the surest avenue to happiness, meaning of human life. In fact, Socrates was the first philosopher to democratize the concept of philosophy from lofty abstraction of an academic plane to practical realism of a living guide. In his principal craft of plaint language alloyed with fanciful play of words, Johnson describes Socrates as something of a Prometheus, who translated the heavenly into the terrestrial in the sense that Socrates aimed to educate the minds of the ordinary to live fulfilled life. For Socrates was the one who brought philosophy down from the wondering skies, domesticated it the huts and villas of people, and familiarized it with the ordinary life in examination of good and evil.
Socrates seems even more likable thanks to Johnson’s historical accounts of Socrates’s personal traits and physiognomy: the corroboration comes from his young, handsome, controversial, but nonetheless valiant aristocratic friend Alciblades (1) that Socrates was a selfless comrade in battle, fearless in fighting, and artless in helping his battle buddies: (2) that commendable hardiness enabled him to wear thin clothing despite the cold and the snow; (3) that he disliked letting his emotions show on his face; (4) that he regarded poverty as a shortcut to self-control; (5) and that he kept fit in the stadium and gymnasium and even danced because he believed that a healthy body was the greatest of blessings. It is also well known that Socrates was an ugly man with a flat, broad nose and beer belly, especially by the standards of Greece in the 5th century that highly valued regularity of features we would call Byronic today. And yet, Socrates, ever imperturbable and optimistic, was not depressed by his ugliness because to Socrates beauty was not inherent in itself but was by the virtue of its use. It was more of utilitarian nature for practical purpose. Socrates’s way of accepting oneself as it is reminds me of logotheraphy, neurooplasticity, and habit of positive thinking, now bestriding the domain of self-help literature.
I have always been a fan of Paul Johnson’s writing style in harmony with his wealth of erudition and fountain of humor, a fascinating combination that makes his reads so likable and interesting. And here again, he did it again: with his customary witty narrative packed full of lots of unknown anecdotes and personal tidbits on subjects he writes about, Johnson tells the reader about Socrates as precisely and candidly as possible based upon historical evidence to resurrect him in the textual theater of literature. His interpretations draw on his exceptional knowledge of the philosopher and the history of his time, but he wears his learning lightly and always writes with a general reader in mind. Hence, the figure of Socrates in his book is no longer seen as the ancient adumbral thinker but a jovial, avuncular teacher who really cares about the lives of his students of all walks of life in this highly entertaining book. This book produces a pleasant banquet of the mind and spirit hosted by the consummate storytelling narrative of Johnson in the honor of Socrates, the people’s philosopher.
The stratagem of moral education in the form of philosophy is to tame the appetites (the senses or the id) and to guide spirits (emotions or the ego) in man to reach the highest level of humanness, which is the reason (the judgment or the superego). The process of this moral education is civilization, a standard by which barbarism is judged and separated from the educated mind, and Socrates thought it essential to implement in all aspects of Athenian life because it was the surest avenue to happiness, meaning of human life. In fact, Socrates was the first philosopher to democratize the concept of philosophy from lofty abstraction of an academic plane to practical realism of a living guide. In his principal craft of plaint language alloyed with fanciful play of words, Johnson describes Socrates as something of a Prometheus, who translated the heavenly into the terrestrial in the sense that Socrates aimed to educate the minds of the ordinary to live fulfilled life. For Socrates was the one who brought philosophy down from the wondering skies, domesticated it the huts and villas of people, and familiarized it with the ordinary life in examination of good and evil.
Socrates seems even more likable thanks to Johnson’s historical accounts of Socrates’s personal traits and physiognomy: the corroboration comes from his young, handsome, controversial, but nonetheless valiant aristocratic friend Alciblades (1) that Socrates was a selfless comrade in battle, fearless in fighting, and artless in helping his battle buddies: (2) that commendable hardiness enabled him to wear thin clothing despite the cold and the snow; (3) that he disliked letting his emotions show on his face; (4) that he regarded poverty as a shortcut to self-control; (5) and that he kept fit in the stadium and gymnasium and even danced because he believed that a healthy body was the greatest of blessings. It is also well known that Socrates was an ugly man with a flat, broad nose and beer belly, especially by the standards of Greece in the 5th century that highly valued regularity of features we would call Byronic today. And yet, Socrates, ever imperturbable and optimistic, was not depressed by his ugliness because to Socrates beauty was not inherent in itself but was by the virtue of its use. It was more of utilitarian nature for practical purpose. Socrates’s way of accepting oneself as it is reminds me of logotheraphy, neurooplasticity, and habit of positive thinking, now bestriding the domain of self-help literature.
I have always been a fan of Paul Johnson’s writing style in harmony with his wealth of erudition and fountain of humor, a fascinating combination that makes his reads so likable and interesting. And here again, he did it again: with his customary witty narrative packed full of lots of unknown anecdotes and personal tidbits on subjects he writes about, Johnson tells the reader about Socrates as precisely and candidly as possible based upon historical evidence to resurrect him in the textual theater of literature. His interpretations draw on his exceptional knowledge of the philosopher and the history of his time, but he wears his learning lightly and always writes with a general reader in mind. Hence, the figure of Socrates in his book is no longer seen as the ancient adumbral thinker but a jovial, avuncular teacher who really cares about the lives of his students of all walks of life in this highly entertaining book. This book produces a pleasant banquet of the mind and spirit hosted by the consummate storytelling narrative of Johnson in the honor of Socrates, the people’s philosopher.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 194 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.