O Julgamento de Sócrates

by I.F. Stone

Uma carreira de setenta anos fez de I. F. Stone um dos jornalistas mais importantes e confiáveis do mundo. Irônico, radical e bastante polêmico, Stone aproveitou a aposentadoria para investigar temas que sempre o haviam perseguido: a liberdade de pensamento e de expressão. Dedicou dez anos ao estudo da história da Grécia antiga e de Roma, tornando-se grande conhecedor de grego arcaico e especialista no julgamento de Sócrates - que, acusado de corromper a juventude com suas idéias, foi condenado a beber cicuta. O resultado é uma obra extensa, fruto de pesquisa quase obsessiva; uma das mais completas sobre o pai do método indutivo e a Atenas de seu tempo. Com apresentação do jornalista Sérgio Augusto e tradução do premiado poeta Paulo Henriques Britto.

Genres: Philosophy, History, Nonfiction, Biography, Politics, Greece, Ancient History

336 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1988

About the author

Isidor Feinstein Stone (better known as I.F. Stone or Izzy Stone) was an American investigative journalist.

He is best remembered for his self-published newsletter, I.F. Stone's Weekly, which was ranked 16th in a poll of his fellow journalists of "The Top 100 Works of Journalism in the United States in the 20th Century."

Reviews

[Erik Graff · Rating 5 out of 5]

My first exposure to I.F. Stone was in high school when I stumbled upon his Hidden History of the Korean War in the library. The contents were quite upsetting as they contradicted most of what I'd thought I'd known about the event. My second exposure to Stone was at Grinnell College when I saw a documentary about him and his Weekly in the Alumni Recitation Hall. Before that I'd not given much thought to him as a person. Indeed, although I'd seen him cited often enough by others, it hadn't particularly registered yet that he had authored the Korea book.

Then, years later, I heard that he'd retired, learned classical Greek and had written a book about Socrates. Now this was interesting. As soon as I found a used copy, I purchased and read it.

The book is about Socrates' trial, conviction and sentence. It should be read by the legions of philosophers who purport to teach students about the legendary sophist without knowing much of the history of the period. Stone provides adequate background for the general reader and a convincing argument that Socrates was sentenced to exile or death because of treason.

Briefly summarized, the argument is based on the fact that Plato and quite probably Socrates--as witness the idealized Sparta of The Republic--were sympathizers with Sparta. Sparta had recently won the Peloponnesian War and had installed a military garrison on a hill on the outskirts of Athens while forcing the polis to decommission almost its entire fleet. Oligarchical Laconian sympathizers like Plato vied during the postwar period with traditional democrats for power, many of the former being represented sympathetically in the Platonic dialogs. With the garrison nearby, Socrates could not very well be prosecuted for treason. Instead, he was charged with impiousness and the corruption of the youth--most notably, of course, his lover, the repeated traitor, Alcibiades--and convicted by vote on these ostensible grounds.

A defender of the First Amendment, Stone is naturally ambivalent about the trial. He himself had been called a traitor often enough and had in fact been blacklisted from his profession during the fifties. On the issue of oligarchy versus democracy, however, Socrates/Plato and Stone stood on opposite sides.

[Chris · Rating 2 out of 5]

I haven't read a book that has made me more angry in a very long time, perhaps ever. Part of this was due to the surprise that I felt at the tone of the book. I was expected a scholarly book, but what I got was an ad hominem attack on a figure, Socrates, that had enjoyed a very favorable standing in my imagination due solely to his portrayal in Plato's dialogues.

I don't use the term ad hominem lightly. I do believe that Stone's book rests completely on the false assumption that democracy is always the best form of government, and that every upstanding 5th century B.C. Athenian is above criticism because he was a democrat. Democracy is never formally defended, rather Stone's own prejudices and beliefs are taken for granted as a starting point for the taking down of Socrates. I should have known what I was getting into with Stone, but I was ignorant to who he was - a prominent leftist journalist who had some role in the documentation of McCarthy hearings of the fifties. Ironically enough he writes a book attacking and denouncing Socrates simply for being anti-democratic.

Anybody with a passing familiarity with Socrates through the writings of Plato is well aware that Socrates was no democrat. Stone presents it as if it's a revelation, and then proceeds to justify Socrates' execution because of it. Stone acknowledges that there is a contradiction here. Any real democracy worth its salt would never execute a man simply for things he said. Yet this is exactly what Athens did. Stone does claims he cannot defend the act, but you wouldn't know it by reading this book

In reality, we know very little about the historical Socrates. For all we know, Socrates wrote nothing. Knowledge of his life comes primarily from Plato's dialogues and to a lesser extent from works by Xenophon, Aristotle and Aristophanes. However, Aristotle never knew Socrates, for Socrates predated him, and Aristophanes was a comic playwright whose focus was not historic accuracy at all. Even Plato's Socrates was a vehicle for his own philosophy and determining where Socrates ends and Plato begins in the dialogues is an exercise in futility (those same exercises are a PhD candidate's specialty). Stone acknowledges as much, but then proceeds to quote Socrates straight from the dialogues as if this were not an issue at all, and as if we were getting direct quotes from a reliable source.

Repeatedly through the first half of the book Stone frames Socrates and Plato as anti-democratic philosophers who spend their time on "wild goose chases" for absolute truth. According to Stone, it is an unforgivable sin that they are aloof and skeptical of the goodness and competence of humanity. If one do not spend one's time lauding the talents and virtue of the common man then apparently one's philosophy is completely worthless. Worse than this is Stone's anti-intellecutal bent. He sees no value in someone who abstains from the public sphere. A life of contemplation can benefit no one.

On the other side of the spectrum he puts Aristotle on a pedestal. He argues that Aristotle was actually representative of mainstream Athenian thought, which is that true happiness or "eudaimonia" (a greek word which more is more accurately translated as a satisfaction deeper than what we think of as happiness) can only be found through communion with society. Stone claims that Aristotle argues "The individual can find the good life only when associated with others in a community." But in reality Aristotle views were much more complex than this. Surely no thinker as profound as Aristotle could have spent the majority of his time cavorting with society. The catalogue that Aristotle amassed must have required vast amounts of time alone in contemplation and study. And his philosophy reflects a contradiction between the desire for an active and contemplative life. Daniel Robinson, a scholar far more familiar with Aristotle and Philosophy in general than I.F. Stone puts it this way: "[In Aristotle:] There is a fundamental tension between a life of activity and a life of contemplation. Once a scholar decides to devote him or herself to a life of study, which includes the recognition that by nature we are fallible beings, it becomes impossible to take decisive action at the daily political level." This is a fact that any scholar recognizes, and problem that anyone who examines their base assumptions comes across. I.F. Stone is not a man who has examined his base assumptions.

The second half of the book redeems it somewhat. It reveals what I believe to be Stone wanted the point of the book be . It gives historical background of the Trial of Socrates. It details the political turmoil that had severely threatened the democratic government (twice overthrowing it completely) and gave reasons why Athenians might have been afraid of an absolute monarchist such as Socrates. In the end the book becomes a defense of Athens rather than an attack on Socrates. It gives the reader a different perspective of the trial, and lets one see it from the perspective of the accusers. That being said, the book is still a failure because of the ridiculousness of the first half. The tone of the narrative is vitriolic and completely inappropriate for a study of something that happened over 2,000 years ago. Socrates views threaten nothing and interest only a few, so spare us the venom, Stone. If you wanted to write a defense of Athens, then you should have done it. Trying to take down the father of philosophy as we know it is far to big a task for Stone, and frankly he chose one of the more uninteresting and inconsequential aspects of Socrates philosophy to dissect: his politics.

[Jim Leffert · Rating 3 out of 5]

So you think that Socrates is deservedly one of civilization’s culture heroes for his pioneering use of the dialectic method in philosophy and for being a martyr for philosophic inquiry when he ran afoul of the Athens city fathers, who sentenced him to death by swallowing hemlock? I.F. Stone doesn’t think so, and in this book he lays out evidence to explain why the democratic government of Athens tried and executed him. Stone may not excuse the decision to execute Socrates but he makes a case for why it happened. Analyzing a variety of ancient sources, he demonstrates that Socrates had great contempt for Athens’ democratic form of government and continually ridiculed it to his young tutees; energetically advocated an “enlightened” rule by autocratic dictators; did little or nothing to speak out against or stand up against the dictatorial regimes that periodically took over Athens; and points out that his tutees, who were all from the aristocratic class, included two of the main dictators.

