Fed o, Re is a de Es é ica y Teo ía de las A es.
Núme o 23, sep iemb e de 2023. ISSN 1697-8072
[pp. 116-124]
h ps://dx.doi.o g/10.12795/Fed o/2023.i23.07
SOCRATES’ METHOD OF ‘NOT WRITING’
EL MÉTODO DE SÓCRATES DE “NO ESCRIBIR”
Dushyan Kuma
Jawaha lal Neh u Uni e si y, New Delhi
ABSTRACT:
In his pape , I in end o p opound ha Soc a es’ choice o abs aining himsel om w i ing no
only leads o he “Soc a ic P oblem” bu also ende s him ulne able o misapp op ia ions; a
ulne abili y he a ibu es o w i ing while subs an ia ing his down igh dismissal o i . The pa-
pe has been di ided in o h ee sec ions. In sec ion one; e o is o con empla e “The Soc a ic
P oblem” which has been ba ling schola s ac oss cen u ies. Whe he , o example, in Pla o’s
wo ks, is i Pla o’s o he his o ical Soc a es’ iews? Absence o Soc a es’ own wo k has pu
his his o ical exis ence in a blu y pic u e and his cha ac e unde shadows o doub s. In sec-
ion wo, he e is an a emp o ou line he deba e be ween Phonocen ism and O al adi ion.
Soc a es is seen p ojec ing phonocen ic iewpoin s in Pla o’s Phaed us, when he censu es
w i ing by in oking an Egyp ian my h. In he las sec ion, I ha e pu o h a su mise ha Pla-
o’s Soc a es mus be an apo heosized and misapp op ia ed e sion o he his o ical Soc a es.
And I ques ion, i i can be aken as an insinua ion ha we need o conside possibili y o mi-
sapp op ia ion e e y ime we ead his o y wi hou his o ici y.
Keywo ds: The Soc a ic P oblem. Phonocen ism. Misapp op ia ions.
116
RESUMEN:
En es e a ículo, p e endo p opone que la elección de Sóc a es de abs ene se de esc ibi no
sólo conduce al “p oblema soc á ico”, sino que ambién lo uel e ulne able a ap opiaciones
indebidas: una ulne abilidad que se a ibuye a la esc i u a al iempo que undamen a su o al
echazo hacia ella. El documen o se ha di idido en es secciones. En la sección uno nues o
es ue zo es con empla “El p oblema soc á ico” que ha desconce ado a los es udiosos a lo
la go de los siglos. ¿Se a a, po ejemplo, de las ob as de Pla ón, de las opiniones de Pla ón o
de las del Sóc a es his ó ico? La ausencia de la ob a del p opio Sóc a es ha pues o su exis encia
his ó ica en un pano ama bo oso y su ca ác e bajo dudas. En la segunda sección se in en a
esboza el deba e en e onocen ismo y adición o al. Se e a Sóc a es p oyec ando pun os
de is a onocén icos en el Fed o de Pla ón, cuando censu a la esc i u a in ocando un mi o
egipcio. En la úl ima sección, he plan eado la conje u a de que el Sóc a es de Pla ón debe
se una e sión apo eósica y mal e sada del Sóc a es his ó ico. Y me p egun o si es o puede
oma se como una insinuación de que debemos conside a la posibilidad de ap opiación
indebida cada ez que leemos his o ia sin his o icidad.
Palab as Cla e: El p oblema soc á ico. Fonocen ismo. Ap opiaciones indebidas.
