Socrates Buddhism and Confucianism Can Be Regarded

Socrates

Buddhism and Confucianism can be regarded largely as religious systems -- although Confucianism is a remarkably secular set of beliefs, it nonetheless regards ritual activities -- but Socrates is not prized as a religious figure as Confucius and the Buddha are (although in the guise of neo-Platonism would have an influence on certain Christian traditions many centuries after Socrates drank the hemlock). So what does Socrates bring to the table that Confucius and the Buddha do not, that he still captures our attention? Soccio needs to invoke Karl Jaspers' concept of the "paradigmatic individual" as to why Socrates lingers on as the archetypal "Wise Man" of Western Civilization (Soccio 92).

Yet we also need to begin with a curious paradox -- one that Socrates clearly relished -- which was that Socrates himself professed to offer nothing: his philosophical stance began with a profession of his utter ignorance. Soccio chooses as his preface to the chapter the quotation of Socrates -- "I do not suppose that I know" -- which offers the basic statement of Socratic ignorance in such a way that it seems to be a profession of humility. Soccio later tells the famous story of the Delphic Oracle's prophecy concerning Socrates, which was that "no man is wiser than Socrates" (Soccio 103). It is important to note that there's a sort of double-edged sword in this statement -- either it declares Socrates is a paragon, or else sets up Socrates as a sort of buffoon so as to call the idea of human wisdom into question. In practice, though, Socrates was both paragon and buffoon to a certain degree: he did not write down his own words, and everything we know about him is reflected in the works of his pupil Plato or his contemporaries Xenophon and Aristophanes, but the manner of his teaching (especially as reflected in Plato's dialogues) seems to indicate a remarkable humility in willing to admit to ignorance.

Soccio notes, however, that the ignorance had a largely pedagogical intent -- he calls it Socrates's "mission, which he saw as bringing home to others their own intellectual needs" (Soccio 104). In other words, Socratic ignorance is used to expose equivalent ignorance on the part of Sophists or anyone arguing from false or insincere premises. But also, the fact that the paradox of Socrates's stance can still engage us is testament to its centrality to Western intellectual culture. He is the closest thing we have to a secular Buddha, and although Soccio does not emphasize Socrates's own beliefs, it seems likely from the testimony of Plato's "Phaedo" that Socrates shared with the Pythagoreans -- and with the Buddhists -- a belief in metempsychosis, or the transmigration of souls. Yet we do not turn to Socrates as a religious figure: we turn to him as an outstanding secular paragon of what it means to be devoted to the philosophical or intellectual life, for he took no money for his lessons, and ultimately he died for having given them.

It is noteworthy that Socrates was not of noble birth or even particular good looks: he is described as ugly by Plato (although the famously desirable Alcibiades professed his love for Socrates in Plato's "Symposium," which is probably a testament to Socrates's wisdom, not his good looks) and was a simple citizen of Athens, who took no remuneration for his teaching, in contradistinction to the professional Sophists that he opposed (who were largely well-paid teachers of rhetoric who taught men to argue but were little concerned with truth or wisdom). But this puts a substantial distance between Socrates and someone like Prince Siddhartha Gautama (who was of noble birth and great wealth) or even someone like Confucius (who flourished in an imperial context, and wrote a sort of code of behavior and piety, whereas Socrates was executed by the state for his impious and corrupting behavior).