Stone also argues that had Socrates wished to, he could have persuaded the jury to give him a lesser punishment. Instead, because Socrates wanted to die, he baited the jury and goaded them into imposing this unusually severe sentence. Stone comes out swinging on the first page of this book and never lets up. He fires away: Socrates loved to poke holes in others’ reasoning to make them look stupid but did not offer a viable alternative to others’ thinking; furthermore, he didn’t take his wife and children’s well-being into consideration when he goaded his captors into making him kick the bucket. The book moves a little slowly in some places, but all in all, it offers an enlightening analysis of Greek philosophy, politics, literature, political history, and legal practices as he explicates the most memorable legal case of 5th century B.C.E.

[Alan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Since I was teaching Lit and Humanities when this first came out, Stone changed my teaching of Plato's Apology, which was in the Norton Anthology. I resisted the idea that Socrates was an aristocratic (and maybe, Thirty Tyrants) sympathizer, since I am the offspring of Puritan forbears who left England for Massachusetts when Charles II started executing--drawing and quartering-- Republicans who signed his Dad's death warrant. But I know England still has plenty of aristocrats and their sympathizers, as do Italy, Spain and France, not to mention Holland and Denmark.

But Stone has done his homework, and knows far more about politics and its history than I. Undeniable that Socrates' disciples were Critias (the most theivish and murderous of the Thirty Tyrants) and Alcibiades (the most licentious and violent in the days of democracy). Though Socrates himself lived a simple life, unattractive to most Athenians, whose very lifeblood was ambition, he could be accused of fostering such disciples, as well as leading the young to despise the democratic constitution (63). Socrates derided such egalitarian measures as election of officers by lot (64). And the youth loved to hear Socrates examine and undermine prominent citizens (82).
According to Plato, at Delphos Socrates learned to question Athenians, to find wisdom. First, the statesmen, whom he found wanting; next, the tragic poets (whose works are still read despite Socrates' judgement) whom he found deficient; finally, the craftsmen, whose work was prized throughout the trade routes, and who infact built the Parthenon. Socrates found them all ignorant.

He would not find IF Stone so. The heart of his book is Ch 11, where the satiric view of Socrates turns into prosecution. Stone titles this chapter, "The Three Earthquakes," of B.C. 411, in Thucydides, then 404 (precipitated by the loss of Athens' fleet) and 401 in Xenophon. The first two were dictatorships, the Four Hundred, and the Thirty Tyrants. Though each lasted only three, and then eight months, they "crowded many horrors into a short and unforgettable span" (141).
Socrates says he never joined the "sworn societies," synomosias, or "conspiracies," the secret vow-taking groups that affiliated to keep aristocratic command and privilege. Thucydides points out that "only enemies of democracy needed secret orgnizations"(142). Though Socrates himself did not participate, he could not deny that some of his most famous pupils or associates had taken a leading part in these conspiracies"(142).
After the military disaster at Syracuse, the treasonous general Peisander abolished the democracies Athens had established in its subject cities, and those cities soon provided troops of oligarchic sympathy to overthrow democracy in Athens in 411. Some of the young men in these secret clubs organized squads of assassins, and put to death "a certain Androcles," as Thucydides informs us, "'because he was the most prominent member of the popular party. Others opposed to their plans they secretly made away with in the same manner.' Terror spread."(143)
Imagining the conspiracy to be much more widespread than it actually was, the democrats were "cowed in mind." All members of the democratic party approached each other with suspicion.
After Sparta's triumph from Athens' loss of its fleet in 404, treason multiplied. So we in Trumpster America are proper spectators of Athenian democracy versus oligarchy, patriotism versus treason, craftsmen versus imports. But where are our Athenian tragic poets? Bob Dylan? Our Socrates? That'd be me, if I only sympathized with the aristocratic party. Hmmm... Since the Royal Marriage, I've been saying, maybe the U.S. should re-apply for Commonwealth of Nations status.
Prime Minister May has more balls than the Trumpster to challenge Putin's attempted murder in Salisbury, as well as oligarchic destruction of American democracy.

[Mohamed Elshawaf · Rating 3 out of 5]

‫#‏الحرية_ليارا_سلام‬
‫#‏الحرية_لمعتقلي_الرأي‬
.........................
هذا الكتاب يثير إشكاليتين خطيرتين، من شأنهما إعادة التفكير في جوهر "فكرة حرية الرأي"، الأولى تتعلق بمواجهة الديمقراطية لحرية الرأي الذي يتم استغلاله لبث الأفكار المعادية لحريّة الرأي. الإشكالية الثانية تثير ما لدى الفكر من سلطة ونفوذٍ على البعض، سلطة من شأنها أن تتشابك مع سلطة الحكومة الديمقراطية نفسها، حينئذٍ، لن تكون المواجهة بين السلطة المسلحة التي تسن القوانين وتفرضها، وبين المفكر الأعزل المسالم، وإنما هي مواجهة بين سلطتين في الحقيقة، سلطة منتخبة من الشعب الذي اختار أن يحكم نفسه بنفسه واختار المساواة بين جميع أفراده، وبين سلطة أخرى ترى أنه ليس لكل المواطنين الحق في إبداء آراءهم، ليس لهم الحق في إدارة شئون بلدهم، وكذلك ترى أن الحكام لابد أن ينحصروا في طبقة محدودة جدا، طبقة الحكام الفلاسفة، وهؤلاء يقررون ما بدا لهم، من دون الرجوع لمشورة الشعب، لأن سقراط يرى أن الحاكم يعرف كيف يحكم الشعب، تمامًا كما يعرف الطبيب كيف يعالج المريض دون الرجوع لمشورته، ولا ترى هذه السلطة مانعًا من استخدام العنف لتطبيق مثل هذه الأفكار. وبداية من أفكار سقراط هذه، وطريقته الفذة في الإقناع وثقافته العالية، استطاع أن تكون له سلطة على بعض أتباعه، الذين قاموا بأكثر من انقلاب على ديمقراطية أثينا، ليطبقوا هذه المباديء، التي من أبرزها تقييد حرية الفكر التي بثها سقراط في عقولهم في أكاديميته في ظل حكم الديمقراطية. والعجيب أنهما (كريتياس وأرخميدس) طبّقا هذه المباديء على مُعلمهم سقراط بعد انقلابهم ومنعوه من (التفلسف)، ولم يعترض سقراط اعتراضًا يُذكر على ذلك!

فات الديمقراطية إذن أن تحافظ على نفسها، ربما أصبحت من الميوعة التي تجعل هؤلاء يلجؤون إليها ليحيكوا أفكارهم في هدوء، حتى أن هذه الأيام تعاني بعض الدول الأوروبية من تأثير بعض هذه الأعراض، وميوعتها الديمقراطية تمنعها من التعامل مع هؤلاء بشدّة، أو اقرؤا عن وزير تعليم داعش الألماني (قُتل في إحدى الغارات).. المُحبط أن الكثيرين لا ينتبهون لخطورة الأفكار، وأنه إذا وجب محاكمة إرهابي، فالأوجب قبل ذلك محاكمة كاتب/مفكر يدعو بطريقة مباشرة أو غير مباشرة لهذه الأفكار. لكن بالطبع الأمر ليس بهذه السهولة، فليس أسهل من الكتابة، ولن نسمع عن فكرة عدائية لم تخرج للنور، لأن الديمقراطية كانت تتربص لها!

كنت مُعارضًا طوال قراءة هذا الكتاب لأفكار الكاتب، الحقيقة هذه المُعارضة في ظاهرها ملائكي في براءتها، فكنت في ذلك أقف في صف الديمقراطية وحرية التعبير التي تبيح للجميع أن يفكر ويُعمل عقله، لكني اكتشفت في هذا الموقف ميوعة قد تضر بالديمقراطية نفسها، لأنها يجب أن تحمي نفسها قبل أن تظلل الجميع تحت ظلها، لا بد لها من أن تكون ماهرة في تصيد هؤلاء. بحيث أن أي تعدّي يحاول المساس من مبدأيها المهمين: حرية التعبير والمساواة.. يجب أن ينال عقابًا لا يقل عن عقاب مجرم أو إرهابي.

الحقيقة كنت أقرأ الكتاب مُشمئزًا من محاولة الكاتب تبرير إعدام سقراط وإسقاط العار عن هذه الحادثة، وقد قضى حياته في هذا البحث المضني فقط ليبريء أثينا- ومن ثمّ الديمقراطية في مهدها الأول- من إعدام سقراط، وإثبات أن هذا الحكم كان في محلّه تمامًا، كنت معترضًا لأنه لا يمكنك قتل فيلسوف، وأنه مهما كانت الظروف والمُلابسات، لا يمكن قتل إنسان بسبب رأيه وفكره، لكن يبدو أني تأخّرت في معرفة أن الآراء والأفكار ليست بهذه القداسة، وهناك ملايين من البشر عانوا ولا زالوا بسبب أفكار وآراء البعض. كان سقراط مناهضًا شرسًا لفكرة أن يتكلم الجميع بحرية، وأن يشاركوا في الحكم.