(I)
In Ci ca 440 BC, Chae ephon, one o Soc a es’ close iends asked he O acle o Delphi i
he e was a li ing man wise han Soc a es in A hens. The answe was no. In esponse o his,
Soc a es, he wises among men, wen on an expedi ion o p o e he p ophecy w ong by inqui-
ing abou knowledge. In he end, he ealised ha he O acle p onounced him o be he wises
as he was he only man o admi ha he knew no hing. This man, as we know h ough Pla o’s
Apology, was pu o ial and gi en a dea h sen ence o blasphemy and impe inence owa ds
he ins i u ional belie s o A hens by he second democ a ic egime in 399 BC. Al hough So-
c a es died a an ad anced age o 71, he ne e w o e any hing. His ideas, iews and philosophy,
as we know oday, ha e been econs uc ed h ough wha o he philosophe s ha e w i en abou
him. P o esso Jenny B yan has a gued ha wha e e we hink we know abou Soc a es is aken
om wha o he people ha e said abou him. These people include his s uden s, his iends and
his oes as Soc a es exe cised conside able in luence in he in ellec ual a is oc a ic ci cles o
A hens. Howe e , he mos dis inguished wo ks come om h ee Philosophe s besides A is o -
le, whose obse a ions add much o he co pus. These philosophe s a e A is ophanes, Pla o and
Xenophon. A is ophanes w o e Clouds, a comedy, while Soc a es was ali e. He pain ed him as
a mocked igu e wi h an inclina ion owa ds na u al philosophy and p esen ed him as a Sophis
who cha ged ees o educa ion and used he o ical icke y (B yan, 2013). This Soc a es was
117
ou igh ly e u ed by Xenophon and Pla o. Xenophon’s Soc a es was an e hical eache and
mo al philosophe whose chie conce n was o make men amilia wi h mo ali y and make hem
good. His Soc a es was ba ely conce ned wi h me aphysical and logical ealms o philosophy
(Copels on, 1993). Pla o’s Soc a es by a is he mos con o e sial igu e as he has been pain ed
as a pa adigma ic philosophe who li ed and died by his philosophy. Someone who used dia-
lec ics o Elenchus o his inqui y and ga e he doc ine o Fo ms o Ideas. The e a e mul iple
explana ions o he di e se e sions o Soc a es we ind in he co pus. The mos amiable one
being ha each philosophe was gi ing his own in e p e a ion o Soc a es and hei accoun
he e o e should no be aken by wo ds bu by hei co e philosophy. Howe e , he dilemma o
inding he eal Soc a es behind he innume able e sions d awn in he ex has been a pe sis en
issue (Do ion, 2011).
Pla o had known Soc a es om he ea lies yea s o his childhood and s udied unde him o
eigh yea s. He was 28 yea s old when Soc a es was pu o dea h a e a ial in which he was
p esen . A e his eache ’s dea h, he w o e i elessly o de end him agains he hos ili y and an-
agonis ic accoun s. In hese accoun s he made Soc a es he p o agonis and made him exp ess
himsel h ough dialogues wi h ce ain in e locu o s. The a emp was o each an ag eeable de-
ini ion o ce ain i ues, hough i was ne e achie ed. This me hod is called he Soc a ic me-
hod o he Elenchus. Pla o has used his me hod ex ensi ely in his wo ks which has gi en way
o a ious con o e sies. I is a gued ha al hough Pla o was exclusi ely documen ing Soc a ic
philosophy in his ea ly wo ks he uses him as his spokesman in his la e wo ks, his has been
called he ‘Soc a ic P oblem’. The e o e, i is possible o sepa a e genuinely Soc a ic elemen s
in his wo ks om hose ha a e his own c ea ion (Kahn,1996 & Rowe, 2007). Al hough i ’s a
ma e o deba e, he s anda d wo ks o Pla o ha a e conside ed Soc a ic a e Cha mides, C i o,
Eu hyph o, Hippias Mino , Ion and Laches, in addi ion o Apologia, which has been gi en a
special s a us as i is a pos humous de ence o Soc a es ial, as hey a e cha ac e ised by Elen-
chus (Wool , 2013). Philosophe s ha e a gued bo h in a ou o and agains Pla o when i comes
o he ‘Soc a ic P oblem’ al hough he majo i y, who has an in e es in ‘Soc a ic Philosophy’,
seems o conside Pla o’s Soc a es as his o ically accu a e. Howe e , he e a e con adic ions in
Pla o’s Soc a es wi hin his own co pus i sel which mus no be o e looked. Fo ins ance, when
he explici ly highligh s he issue o his o ici y in his wo ks. I has been a gued ha when Pla o
does his he’s ying o pu his own wo ds in Soc a es mou h (Copples one, 1993).
