Blow-Up Dolls of Antiquity: A Look at the Myth of Socrates

Over the ages, figures emerge from the common fray, people like Robin Hood and King Tut. These are the figures of myth, of course, but not the myth of Hera and Zeus. No, these are the figures of historical myth.

For instance, when we hear the name "Julius Cesar" an image of some warlord-bureaucrat comes to mind - an image that has almost nothing to do with the actual person who went by that name.

Leaving Jesus out of the conversation, I would argue that no historical persona has been as much made-up and blown up as that of Socrates.

A Greek, a philosopher, a man who stood around and talked, a lot - Socrates did not write anything. In a way, he didn't do anything either. He just talked. At least, we are told that he talked and asked questions and made people think really, really hard about concepts they took for granted. Things like "friendship" and "love" and "truth" were the subject of his dialogues, which could also be called intellectual throw-downs.

Socrates is reputed to have held court on the street or at the gymnasium, challenging privileged youth to debate on issues of semantics and, by extension, philosophy.

I picture Socrates standing on a street corner near a Harvard campus deli approaching a dapper, well-to-do freshman, asking, "What are you up to young man?"

"Who me? I, ah, just bought a sandwich..."

"Is that true?" the old bard would say.

"Yeah. I've got it right here."

"Do you have it? What is possession? If you have it now but plan to eat it and after a matter of moments it will be gone, can we say that you really possess it? I say, young man, what is possession, really?"

Ah, Socrates. That's the father of philosophy for you.

You've really got to give it to Plato for providing us with a character so entertaining and so perfectly suited to the exposition of philosophical concepts in which he (Plato) was interested.

Even if it is a matter of historical record that Socrates was put to death by the Athenian city council for "corrupting the youth", the figure of Socrates feels far from historical. He seems, on the contrary, farcical when we try to see him in his pedestrian context, posing questions to affluent young people apropos of nothing, arguing in public.

As the founder of modern philosophy, Socrates certainly would seem to lack dignity, not to mention aplomb. He succeeded in riling people up. Yes, but he did not have a job. He did not write. He did not have a school, like his pupil Plato so astutely discovered as a means to social status and to social means.

Socrates walked around talking. I like to think of him being happily drunk on good wine. Like the figures mentioned at the top of the article, Socrates was written about. He was described later. One has to wonder if his super-human reputation as a polemicist and thinker is exaggerated in the same way that your Uncle Leo's childhood toe-nail clipping collection gets bigger in his memory every year.

When I say that Socrates has become overblown and distorted as a historical figure, I trust you begin to see my point.

I would not, however, argue against the value of the lessons, the wisdom and the engaging quality of the dialogues attributed to Socrates.

His comment on intellectual humility seems particularly pertinent here. Here I paraphrase: To be aware that one is essentially ignorant of many things is to take the first step toward wisdom.

That sounds right on to me. But it begs the question: When it comes to Socrates, where does out essential ignorance end and our sure knowledge begin?