وعلى الجانب الآخر فعكس ذلك هو الذي يحدث لدول تعاني الديكتاتورية- رغم إنكار حُكّامها مفتقدين في ذلك لشجاعة كريتياس الذي أعلن ديكتاتوريته كما يُعلن الديمقراطي ديمقراطيته- فلا يتم تطبيق مباديء الديمقراطية، أو محاربة الداعين لتقييد حرية الفكر والتعبير (السقراطيين والأفلاطونيين) بل يجري محاكمة الداعين لحرية الفكر، الرافضين لجميع أشكال التقييد.
يمكن تصنيف هذا الكتاب من الكتب ذات وجهة النظر الواحدة، خصوصًا وإن كانت تحمل رأيًا خطيرًا مثل ذلك الذي يروّج له المؤلّف، ألا وهو إلقاء اللوم على سقراط في محاكمته وإعفاء القضاة من قرارها، الذي كان يمكنها أن تتخلى عنه بسهولة، فقط لو أظهر سقراط شيئًا من مهارته الخطابية المشهورة، لكنه رفض لأسباب تبدو غامضة بالنسبة لي، ولأسباب تمت بشخصيته المتغطرسة بالنسبة للمؤلف. البت في هذا الأمر يحتاج لسماع وجهات نظر مختلفة، الموضوع برمته يتعلّق بموضوع الديمقراطية، لكن المؤكد أن سقراط كان مناهضًا لها رافضًا لفكرة حكم الشعب بنفسه.
ربما كان هذا الحكم قاسيًا بعض الشيء، فنحن إن أثبتنا أن سقراط كان فقط مروّجًا لأفكاره المعادية لحرية الرأي، فهذا ليس مبررًا لإعدامه، ولكن إن وصلت سلطته تلك لما قد يكون نذيرًا للديمقراطية فعلى الديمقراطية إذن أن تتأهب للدفاع عن نفسها. إثبات أن سقراط كانت له مثل هذه السلطة المباشرة على أتباعه وتلاميذه تحتاج لسماع وجهات نظر أخرى.

ما لفت نظري في هذا الكتاب هو موسوعية الكاتب، فهو تقريبًا قضى شطرًا كبيرًا من حياته في هذا البحث، وهذا يحيلنا لمشكلة الكتاب نفسه بالنسبة للقاريء العادي (الغير متخصص) وهو أنه تقريبًا ناقش الموضوع من جميع جوانبه وكل ما يثير شكّه، فناقش كل التفاصيل، التفاصيل المملة بالذات، حتى تلك التي تتعلق بأصل الكلمات التي تعبر عن "حرية التفكير"، خصص المؤلف فصلا كاملًا في البحث عن أصول هذه الكلمات!
الشيء الآخر الذي لفت نظري، أن هذه واحدة من أفضل الترجمات على الإطلاق، لسبب ما تذكّرت كثيرًا قصص بورخيس، الترجمة تشبه إلى حد ما مزج الأسلوب القصصي بالمقال عند بورخيس، وفكرة الإحالات السببية للأحداث، تشبه تلك القدرة المدهشة أيضًاعند بورخيس، الفضل للترجمة التي نقلت أسلوب الكاتب بهذا الوضوح.
ولأن هذا الكتاب يتحدث ويُدافع عن الديمقراطية، يفضح الديكتاتورية، فـ الحرية ليارا سلّام- الحرية لمعتقلي الرأي.

[Salma · Rating 4 out of 5]

قبل ان تقرأ الكتاب عليك بشيئين
اولهما : لا تنزعج من البداية الرتيبة للكتاب وستجد
الكثير والكثير من التفاصيل الصغيرة وعلى الاغلب ستنساها ;)
ثانيهما : الا تقع فى فخ الكاتب ،
من حقه ان يعرض وجهة نظره وتحليله للامور لكن هناك التباس حقيقى
ستلمسه فى كل صفحة بين الحقيقة ورأى الكاتب
،

ليست وحدها محاكمة سقراط هنا بل المناخ العام للفكر الاثينى
الحرية وتقبل الراى حتى حينما اتاهم بولس الرسول
ستجد انفتاح غير عادى فى تقبل كلامه
، عالم الخطابة والسفسطائيين ،
والاغرب هو احتقار سقراط لهذا الجو وتفضيله لـ اسبرطه وهى الضد فى كل شئ
،
السخرية من سقراط المعتد بنفسه وافكاره نفسها كانت مادة
فى المسرحيات الاثينية ، ولان المحاكمة نقطة سوداء فى تاريخ اثينا
ستجد تفنيد من الكاتب فى نهاية الكتاب لبعض الادعائات
عن احداث مشابهه لقمع الرأى
،
مدرسة سقراط التى تتلمذ عليها ابناء الطبقة الارستقراطية وتشبعهم
بارائه الناقدة للديموقراطية سيوجه لها اصابع اتهام
فى الانقلاب على ديموقراطية اثينا بعد ذلك تلك الديكتاتورية
التى منعت الخطابة !
،
ربما تخرج من الكتاب بان سقراط المتبجح نال ما يستحقه
وربما تتعاطف معه ، المهم ان هذا العصر الذهبى عليه علامة استفهام
كبيرة ....من اين للاثينين بهذه الصدر الرحب والقدرة على
الاستماع لمن يخالفهم
؟؟

ملاحظة اخيرة
لاتمر مرور الكرام على اناكساجورس وملك الفرس اللذين لم
يسمح المجال للحديث عنهم اكثر

*

[Mike · Rating 5 out of 5]

Most of us probably read at least excerpts from The Republic and The Trial and Death of Socrates (composed of the short dialogues Crito, Phaedo, Apology, and Euthyphro at some point in college. Socrates as represented by his pupil Plato is considered one of the greatest philosophers of all time; and in some degree, he is considered to be the break-point between Pre-Socratic or Eleatic philosophic and the philosophy of the classical age.

But what the astute reader of Plato's dialogues might notice is that Socrates really isn't all that great. He is frequently a snob, for instance; in Gorgias, he compares oratory to cooking, and "true philosophy" to medicine or good nutrition. But what's so wrong with making food tasty? Why can't truth also be beautiful—in fact, why isn't beauty one of the ways we know truth? It certainly is in philosophy and mathematics. It also shows a hostility to those who work, especially those who work with their hands. Why?

Then you get to The Republic, so admired by so many thinkers over the course of history. But if you read it carefully—or even not particularly carefully, as I did in college—you realize that Socrates/Plato is basically a totalitarian. He's really got something against those who work with their hands; he dislikes any sort of cosmopolitanism; he dislikes beauty, especially for its own sake. He advocates brain-washing, a strict caste system, and secret police to root out dissent. He certainly, and especially, hates democratic politics. Then you read The Apology, Plato's representation of Socrates' closing arguments to the jury that tried him, and you realize: this guy also had a death wish. He was purposely antagonizing the jury! He wasn't even trying to get acquitted!

So, Socrates, the secular martyr that many who could not quite bring themselves to believe in Christ sort-of idolized, is maybe a more complex character—and one far less to be admired—than we were taught to think. For this reason, Stone wants to bring his trial and death from the realm of "secular martyrdom" to "I ain't saying his execution was right, but I kind of understand." I think he is quite successful.

Stone's synopsis of the extant ancient literature on Socrates, from his students Plato and Xenophon, Plato's student Aristotle, the Roman historians Plutarch, Diogenes Laertius, and Diodorus Siculus, and the late-Roman orator Libanius, added very little to my understanding (having read most of it already), but I can see it adding significantly to the knowledge of the non-classicist. What did add some knowledge for me is Stone's speculations on the political situation in Athens when Socrates died. His analysis sometimes fails to hold up, especially when it becomes wildly speculative; but generally, he at least makes his case believable.

Even if the basic chill that ought to run down your spine from the totalitarian state, or the idiotic Theory of Forms didn't happen, Stone will provide you with a lot of reasons to be an Aristotelian.