Any accoun o Soc a es mus necessa ily begin wi h he admission ha he e is, and always
will be, a “p oblem o Soc a es” (Hack o h,1933). Soc a es being one o he mos in luen ial
igu es in wes e n in ellec ual adi ion is unknown o us as a his o ical indi idual behind his
accoun s. Because he w o e no hing, we come o know him h ough ou majo sou ces, i.e.
A is ophanes’ Clouds, Pla o and Xenophon’s ex ensi e w i ings, and A is o le. William J. P io
(2006) while explaining he “Soc a ic P oblem” ou lines he limi a ions o ou knowledge ha
un o una ely, does no ex end o wha doc ines, i any, Soc a es may ha e p o essed. Some-
118
hing con empo a y philosophical schola s wan o know he mos . The Soc a ic P oblem
a ises in pa om he ac ha none o ou sou ces has impeccable c eden ials as a biog aphe .
Though Clouds gi es us some se ious in o ma ion abou Soc a es, i loses i s legi imacy on he
g ounds ha i is a comedy, which canno be se ious enough o be a biog aphy. Xenophon has
been c i icized o making Soc a es bland and uncon o e sial, and ha ing in e es s ha can
only ha e been Xenophon’s own, such as mili a y science and es a e managemen . No only
has his leng h and closeness o associa ion wi h Soc a es been ques ioned bu also his in e es in
Soc a es’ philosophy. Pla o abundan ly deals wi h Soc a es’ philosophy and answe s his ques-
ions. This aises he ques ion: whe e, in his wo k does Pla o p esen Soc a es’ iews, and whe e
does he p esen his own? The hope o sol e his ques ion by he “T ipa i e di ision” (ea ly,
middle, and la e) o Pla o’s wo k has been c i icized; bo h membe ship o espec i e g oups
and he o de o he dialogues (Kahn, 2002). E en i we accep he ipa i e g ouping o he
dialogues, howe e , and he gene al de elopmen al pic u e ha goes wi h hem, i seems he e
is no decisi e eason o belie e ha he dialogues o he ea ly g oup ep esen he iews o he
his o ical Soc a es a he han an ea ly s age o Pla o’s own philosophical hough . Las among
ou sou ces is A is o le. Objec i i y o his his o ical accoun o Soc a es has been ques ioned
due o his endency o see ea lie hinke s as he o e unne s o his own iews. Some c i ics o
A is o le as a sou ce o Soc a es ha e ques ioned whe he he e is any hing in his accoun ha
is no aceable o Pla o’s dialogues (Bu ne , 1912).
R. Hack o h (1933), commen ing on he sou ces, claims ha hei w i ings a e no epo s in
any li e al sense, bu econs uc ions o in e p e a ions colou ed, o a g ea e o lesse deg ee, by
he w i e ’s own in e es s and p ejudices, and ine i ably selec i e in hei ea men o a com-
plex pe sonali y. William J. P io (2006) a gues ha “despi e hei di e ences o emphasis, ou
sou ces ag ee abou se e al aspec s o Soc a es. Whe e hey concu , we ha e he bes his o ical
e idence abou Soc a es ha we a e likely o ha e. I we ejec his e idence, we shall ha e
no hing on which o base ou accoun o he his o ical Soc a es.” He u he a gues ha simila
in o ma ion ound in di e en sou ces has o med he basis o ou his o ical unde s anding o
Soc a es, which can be aken as ce ain as any hing abou an his o ical igu e bu unce ain y
and he blu y images a e o his Cha ac e .