[Abd El-rahman · Rating 4 out of 5]

الكتاب كان بالنسبة لي صدمة لما درست في المدرسة من أن سقراط كان فيلسوف يواجه السوفسطائيين الذين كانوا يجيدون الخداع
الحقيقة إن السوفسطائيين حتى وقت سقراط كان لهم مركز محترم في المدينة لأنهم كانوا يعلمون الطبقة الوسطى السياسة مقابل أجر
وكان منهم من كانت له قضايا جيدة يدافع عنها مثل مدافعة أحدهم عن تحرير العبيد


يدور الكتاب عن ظروف وأسباب محاكمة سقراط ومنها:
* احتقاره للديمقراطية لأنه كان يرى الحكم لمن يعرف .. وكان سقراط يقول بأن لا أحد يعرف ولا حتى هو لكن الفرق بينه وبين غيره أنه يعرف أنه لا يعرف
* عدم مشاركته في كثير من القضايا السياسية في أثينة
* إعجابه بالنظام الإسبرطي
* لم يكن معترضًا على الانقلاب على الديمقراطية في سنة 411 ق.م ، 404 ق.م، والذي كان من أهم الزعماء فيه أ��د تلاميذه (ألكيبادس) [وهذا يعد من اهم أسباب محاكمة سقراط]
* أسلوب محاورته الهدام (الديالكتيك السلبي)
-------------
لكن الكاتب يقرر في النهاية أن أثينة كانت مخطئة في محاكمتها سقراط .. لأنها خالفت نظامها وقلدت النظام الديكتاتوري في كتم الفكر حتى ولو كان ضدها
ويقرر أيضًا ان سقراط كان بإمكانه أن يحصل على البراءة لو واجه أثينة بذلك لكنه أبى إلا أن يستفز القضاة والمحلفين ... وكأنه له رغبة في الانتحار لكن على يد خصومه
ويلقي أيضًا ضوءًا على زوجة سقراط المسكينة والمعذبة معه
-------------
صعوبة الكتاب بالنسبة لي كانت في أسمائه الكثيرة التي لا أعرف كثيرًا منها ��
والحمد لله أنا بالكاد أحفظ أسماء أصدقائي المقربين الذين أتعامل معهم بشكل دوري

[Zach Carter · Rating 4 out of 5]

Stone does a really nice job situating the trial in the proper historical context, giving just enough to really immerse yourself in the ancient Greece of the 5th century BC. The Persian Wars at the beginning of the century through the Peloponnesian War at the end, and the multiple upheavals in democratic Athens from 411-401 BC are fertile ground for analyzing Socrates' philosophy from a more materialist lens. Where Stone swings and misses for me is in some of his attempts to relate this period to the mid-twentieth century, smashing together Stalin and Hitler, Mao and Mussolini, in an attempt to rail against Socrates (and Plato's) totalitarian tendencies. But in the period that the book is situated, there's a lot to learn in here!

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

Izzy Does the Ancients: The greatest US journalist of the 20th century -- or probably ever -- had to stop publication of "I. F. Stone's Weekly" due to health reasons, but then he spent his 70s learning ancient Greek and returning to the Classical studies of his youth, and the result was this book.

Here, "Western Civilization's" favorite plaster (marble?) saint -- bigger than Jesus long before the Beatles were -- gets his long-overdue demolition. Stone can't justify the verdict that eventually sentenced Socrates to death, but he does reveal Socrates for who he was, even though the records of the prosecution's side have long since disappeared. Socrates was a sneering enemy of democracy and the common people, holding his own relatively free city in open contempt even as he admired the brutish barracks-society of Sparta. His bratty aristocratic disciples had been involved in two bloody dictatorships, including one on what we would today call Vichy lines, propped up in Athens with Spartan arms after the Athenian defeat in the Peloponnesian War. The philosopher's followers had then been implicated in a third, failed plot to overthrow Athenian democracy again; and Socrates was put on trial when the democratic elements of the city were worried that he might inspire yet a fourth plot.

It takes a special sort of genius to bring new life to all of this ancient material, and I. F. Stone does it with that special combination of learned commentary, radical-democratic zeal, and investigative precision that earned him an eternal place in our hearts. In the process he even redeems Socrates on his own terms, because if the philosopher was right when he said that "the unexamined life is not worth living," it took nearly 2400 years before someone examined his life truthfully.

[Socraticgadfly · Rating 5 out of 5]

The real Socrates (and Plato, too?) revealed

Socrates was NOT a democrat, of course. His touting of Sparta, and his relations to Alciabiades and other authoritarian rebels makes that clear.

But, Stone also points out that he wasn't an intellectual egalitarian, either, and that the "Socratic method," to the degree it is touted as egalitarian, or anything similar, is a fraud.

If anybody was egalitarian at that time, it was Protagoras and Socrates' other Sophist opponents. As Athens hand no lawyers, not even government prosecutors, citizens pressed their own cases, civil and criminal alike.

Hence, skills in rhetoric were hugely valuable.

Reading through the lines of Plato's "winners write history" description of Socrates, it's clear that he was interested in setting up straw men, etc., rather than having a legitimate, question-based search and dialogue. And, of course, we don't know the Sophists' *real* answers, just what Plato put on their lips. And, Stone sets you up to see all of that.

That all said, the book isn't perfect. Not all of Stone's conclusions are warranted. But, it's still the valued corrective to hagiography of Socrates that it was when it came out.

[Nia · Rating 5 out of 5]

This excellent, well-researched, engaging and even at times sadly funny book is well worth owning, rereading, and researching further. Stone suggests, highly recommends in the strongest terms, learning the ancient Greek for oneself, and I heartily agree. These ancient plays and commentaries have the strongest bearing on our current situation, and need to be looked at critically again.

[Dario Andrade · Rating 5 out of 5]

Segunda vez que leio o livro. A primeira foi há quase trinta anos. Na primeira vez me impressionou muitíssimo, tanto que o argumento central permaneceu fresco na minha cabeça. A segunda leitura ainda impressiona, mas talvez um tanto menos.
I. F. Stone foi um jornalista americano de esquerda, mas que, até onde sei, tinha um compromisso pessoal maior com valores do que lealdades a certos grupos políticos. Dentre os valores capitais para ele estava a liberdade de expressão. Para o Stone, nenhuma sociedade é boa, por melhor que sejam as pretensões utópicas e intenções, se não houver liberdade de expressão.
Assim, ele criticava todos aqueles, à esquerda ou à direita, que calavam a boca dos dissidentes.
Nos tempos em que vivemos, a liberdade de expressão talvez pareça ser algo revolucionário demais. Neste país — mas também em outros lugares — há tantos que pregam a censura para garantir a liberdade de expressão. Uma coisa meio orwelliana do tipo censura é liberdade.
De qualquer modo, qualquer um que tenha medo de expressar as suas ideias vive, segundo Stone, em uma sociedade ruim.
O propósito de Stone é, pois, uma defesa radical da liberdade de expressão. Assim, o julgamento de Sócrates seria o caso ideal a ser analisado. Sócrates é, sem exagero, um dos pais fundadores da filosofia e talvez seja, junto com seu discípulo Platão, o mais influente.
Bem, a favor de Stone há muitas coisas. A primeira é a busca incansável pelas fontes. Ele vai muito além de Platão e Xenofonte, as escolhas mais óbvias. Apresenta também abundantes fontes secundárias e analisa também o sentido de determinados termos gregos e de como foram bem ou mal traduzidos.
Então, o livro é um vasto exame da vida ateniense do século 5 a.C. e da vida de seus principais protagonistas no campo da filosofia.
Sócrates e vários de seus discípulos — entre os quais Platão, Xenofonte, Crítias, Cármides e Alcibíades —, e isso não é exatamente uma novidade, tinham pouca ou nenhuma simpatia pela democracia ateniense. Stone argumenta, então, que o julgamento de Sócrates não foi a degradação da democracia, como se poderia esperar, mas algo diferente. Para o autor do livro, perturbador — e fiquei com a impressão que é algo que o próprio Stone não conseguiu responder — porque foi um momento em que a democracia ateniense se encontrava em um momento de profundo estresse depois das ditaduras de 411 e 404 e da tentativa de golpe de 401, mas não tinha elementos para oferecer contra aqueles que estavam no campo anti-democrático.
Sócrates, se não era um político porque ele inclusive rejeitava a atividade política, possivelmente foi alguém que propagava ideias antidemocráticas.
Stone defende que havia três pontos de discordância entre Sócrates e Atenas: 1. Qual era a natureza da comunidade humana. Seria a pólis – a cidade livre – ou seria, na visão de Sócrates, um rebanho? 2. O que era conhecimento? Para Sócrates, a virtude era conhecimento, mas o verdadeiro conhecimento era inatingível. Assim, os homens comuns, a maioria, não possuíam nem a virtude nem o conhecimento necessários para se autogovernarem. Assim, segundo Stone, Sócrates recaía em sua proposição fundamental: a ideia de que a comunidade era um rebanho, incapaz de governar a si própria. 3. Sócrates pregava e praticava a não-participação política, ao contrário do que era a própria essência da cidade grega.
Há também críticas ao próprio pensamento socrático, preso à busca de definições absolutas, coisa raramente alcançável e também ao uso de argumentos que resultam em conclusões absurdas ou confusas.
Por fim, Stone observa – e isso é perceptível para quem leu as apologias de Platão e Xenofonte – que Sócrates desejava ser condenado. Assim, Stone argumenta que a condenação à morte de Sócrates seria também a condenação da democracia ateniense. Sócrates, pois, tinha a intenção de ser executado pela cidade.
Os argumentos do Stone me pareceram muito bons, mas talvez a parte final do livro seja mais problemática. Como conciliar toda a nossa tradição ocidental, nascida afinal de Sócrates e Platão, quando nós temos essas duas figuras maculadas, digamos assim, pelo desprezo à democracia e à liberdade de expressão? E como conciliar uma sociedade democrática e suas tremendas ambições com àqueles que desejam a sua destruição?
São questões complexas e talvez sem uma resposta definitiva.
De qualquer modo, o livro do Stone é uma tremenda lição de história. Merece ser lido e relido, mesmo que haja elementos com os quais não concordemos.