(II)
In his sec ion, I shall b eeze h ough he deba e be ween “W i ing” and “Phonocen ism” in he
wes e n philosophical adi ion. I migh no be able o ouch all co ne s o his deba e sp ead
almos h oughou he known his o y. Bu I shall y o h ow ligh on “Phonocen ism” e iden
no only in Soc a es (by ha I mean Pla o) bu also in ci iliza ion in he closes p oximi y o
Pla o’s ime- The Cel s . On he o he side, I will alk o Jacques De ida’s c i ique o Phono-
cen ism, whe e he no only p o es Rousseau’s claim o w i ing’s ela ion o powe and
119
con ol w ong, bu also es ablishes, wi h help om Anne Ross, ha w i ing posed h ea o
he sup emacy o he in ellec ual class in he o al adi ions.
Soc a es is agains w i ing. This is p obably he main eason why he e ained om doing he
same. His disbelie in he adi ion o w i ing no only ga e ise o he “Soc a ic P oblem” bu
also ende ed him ulne able o he same p oblems he wa ns us agains in he case o w i ing;
misin e p e a ions and misapp op ia ions. In Pla o’s Phaed us (1901), he ecoun s he my h o
Tho h and Thamus in o de o illus a e his philosophical misgi ings abou w i ing. He quo es
Thamus disapp o ing Tho h’s in en ion o w i ing by saying ha ,
“[W i ing]… will c ea e o ge ulness in he lea ne ’s souls, because hey will no use hei me-
mo ies; hey will us o he ex e nal w i en cha ac e s and no emembe o hemsel es. The
speci ic which you ha e disco e ed is an aid no o memo y, bu o eminiscence, and you gi e
you disciples no u h, bu only he semblance o u h; hey will be hea e s o many hings
and will ha e lea ned no hing; hey will appea o be omniscien and will gene ally know no-
hing…” (Pla o, 370BCE/1901, p. 132.)
Fu he in he con e sa ion, Soc a es a ibu es w i ing o p ese ing a solemn silence like ha
o in pain ings. He wa ns ha w i en ma e ial is dis ibu ed equally among hose who can un-
de s and he subjec and hose who canno . W i ing is open o unau ho ized in e p e a ion and
app op ia ion and he e o e canno se e as a us wo hy medium o ans e o knowledge .
In Phaed us, Soc a es se s he i ues o speech o e / agains he po en ial ices o w i ing.
Soc a es a gues ha a good public speake is no a plausible blu e o sophis bu he
one who has knowledge: he one who knows his subjec , knows his de ini ions and species o
being, and knows he mind and e hos o his audience. Towa ds he end o he dialogue, ha ing
concluded agains he sophis s ha he e is ‘a genuine a o speaking’, he aises he ques ion
o ‘ he p op ie y and imp op ie y o w i ing’, and e y quickly decides ha he ideal means o
he communica ion o u h is ‘ he li ing and anima e speech o a man o knowledge, o which
w i en speech migh ai ly be called a kind o shadow’(Duddy,1996).
Tom Duddy (1996) suspec s and ies o expose links be ween social hie a chy and o ali y. He
claims exis ence o a ell- ale a ini y be ween he ancien Cel ic esis ance o w i ing and he
phonocen ism o Pla o. I is pa icula ly in e es ing abou he ea ly Cel s, he poin s ou , ha
hei educa ed classes ‘knew’ w i ing bu emained commi ed o o al cul u al p ac ices. I is
a guable ha he lea ned classes among he Cel s - he d uids, jilid (o poe -see s), and ba ds
- we e commi ed o o ali y no because hey belonged o a simple, ‘unci ilized’, egali a ian
communi y which was h ea ened by w i ing bu because, on he con a y, hei p i ileged and
powe ul posi ions wi hin an a is oc a ic social s uc u e we e h ea ened by w i ing.