[John David · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a culture, we tend to take the accusations made toward Socrates to be foregone conclusions, and his forced execution to be the unfair result of an Athens that was too entrenched in its own power to handle a heavy dose of philosophical medicine. Today, Socrates’ reputation seems to precede him as someone who eschewed any interest in the political and searched only after the Good, the Beautiful, and the True. Whether this is just the whitewashed history of his dutiful and most talented student, Plato, is an interesting and important question. In “The Trial of Socrates,” I. F. Stone, the civil libertarian and journalist whose fascination with the early Greeks grew to such an extent after his retirement that he actually taught himself Greek in order to read them in the original, earnestly attempts to dig back into the original sources that concern Socrates’ trial and execution. He goes back to Plato, Xenophon, and even the Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides in order to construct an account that is probably not too familiar to most casual readers: that Socrates’ disdain for Athenian democracy, and even his support for dictatorship and tyranny, were the core reasons why he was executed.

The book is split into two parts, with the first exploring a few fundamental ways in which Socrates disagreed with most of his fellow Athenians about human nature. Socrates has a very anti-democratic, anti-populist view of the average person’s ability to do … pretty much anything. He thinks that people are like sheep (his metaphor, not mine!) in that they require a shepherd to keep them from going astray, whereas obviously the prevailing fourth-century Athenian attitude is a democratic one that suggests that people are perfectly capable of governing themselves. As a result of Socrates’ views, it is no surprise that he chooses to withdraw from Athenian public life and spend his leisure time philosophizing with and otherwise engaging the attention of beautiful young boys. After all, if you reject the idea of humans as Aristotelian zoon politikon and see them only as a disembodied rationality absolved from all social obligations and responsibility, you have every reason to throw off the duties of citizenship and submit yourself to the sublimity of the Platonic forms.

Lastly, referring to Socrates as a “gadfly” has stuck not because of his rampant, thoroughgoing skepticism but instead his peculiar means of philosophical interrogation. If you go back and read Plato’s dialogues, Socrates always asks his interlocutors how they would define the subject of the conversation (Beauty, the True, Virtue, etc.). If they are unable to do this – and of course, they always are – Socrates condescendingly dismisses them and says that they can’t even define their terms and that further conversation would be fruitless. College students everywhere read this as a maieutic triumph of sorts. How can you talk about virtue when you can’t even define it? However, this is obviously just a bit of casuistic rhetoric, and a rather ironic one for someone who claimed to denounce the Sophists. Obviously, we can recognize and distinguish between the behavior of a virtuous person and a nefarious one even if we can’t provide an air-tight definition of virtue. The second section of the book addresses the trial itself. Stone devotes particular attention to the behavior of Socrates during the trial, which was highly antagonistic and sarcastic and goes so far as to suggest that Socrates actually wanted to die, since constructing an effective defense would be giving into the sham that was Athenian democracy in the first place.

This book, along with Popper’s “The Open Society and Its Enemies” (see below) did a great job in validating some of the ideas I had about Socrates. Whenever you are first exposed to Socrates in an institutionalized setting – freshman philosophy seminar, I’m guessing, for many of us in the United States – it is almost always in state of unalloyed reverence. There’s something about his relentless skepticism and his willingness to take down the most cocksure of his opponents that makes readers pat him on the back and root him on. But I found myself thinking (and this was long before I was ever exposed to Popper), “Who on Earth would want to spend time around this sniveling, sanctimonious twit who can only destroy the ingenuous attempts at philosophy offered up by others, but never creatively construct any of his own?” Socrates’ negative dialectic always seems to be, at least to me, the preeminent example of “if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.”

There is one mistake that, despite Stone’s concerted efforts, he might be repeatedly making throughout the book – that is, the uncritical conflation of Socrates and Plato. Since Socrates himself wrote nothing, all we have of his opinions are conveyed secondhand through the dialogues of Plato and Xenophon’s Memorabilia. Therefore, the only lenses that we can read Socrates through are those of students who thought him to be, despite his warnings, something of a demigod. One virtue of Stone’s thesis is that none of it was taken from a single text in isolation. He’s really adept at looking for those spots in which the original sources both agree and diverge from one another, and never really seems to be reverse-engineering the literary evidence to support his own ideas.

While Stone’s account of Socrates’ relationship with Athens is certainly not the one that resides in the popular historical imagination, it is far from being untrodden ground. In 1947, forty years before Stone published “The Trial of Socrates,” the Austrian-British philosopher of science Karl Popper came out with Volume One of “The Open Society and Its Enemies,” the first volume of which is a full-on attack on everything Platonic, from his metaphysics to his aesthetics to his political philosophy. While Stone makes no pretensions of scholarship, Popper was one of the greatest philosophers of the twentieth century. Reading these two in tandem, one comes away with a much clearer, well-rounded picture of not only the possible reasons Athenians wanted to take Socrates to task, but the deeply anti-democratic – and some have gone so far as to suggest protofascistic - strains that inhere in Plato’s thought.

[Ryan · Rating 2 out of 5]

I picked up this book expecting to gain in a sideways fashion a greater understanding of the context of Athens surrounding Socrates's trial: the history of Athens, its culture, the role of philosophers in its society, the life and deeds and beliefs of Socrates and his followers and their rival schools of thought. While this book does accomplish that, it suffers greatly for being simply a one-dimensional polemic against Socrates.

Stone's thesis is simply that Socrates was an antidemocratic agitator of sorts, and his goal is to explain if not defend Socrates' incongruous punishment in what is considered today to be the birthplace of democracy and political freedom. While I agree broadly with his reading of Plato and Socrates, there is a remarkable lack of nuance in this work.

Socrates did not believe in democracy, fine. Athens had recently suffered a bloody overthrow and restoration of its democracy, fine. One can make these points without also also throwing in the following:

Socrates concealed boastfulness behind feigned humility (pg 62), was cruel (80), neglected the affairs of his family (85), was contemptuous of labor and common people (92), and cold and unfeeling toward wife (192). Apparently Socrates was a "snob" (115, 119, 218) who "sneered at his own social peers" (119) and led his own disciples into a "metaphysical morass" (71).

Socrates's dialogues, meanwhile, are tiresome sophistry (49 and 57), "stratospheric nonsense" (72), sometimes a "wild goose chase" (75) or even "poisonous nonsense" (92) which sounds "profound to the unwary and uncritical" (75) (including, presumably, the great many scholars of Greek philosophy). Plato, meanwhile, for his part in writing these dialogues, was a "philosophic revolutionary and masterful propagandist, at work rewriting history" (164).

Because Socrates engaged in philosophy, this also means that Stone must duly attack the entire edifice of philosophy as well, of course. Philosophy may be "good clean fun for professional logicians," but is useless when translated into practical terms (56). Although Socrates opened the philosophical question of definition, which Stone seems to agree is important (68-69) and longstanding (76), it nevertheless led him in "nonsensical directions, and often into absurd statements" (68). Apparently, from the "commonsense point of view, the profundities of metaphysics look straight out of cloud cuckoo-land" (73) and indeed "philosophers all through the ages have often appeared to be 'treading on air' " (136). As Stone concludes: "Everybody knows what a horse is; everybody, that is, except the philosopher."

And of course, like all who try to pull off such an attack, Stone himself necessarily has to engage in philosophy as he tries to explain himself. On page 66 he plainly refutes a Socratic notion of right and wrong, while on page 74 he discusses the pragmatics of good and evil leading into a Hobbesian anti-idealism.

In the end, apparently Athens cannot be blamed for Socrates's death, since, although having ample opportunity to acquit himself, Socrates both chose to die and provoked his jury.

I tallied exactly two positive original statements about Socrates by Stone: on page 97, Plato made a "great contribution" to philosophy, and "Socrates paved the way for it." Also, on page 134, we are told that Socrates had a great sense of humor.

Hopefully you see my point. And still I don't overall disagree with Stone's thesis! I just think he weakens it by trying to paint such a black-and-white picture of Socrates. I mean, what are the odds that Socrates should have been a personal and moral failure in every single way we can examine through the literature? Absurd and vitriolic.

[Jason · Rating 1 out of 5]

Reading through Stone's odd little book, you develop the conviction quite rapidly that Stone does not care for Socrates. The book should rightly be titled "The Execution of Socrates: Why Athens Killed the Miserable Lying Bastard."
Just looking at the titles of Stone's chapters reveals his contempt: "A Wild Goose Chase: The Socratic Search for Absolute Definitions," "The Prejudices of Socrates," and my favorite "Why Did They wait Until He was Seventy?" The book comes off initially as an impartial attempt to compose an apology for the Athenian point of view with regard to the persona of Socrates and his trial. In his preface, Stone evokes the desire to explore the motivations and positioning of Socrates' accusers. He tries to maintain this bearing for a while, but very quickly gives all that up and attacks both Socrates and Plato point blank. For example:

"Protagoras was only the most prominent victim of Socrates' genius for confusing his interlocuters and the issues. He (and Plato) often do this by gross oversimplification and the search for absolute abstractions where there are only complex realities."

My experience with Socrates has been VERY different from that of Stone, and am I grateful for that. I don't think Stone understood a single word he read with regard to Socrates or the Athenian context he so diligently struggles to place Socrates within. His analyses of the dialogues are fatuous and his interpretation of Aristophanes laughable.
Stone is the worst kind of writer in my opinion. He used his credibility as a journalist to write authoritatively about a subject that I strongly feel he had a catastrophically tenuous grasp on. I do believe he read the works, and I do believe he performed his scholarly due diligence with cross referencing the source texts in translation, and in mastering enough Greek to translate particularly dicey passages himself when he found it necessary.
The problem I have is I've done the same, and I came away with an absolutely different understanding of practically everything Stone discusses in this book. His view of the Sophists, his assertions regarding what Socrates did or did not believe, his reading of Aristophanes, his interpretations of Plato, nearly all of it I call into question.
I cannot accurately describe the impact that Socrates and Plato have had on my life as a scholar and as a human being. In the Euthyphro and the Gorgias there are passages which have been critical in shaping how I see myself as a person, as a thinker, as a member of society. Socrates taught me more about why it is important to live a just life than any other single source.
And therein lay my ultimate problem with Stone.
If this text is the only encounter an individual has with Socrates, then they will come away with a hopelessly impoverished understanding of how important his ideas are.
By all means, read this book. I think it does have some interesting things to say about contemporaneous Athens, some of which I also dispute but am not really in a position to criticize all that knowledgeably, but do not let this text stand as your only exposure to Socrates and Plato. Don't let Stone kill the poor guy a second time.

[Kirk Lowery · Rating 4 out of 5]

For me, reading this book was a humbling experience. In college, and the years since (many of them!), I thought of myself as understanding the classical world in general. I wasn't a classicist by any means, but I had taken many courses in philosophy and ancient history. This book upended my understanding of the 5th and 4th century B.C. Greece and in particular, Athens. Even more humbling was the fact that Stone's historical narrative was not radical or new: the details of Socrates' trial are old news in the world of classical study. He does bring a different perspective on many aspects of that event. I had to admit to myself that I had read Plato, Aristotle, et alia...well, poorly and without a larger context.

There are many things that caught my attention, but here are the essentials apropos to Socrates' trial:

1. Socrates wanted to die. He did everything he could to antagonize the jury.
2. In the year of his trial, 399 B.C., Athens has just completed a half century of two major revolutions by totalitarians. At this point, the citizens of Athens were nervous about yet another civil rebellion. Socrates -- a well-known Sparta (ideological dictatorship) sympathizer -- was convicted on the basis of "national security", something well-kn0wn to us in the post-9/11 world.
3. The death penalty was -- according to Stone -- was unjust, violating Athenian law.
4. The trial itself violated Athens' tradition of free speech: the accusation was not about any action of Socrates that was treasonable; he was being tried for what he said and what he taught.

There's much more to be said and learned from this book. I'll leave it to others more qualified than me to argue over whether Stone's take on events is justified. But in the process of telling his story, Stone has given us a wonderful introduction to Athenian history, politics, and literature.

Now, to find a good history of Greece, and read a couple of the commentaries on Plato, et alia, that Stone highly praised. That's my only real complaint about the book: it lacks a "Suggested/Further Reading" and a comprehensive bibliography.

[Mark · Rating 5 out of 5]

This work was incredible. I enjoyed it from start to finish. Many of us read Plato's Trial of Socrates in High School and were taught to regard Socrates as a kind of martyred vanguard who was wrongfully accused, tried, and ultimately murdered by Athenian Democracy. Teachers in particular typically view Socrates with rose colored glasses. However, after reading (on my own) most of Plato including his Republic, I couldn't mirror Socrates the man with the Socrates as he was lovingly depicted in my high school English class.

In his book, Stone demonstrates (convincingly in my view) that the Athenian democracy was justified in putting Socrates to death. He does this by actually READING ALL OF PLATO (something I doubt many who teach Socrates have done) and thereby understanding how out of place the political views of Socrates were in the first democracy. After all, Socrates proposed that an authorian dictatorship was the most sensible of all political bodies.

What I particularly liked was the ability of Stone to put Socrates in historical context, something that teachers of the three most misunderstood men in history-Socrates, Jesus and Shakespeare, fail miserably to do; and by doing so, he clears Athenian Democracy of the crime of the ages and no less points out our own gross hypocrisy to boot. We would certainly have put Socrates to death had he existed in our own time, and therefore we should not be casting aspersions on Athenian democracy.

[Mohmed Abd el salam · Rating 5 out of 5]

هذا الكتاب من أمتع ما قرأت ، يجمع فيه المؤلف التاريخ والفلسفة والسياسة والميلودراما جنبا إلى جنب ليجيب على سؤال : كيف أدى عداء سقراط للديمقراطية وحرية التعبير به إلى انهاية !
سقراط الثرثار الاكبر في التاريخ ، يرفض أي دور للعوام أو الطبقة الوسطى في القضايا السياسية ، ويرفض أن يناقشوا الامور العامة ، فهو يرفض الديمقراطية التي قام عليها مجد أثينا ، ويفضل الحكم المطلق من خلال ( الرجل الذي يعرف ) ، علاوة على ذلك فهو معجب بنظام إسبرطة في الحكم العسكري والذي خاضت معه أثينا حروبا عديدة !
ومدينة أثينا التي قامت بتأليه الديمقراطية من خلال ( الالهة بيثو ) وجرية الاجتماع والتعبير من خلال ( الاله زيوس ) تجد نفسها مضطرة لمواجهة التأثير الكبير لسقراط على عقول شباب المدينة الارستقراطي ، فقد تهددت الديمقراطية بها عام 404 ق.م على يد ديكتاتورية الثلاثين ، والذين كان من بينهم إثنان من تلامذة سقراط .
الديمقراطية وحرية التعبير إذن هي لب هذا العمل ، مدينة أثينا التي تحكم على سقراط أبرز العقول الثقافية بها بالاعدام دفاعا عن الديمقراطية وخوفا من تأثيره السلبي على عقول الشباب ، وسقراط يفضل ان يموت دفاعا عن أفكاره ولكي يدين أثينا ومبادئها في الوقت ذاته ، فمدينة الديمقراطية والحرية لم تتحمل أن تترك أحد أبنائها الذي تجاوز السبعين أن يستمر بالكلام !
ستخرج من هذا العمل أقل تعاطفا وتقديرا لشخصية سقراط ، فالمؤلف سخر صفحاته للدفاع عن أثينا أو بالاحرى الدفاع عن الديمقراطية بها ، وهو يدين سقراط على طول الخط ، ويحمله مسؤولية عما أصابه ، وسيكون عليك بعد الانتهاء من القراءة أن تحسم أمرك حيال القضية الاساسية ، أعني الديمقراطية

[Ahmad No'man · Rating 4 out of 5]

تكمن أهمية المحاكمة أنها حدثت في واحدة من أفضل الديموقراطيات التي شهدها العالم - نحو 500 عام قبل الميلاد!!- علي مدار التاريخ وكانت محاكمة تُعد ضد حرية الرأي والتعبير و حُكم فيها علي سقراط بالاعدام !!

يتناول الكتاب شرحا للنظام الأثيني الديمقراطي ومعارضة سقراط لهذا الشكل من الحكم, فكان يري أن الناس أو جموع الشعب مجموعة من القطيع ولا يجب أن تشارك في سياسات الدولة, ويجب أن تُحكم عن طريق طبقةأو شخص معين ذو معرفة قادر علي التفكي��!

لينقلنا الي نقطة أخري هي مواصفات هذا الشخص وهي أن يكون حاكم فيلسوف معرفته تكمن في الفضيلة التي يعود سقراط ليؤكد علي أنهما شيئان مرتبطان أو هما نفس الشيء في جدل فلسفي واسع!!