De ida has a gued ha he concep s o oice and speech ha e been gi en a ques ionable p io-
i y in adi ional wes e n concep ions o language. Whene e philosophe s, an h opologis s, o
linguis s ha e discussed he na u e o signi ica ion, meaning, and communica ion hey ha e en-
120
ded o de ine hem in e ms o ocal u e ance o ace- o- ace con e sa ion, ea ing he spoken
wo d as he na u al and mos e ec i e means o exp ession o communica ion, while ega ding
he w i en wo d as a dis ancing, aliena ing, co up ible con i ance. Speech is p i ileged in
he phonocen ic adi ion because i is supposed o consis in he immedia e communica ion
o con eyance o meanings by a speake and he immedia e ecep ion o ‘g asping’ o hose
meanings by a lis ene . In speech, one appea s o make onesel di ec ly p esen o ano he . (
Duddy, 1996)
Rousseau sees speech as na u al, as he medium o co-ope a i e, o ganic, communal li e, whe-
eas w i ing is seen as con ibu ing o he collapse o communi y. W i ing, he e o e, is he
medium o ‘ci iliza ion,’ acili a ing he eme gence o an a i icial socie y in which ins i u ions
and s uc u es media e, complica e, and dis o he ela ions be ween people. In he con ex
o such a complica ed and ins i u ionalized socie y, w i ing comes in o i s own, becoming he
elemen and medium o sepa a ion and hie a chy. I makes possible a ionaliza ion and social
con ol, and becomes he ins umen o ule s, lawmake s, p ies s, and anyone else in a posi ion
o exe cise powe (Duddy, 1996).
De ida’s esponse o he phonocen ic cu en in Wes e n hinking is o ques ion he dicho omy
which i pu po s o se up be ween he pu a i e ‘immediacy’ o speech and he pu a i e ‘media-
cy’ o w i ing. In decons uc i ely ques ioning his adi ion he does no p opose simply o s and
i on i s head, asse ing ha w i ing is wholly innocen o he cha ges b ough agains i . Ra he ,
he se s ou o show ha he mos use ul accoun ha can be gi en o he cha ac e is ic ea u es
o language is a he same ime an accoun o he cha ac e is ic ea u es o w i ing. Indeed,
w i ing can be unde s ood in a gene ously ex ended, non-e hnocen ic, plu i- dimensional sense
which e ec i ely comp ises o ‘comp ehends’ language; and he e o e ha he supe io i y o
speech o e w i ing, o o o al cul u es o e li e a e ones - o , o ha ma e , o li e a e cul u es
o e o al ones - a e heses ha canno be es ablished ( Duddy, 1996)
In he Cel ic socie y, d uids, along wi h he Jilid and ba ds, had a p o essional commi men
o o ali y, esul ing in a p incipled esis ance o w i ing. This esis ance aises a ques ion. The
answe s sugges ed by Anne Ross a e in e es ing in he ligh o De ida’s cha ac e iza ion o
phonocen ism. She sugges s (i) ha he Cel s ega ded hei lo e o ‘knowledge’ in a semi-sa-
c ed ligh ; (ii) ha hey we e he e o e unwilling o make such sec e and sac ed lo e a ailable
o unini ia ed ou side s who migh use i igno an ly and blasphemously; and (iii) ha he cul-
i a ion o an o al memo y - which was so cen al o he cul u e and so de ini i e o hei own
powe ul posi ions wi hin ha cul u e - would be h ea ened by he ansc ip ion o he lo e.
The mo i es a ibu ed o he lea ned classes o hei opposi ion o ansc ip ion a e ema kably
simila o hose which Thamus ga e o Tho h o e using o app o e he in en ion o w i ing.
I b ings us o an in e ence ha he in ellec ual lea ned classes in O al adi ions which esis ed
w i ing had a mo i e o keep powe o knowledge unde hei con ol. T ansmission and p ese -
121
a ion o cul u e, iden i y, i uals and adi ion which con ols socie y lie in memo iza ion o he
in ellec ual knowledge. The Roman Ca holic Chu ch’s con ol o e Bible in La in language and
B ahmans’ con ol o e B ahmanical eligion o he Indian subcon inen coded in Sansk i lan-
guage a e examples om o he pa s o he wo ld whe e lea ned in ellec ual classes p ese ed
knowledge by p e en ing w i en ansmission o all sec ions o socie y. And his is he adi ion
which aced challenges du ing Ch is ian Re o ma ion when mass p in ing o he Bible, especia-
lly in local languages, posed se ious damages o he Chu ch ule.