وتأثير الفكر أو المذهب السقراطي علي الشباب الأثيني الذي أدي بدوره الي العديد من الانقلابات علي الديمقراطية الأثينية - ثلاثا علي وجه التحديد- في أعوام 411, 404, 401 ق.م وما صاحبهم من مآسي في المجتمع الأثيني وكانت هي التمهيد لمحاكمته علي آرائه !!

كتاب رائع للمهتم بالقراءة عن أشكال المجتمعات والأنظمة الحاكمة علي مدار التاريخ

[KOMET · Rating 4 out of 5]

In 1989, when I was living and working overseas, my late father sent me The Trial of Socrates by I.F. Stone to read. At the time, I didn't know who I.F. Stone was, nor the reputation he had earned on the national level for decades as an honest, principled journalist who could not be bought. Notwithstanding that, this book intrigued me, because when I was a college freshman 40 years ago, I had taken an advanced philosophy course in which I studied the works of both Plato and Aristotle.

In several of Plato's Dialogues, he writes at length about Socrates, which gave me some sense of what manner of philosopher and man Socrates was. In The Trial of Socrates, the reader becomes a witness to Socrates being put on trial in Athens for "impiety and corrupting the city's youth." Socrates was a philosopher who always encouraged people to be "free thinkers" (that is, to question anything its public leaders and lawmakers promote that they themselves may feel compelled to call into question after a close examination of the issues and policies associated with said public leaders and lawmakers). He himself became renowned as a "gadfly", someone who would challenge the Athenian governing class by questioning and criticizing them for any of their actions he found questionable. In other words, Socrates always spoke truth to power. So, it was that in the eyes of this governing class, Socrates came to be seen as a clear and present threat to their rule. Hence, Socrates was put on trial for his life.

All in all, The Trial of Socrates is a very compelling story about someone unafraid to critique a society (whilst also encouraging others in that society to "find their voices") peacefully through the power of speech, who by so doing, is put on trial for being a free and independent thinker.

[محمود قدري · Rating 4 out of 5]

نحن لم يصلنا عن طريق الروايات والرواة سقراط واحد,يُختلف حوله في حادثة أو فكرة أو مرحلة,بل وصلنا لو صح الجمع"سقاريط"متعددة,لها وجوه مختلفة وأفكار وكلمات متباينة,منسوبة كلها لاسم سقراط.
من الممكن جداً أن يكون سقراط ليس إلا شخصية أدبية ابتدعها أفلاطون؛لإيراد أفكاره هو في ثوب أدبي حلم في شبابه أن يرتديه مسرحياً,والواقع أن الحوارات الأفلاطونية عمل مسرحي جميل,تنبض فيه الشخصيات وتعبر عن نفسها بصدق وفلسفة وذكاء,لكن طبعاً لا أحد يغلب فيها سقراط الفيلسوف الداهية,من تخفي تحت ستار الجهل ليفضح غباء وادعاء الأثينيين,سقراط يشبه شخصيات الدراما اليونانية,كبطل يواجه قدره بشجاعة,شجاعة الفعل وشجاعة المعرفة,به كل مقومات البطل التراجيدي,معرفته كمعرفة أوديب,كلتا المعرفتين أدت لنهاية مأساوية خلدها التاريخ الإنساني كأمثلة لا نمل تكرارها.
وليس من المستبعد أن يكون نبي,ومع غلق باب الاجتهاد والاكتفاء بما كان والسلام,هذا الرأي غير مقبول!!لكن حياة سقراط و(نبوءة معبد دلفي),والـ(صوت الإلهي)الذي قال عنه أثناء المحاكمة,نبذه لتعدد الإلهة,وإيمانه بالحياة بعد الموت في زمن وثني,لم يستسغ تلك الفكرة حين جاء المبشرون بالمسيحية بعد موت سقراط بقرون,وصف شيشرون له أنه:"أنزل الفلسفة من السماء إلي الأرض".....دلائل عديدة علي الأقل نفهم منها أن سقراط كان صاحب رسالة سامية,وأحد المختارين في العرف الديني لحمل الرسالة السماوية للبشر,وقد بدأ خالد محمد خالد كتابه عن محمد والمسيح بسقراط كبداية لهما.
وسقراط الفيلسوف,من استفز عقول أبناء أثينا للحركة,عن طريق الأسئلة,ثم الأسئلة,يعقبها طرح المزيد من الأسئلة,لتوليد الأفكار والمعاني والدلالات عبر الحوار المباشر,أمياً كان,وقيل أنه معاد للكتب,طريقته كانت تشبه طريقة أمه القابلة,فهو يولد الفكرة ونقيضها,الاستدلال والنفي,السلب والإيجاب من عقل محدثه,حتي يصل به إلي مايريده,مبتدعاً بذلك أسلوب إيهام المحاور أن الفكرة فكرته في حين أنها تخصك أنت وأنت من زرعتها في عقله بدون أن يعي,سقراط الفيلسوف الساخط المفكر في كل ما هو حوله,فلا يريح ولا يستريح,ألب شباب أثينا علي آبائهم,جمع حوله ألسنة وعقول لا تجعل المدينة في سلام نفسي بعيداً عن الحوار والجدل...والمعرفة!سقراط يحيلك للجحيم عينه بأسئلته وتكرارها,ووضع كل شئ محل شك وتساؤل ونقد,والإنسان العادي يصطلي بناره دون هوادة منه أو من تلامذته,السؤال باب لا يغلق علي الحياة,الحياة العميقة...والأهم أنه منظار قاتم للنفس.
وسقراط العبثي الهزلي كما عند أريستوفان وغيره من كتاب المسرح حتي أحمد عتمان في مسرحية حسناء في سجن سقراط-هو عند عتمان نصف ونصف-سقراط المجنون المبتدع الثائر علي الآلهة المتحذلق بالمنطق...فكرة كونه نبياً فكرة لابد أن ينظر لها بعين الإعتبار.
ثم سقراط السياسي.حين جاءت نبوءة دلفي بكونه أحكم البشر,هناك عبارة نطقها وأخري كررها,المنطوقة معناها أنه أحكم البشر؛لأنه الوحيد العالم بجهله بكل شئ,وهذا جحيم آخر فلابد للواحد منا أن يتأكد ويؤمن بشئ واحد علي الأقل ليتزن نفسياً ويقوي علي الاستمرار في الحياة,سقراط السياسي في تلك الحالة وهو المعارض للديمقراطية رغم أصوله المتواضعة,من ينادي أن:من يعرف هو الأحق بالحكم,الذي تعرض لمكائد سياسية أدت في النهاية لإعدامه,وكان في إعدامه خلوده,هل كان يريد بتلك العبارة التي تعترف أن حكمته تكمن في جهله,ثم محاولته إثبات النبوءة عن طريق البحث عن من يفضله حكمه,فيضع الجميع في موقف الحرج,ويكشف عنهم القناع الزائف,أن يبدأ حركة سياسية تطيح بالديمقراطية وقلب نظام الحكم الأثيني,حيث يصل ويحكم ويتحكم في الناس من يعرف فقط,دون الاضطرار لإعطاء حرية الكلام في المجالس السياسية لكل من هب ودب بدعوي المواطنة,مما يجعل الدولة في حالة من الفوضي والبلبلة بدعوي الديمقراطية.
اليوم الديمقراطية هي أنسب نظام حكم وأرقاها وخاصة في الغرب,حيث التعليم والعقول المستنيرة والوعي بالحقوق,واحترام القانون,وكانت أثينا في ذلك الوقت شبيهة بالغرب في تلك الأمور,لكن سقراط لم يكن ينتظر من الديمقراطية خيراً,هو يريد الحاكم الذي يعرف,وهو في الواقع علي حسب النبوءة من يعرف!!!بعد أن فضح جهل وغرور شعبه,والبارزين فيه,العبارة التي نطقها لتنم عن اعترافه بجهله,ربما كان يرمي بها علي القادة والحكام في زمنه,والبارزين في أثينا وشعبها؛ليصفعهم بحركة سياسية تأخذ من الفلسفة والسؤال رداءً للوصول للحكم...
أما "اعرف نفسك"فقد كانت موجودة علي معبد دلفي قبل سقراط,واستعادها سقراط مرة أخري ثم نُسبت إليه,ومن الممكن شرح تلك العبارة أن المعرفة وهي الفضيلة الأسمي ليست في مملكة هذا العالم الخارجي,الملئ بالأوهام والأخطاء التي أُخذت مع تكرارها الدائم علي أنها من المسلمات,إنما المعرفة هي أن يعرف الإنسان نفسه ويتأملها ويراقبها,العالم كما يراه الإنسان هو انعكاس داخله في الأساس,فلو عرف نفسه قد يصل إلي حقيقة هذا العالم,وسقراط وأفلاطون عندهم"الحقيقة",وليس"حقيقة",وشتان بين الدوجماطيقية والتصور الآني المرتبط بالشخص!فالمعرفة الزائفة هي معرفة الشخص للظواهر التي حوله ودرسها,وإغفاله لذاته وأسبابها,أما معرفة النفس فهي المعرفة الحقيقية
http://wwwmahmoudkadrycom.blogspot.co...
التي يتخذها الواحد منا معياراً للفهم و الحكم علي الأمور,هي الباقية والحقيقية,وفعلاً كما يدور السؤال الشهير,ماذا تستفيد لو ربحت العالم كله وخسرت نفسك؟
سقراط كان يريد أن نفهم أنفسنا,فتلك هي الفضيلة التي طبقها علي نفسه,لقد مضي للموت بهدوء بعد أن فهم الموت تبعاً لفهمه لذاته,فلو كان عدماً فهو راحة,ولو لم يكن كذلك فتلك فرصة ليقابل أبطاله المفضلين في العالم السفلي,سقراط أراد بمعرفة النفس أن نعرف واقعنا وعالمنا,وحياتنا ثم موتنا,ووضع تصورات عن الدنيا والعالم ناتج عن حقيقتنا نحن وليس كما يُراد لنا أن نكون,سقراط رغب الناس في المعرفة علي أنها فضيلة عليا,وغفل عذاب تلك الفضيلة وقسوتها وحيرتها عند الكثيرين,بمعرفة النفس نؤمن بعمق وبصدق,وليس بمعرفة ما يُراد لنا أن نعرفه,وبخداع الناس والحواس لنا,سر تلك العبارة تكمن في كونه أحكم الناس,لأن سقراط أكثر من يعرف سقراط...وتلك كانت كفيلة أن يعرف كل شئ,ونتيجة لذلك أعلن جهله التام واعتماده علي الأسئلة حتي يتعلم؛كي يصل للفضيلة!
في أسوأ الفروض سنعتبر أن حاجة الإنسانية لسقراط,دفعتها لاختراعه من العدم,فمن كان سيضرب أحد أروع أمثلة الشجاعة في محاورة الدفاع,يتحدي,يسخر,يسخط......يجابه الموت بلا اضطراب ولا وجل,باعتبار أن الموت أمر لم يختربه بعد,ما المانع من تجريبه,أليس من الممكن أن يكون شيئاً جيداً!
لم يدافع سقراط في محاورة الدفاع عن نفسه,بل دافع عنا نحن,البؤساء المضحوك عليهم في زحمة الحياة!

[Jeff Hart · Rating 4 out of 5]

He exhorts his fellow Athenians to virtue but claims that it is not teachable. He identifies virtue with knowledge, yet he insists that this knowledge in unattainable, and cannot be taught. To cap it all, after making his interlocutors feel inadequate and ignorant, Socrates confesses that he himself knows nothing.

But the regime was marked from the beginning by lawlessness, and lynch mob methods of repression. We have no reason to believe that Socrates in any way approved the illegality and cruelty of the regime. But it is disappointing that he did not speak out forcefully against them, nor use his influence with his old friend and pupil Critias to bring him back to the paths of virtue. If Socrates had done so, he would have become a hero of the resistance and there would have been no trial

[Ayush · Rating 3 out of 5]

I got introduced to Greek antiquity via this book. The author explains the circumstances that led to Socrates' trial in ancient Athens and criticizes the anti-democratic opinions of Plato and Socrates throughout the book. The flow of arguments was logical (but sometimes repetitive) and sufficient context was provided to engage the uninitiated. I believe the research done for such a project must be massive and I respect it. I learnt a lot about ancient Greece from this book!
However, I cannot fully appreciate such an openly critical view of Socrates without ever having read any pro-Socrates text. Maybe I will raise my rating after reading Plato's Republic or Apology.

[Michael]

I read the complete works of Plato some years ago because so much of Western philosophy concerns itself with answering the questions that Socrates--Plato's teacher and the object of Plato's recordation--opened up to debate so long ago. Stone's book explores the political, cultural, and intellectual context in which the dialogues of Socrates took place, making the dialogues more understandable. It goes on to discuss what we know of Socrates' life and the second most famous execution (the first being Christ's) in the history of Western culture. The fundamental speculations are considered here, too, and keyed to the more modern concerns of the relationship of free speech to democracy.
Why is this still relevant? It was Socrates who established the idea that the "republic" should be led by one "philosopher king." The students of Socrates like Plato, Xenophon, and Aristotle became the teachers of a new generation of political leaders. Aristotle, for example, was exiled and became the tutor to Alexander the Great. Plato's writings inspired emperor's from Marcus Aurelius to Napolean. In fact, the whole structure of politics from the Era of the Roman Empire to the high middle ages were rationalized by the works of Plato, now referred to as "neoplatonism" Catholic Christianity also partook deep drafts of this intellectual liquer. And even in the sciences, alchemy--though modified considerably by Aristotle--based its views of cosmology and "metaphysics" on the philosophy of Plato.
There are still strains of this today in antidemocratic movements and political structures, social elitism, and speculative physics. If the value of an idea reveals itself in how it plays out in hisory, then this is the place to start the analysis of how effective or desirable these memes are likely to be.

[David Shohl · Rating 5 out of 5]

Veteran "muckraker" Stone, who helped bring an end to McCarthyism, comes out of retirement to break a 2,000-year old scoop, his last book:

Socrates was no defender of democracy/free speech, as most think. Just the opposite: he thought democracy's common man-based government was disastrous--something like having a bunch of cattle performing brain surgery.

The truth is that he was put on trial because his aristocratic students (Alcibiades, Creon et al.) twice conspired w/ Sparta during the Pelopennesian War and tyrannically overthrew the Athenian democrats--disenfranchising, exiling and executing thousands of political opponents.

Socrates knew his that name and skeptic/ironic legacy would only be remembered if--like the trial of Jesus, as Stone notes at the book's opening--his execution stained the reputation of democratic Athens forever (he was right).

To this end, he deliberately provoked the jury--he could easily have gotten off w/ a fine, or choose exile--but he ridiculed and humiliated the jurors/system, forcing them to come up with the death verdict (by one vote, as I recall).

Extremely readable, impeccably researched and a real gift to those like me who never felt they really understood the tragic importance of old Athens..

My highest recommendation.

[Bruce · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read this (well, began reading it and then skimmed through the remainder, really) all in one night. Not because it's that interesting or well-written, but because I was already thoroughly familiarized with its contents. If you read Doug Linder's webpage, ahead of time, there won't be much in Stone's book to hold your interest. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Linder's synopsis is far better, in that it covers the same ground that much more succinctly.

Stone promises to treat his subject matter as an investigative journalist would, but fails to deliver on the detective story. There's plenty of meat on the bones for us classical ignoramuses, it's just not delivered in a way that raises and resolves questions along the way. Stone never made me care about this or why he thought it was significant. From a pure delivery-of-fact standpoint, Linder's online synopsis is better. However, for those interested in learning more about the Athens of Socrates, readers will prefer Robin Waterfield's Why Socrates Died, which I will also review.

[Ben · Rating 3 out of 5]

I quite liked this book by the end of it, but it took me quite a while to get used to the constant attack on Socrates, basically because he was not a fan of democracy. I found the last 2/3 of the book better than the first third, either because I'd gotten used to the tone or because it got a bit more interesting, I am not sure. But seriously, Socrates could be documented as walking on water while curing world hunger, and Stone would spend paragraphs criticising him for not going through the Athenian assembly to do so. Apparently Socrates should take large personal responsibility for the Melos slaughter(!), and should be looked down upon for (god forbid) choosing to not partake in the Athenian democracy. I am not particularly a Socrates fan, but the attacks were relentless. The problem is, Stone looks at absolutely Everything, through a common-man ("left-wing", socialistic) kaleidescope, and surely we all know that you can't judge ancient cultures by our modern culture's in-vogue standards.

All this said the book turns out to be a good read for anyone interested in ancient Greece, and on a whole I enjoyed it once I got used to its angle. The Epilogue is a good bit of work also, possibly the best part of the book which adds to Greek scholarship.

[Marc · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sharp demystification of Socrates: his absurdities and inconsistencies are uncovered, with particular emphasis on his anti-democratic attitude. According to Stone that was the reason why he was sentenced to death. But also Plato is demystified: according to Stone he is a vulgar manipulator, but at the same time a literary genius. However, some arguments are far-fetched and I have the impression that Stone overrates the democratic spirit of the 5th century Athens. All in all an interesting read. Rating 2.5 stars.

[Wentao · Rating 2 out of 5]

In some parts Stone grossly misunderstood Plato and his philosophy, and in other parts seems to be preaching to a choir (you have to agree with him already in order to be convinced). But the effort to connect the dots in several historical accounts is commendable, and sometimes illuminating, even if not in the way the author intended.