I no any hing else, I am con inced o he iew ha e lec ion o phonocen ism and down i-
gh dismissal o w i ing by Soc a es in Phaed us(1901), unde he umb ella o his supe luous
spi i ual ea ise o soul ul s. soulless mediums (spoken s. w i en) o knowledge ans e , is
inu ile and coun e p oduc i e; in he sense ha his such iews acili a ed misapp op ia ion o
his cha ac e in absence o his o iginal wo ks. And no only his, dismissal o w i ing i sel is
non-p og essi e o socie y, especially u u e gene a ions.
(III)
F om sec ion (I) we ex apola e he ambigui y aced when Soc a es’ his o ici y is ques ioned.
Unce ain y ises on p obing i Pla o’s Soc a es was he his o ical Soc a es. The mos s iking
incong ui y be ween wha Soc a es says and wha Pla o does occu s when Soc a es condemns
w i ing in a wo k ha Pla o has w i en (Cohn, 2001). Cha les S. G iswold (1986), desc ibes
i as ollows: “a simple ac o e lec ion e eals a puzzling dimension in he las sec ion o he
Phaed us. Soc a es’ c i icisms o w i ing a e hemsel es w i en. . . . Mus no Pla o ei he ejec
he c i icisms o weigh hem di e en ly han Soc a es does? ... [Soc a es’] c i icism o w i ing
is i sel w i en and so i sel ecan ed- by Pla o.” This lea es one bewilde ed ying o decode
he mys e ious angles be ween Pla o and his p o agonis . Viewing his h ough a simple lens,
i Pla o we e speaking his iews h ough Soc a es, ob iously by playing wi h his cha ac e , hen
why did he con adic himsel ?
Do i Cohn (2001) sugges s a possibili y o unde s and Soc a es’ polemic agains w i ing he e,
and his co olla y ad ocacy o o al discou se, as he ep esen a ion o a his o ically signi ican
momen : an aging man launching a de ensi e mo e agains li e acy- The new o m o commu-
nica ion inc easingly ashionable wi h he younge men o Soc a es’ ime. The ela ionship o
Pla o o his p o agonis would hen co espond, in his espec , o he his o ically ealis ic image
o a gene a ional con lic , in which Pla o akes his place as a pi o al igu e in he ansi ion om
an o al o a li e a e cul u e.
Now le ’s o age o some a gumen s which migh h ow mo e ligh on he abs use ela ions-
hip o Pla o and his p o agonis , and inspec o apo heosiza ion and misapp op ia ion. When
ying o un a el his mys e y whe he Pla o’s Soc a es was an apo heosized e sion o no , we
need o look a he claims ha p opose he same. One o such h eads is compa ison o Jesus
and Soc a es. Jesus made enemies by c i icizing he hypoc isy and g a o his con empo a y
122
p eache s. Soc a es made enemies because he wen abou punc u ing he bubble o sel -con-
cei ed knowledge wi h which men we e in la ed. Like Jesus he made men ques ion ce ain
handed-down adi ions (Bos ick, 1916). I we do no look a he e y me hod o capi al punish-
men , Jesus’ and Soc a es’ dea hs a e iden ical in he sense ha hey occu in almos simila plo .
Soc a es has been depic ed as he wises o all men in A hens. Wi hin Pla o’s w i ings hemsel-
es Soc a es is gi en s a us beyond he human. Soc a es ep esen s he ideals o b a e y, jus ice,
empe ance: bu sup emely wisdom, (ambiguous ph ase; sup emely wise maybe; ‘bu ’?) o i
is h ough easoned a gumen and sel -c i ical awa eness ha he is able o achie e his s a e o
mind. In Pla o’s de eloped philosophical ision, ue a che ypes o he i ues a e o be ound
no in his wo ld bu in his Wo ld o Fo ms: ne e heless Soc a es seems o come as close as
is possible o an exempli ica ion o hose i ues in a single man (Gooch, 1985). I can be e y
well a gued ha he Soc a es depic ed by Pla o is mo e han a human. I belie e ha Pla o’s
Soc a es is apo heosized e sion o he his o ical Soc a es as he seems o be closes o an ideal
man.
Paul W. Gooch (1985) sugges s ha Pla o, in cons uc ing and p ese ing his Soc a es, ound
himsel in ol ed in a di icul p oblem. He wan ed o gi e us a s iking cha ac e , u e ly dedica-
ed o philosophy as eligious du y - bu also o philosophy as a nega i e en e p ise, des uc i e
o un hinking opinion. Soc a es, as Pla o s a ed wi h him, claimed no posi i e knowledge. He
also could claim no successes in his me hod: no one wi h whom he wo ked was able o p oduce
knowledge. The esul was ange and hos ili y, leading o Soc a es’ dea h. Pla o, howe e , soon
wan ed o pu his Soc a es o mo e p oduc i e use in his dialogues. In he e y ac o w i ing
down con e sa ions, Pla o opened up he possibili y o an in e p e a ion o Soc a ic a gumen
as yielding mo e han nega i e con en . And as his philosophic ision expanded, Pla o de elo-
ped a Soc a es who allows many posi i e doc ines o eme ge in he cou se o discussion. A
he same ime, Pla o a emp s o be ue i no o he con en hen a leas o he o m o he ea ly
Soc a es’ p o ession o igno ance. Hence he di icul p oblem: Pla o is o ced o c ea e a Soc a-
es who becomes insince ely i onical. He keeps saying ha he does no know, bu Pla o’s e y
w i ing pushes us o suspec ha his Soc a es does know wha e e i is ha Pla o is using him
o each us. Ka l Poppe (1945) also accuses Pla o o be aying and misapp op ia ing Soc a es.
Apo heosized and misapp op ia ed, i is no obscu e ha Soc a es has been dis o ed. And all
his is he esul o Soc a es’ Me hod o ‘No W i ing’. He had his own easons o no w i e bu
as I ha e elabo a ed in sec ion (II), he easons o w i e, weigh mo e. No wonde his o ically
celeb a ed pe sonali ies a e misapp op ia ed ( o d awing legi imacy e c.), bu in case o cha-
ac e s wi hou his o ici y, especially when hey a e apo heosized, we need o be heed ul while
lea ning abou hem.
123
BIBLIOGRAPHY
B yan, J. (2013). Soc a es: Sou ces and In e p e a ions. In J. Wa en, & F. She ield (Ed.), The
Rou ledge Companion o Ancien Philosophy. Rou ledge.
Bos ick, W. F. (1916). Jesus and Soc a es. The Biblical Wo ld, 47(4), 248–252.
Cohn, D. (2001). Does Soc a es Speak o Pla o? Re lec ions on an Open Ques ion. New
Li e a y His o y, 32(3), 485–500.
Coples on, F. (1993.). A His o y o Philosophy, 1(?), 96-115. Image Books.
Do ion, L. (2011). The Rise and Fall o Soc a ic P oblem. In D. Mo isson (Ed.), The Camb idge
Companion o Soc a es. Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
Duddy, T. (1996). De ida and he D uids: W i ing, Lo e, and Powe in Ea ly Cel ic Socie y.
Religion & Li e a u e, 28(2/3).
Gooch, P. W. (1985). Soc a es: De ious o Di ine? G eece & Rome, 32(1), 32-41.
G iswold, C.S. (1986). Sel -knowledge and he o he soul in Pla o’s Phaed us, 217–218.
Hack o h, R. (1933). G ea Thinke s. (I) Soc a es. Philosophy, 8(31), 259–272.
P io , W. J. (2006). The Soc a ic P oblem. In H. Benson (Ed.), A Blackwell Companion o
Pla o. Blackwell Publishing.
Wool , R. (2013). Pla o on Philosophical Me hod: Enqui y and De ini ion. In J. Wa en, & F.
She ield (Ed.), The Rou ledge Companion o Ancien Philosophy. Rou ledge.
124
