Socrates the Diligent

I’ve recently finished reading Conversations with Socrates, which is the name for the Penguin Classics collection of Xenophon’s four Socratic dialogues. Translated into English of course, by Robin Waterfield. In this post I’m primarily going to talk about two of the four works in here, Memorabilia and Oeconomicus (re-titled in this collection as Memoirs of Socrates and The Estate Manager respectively), only however. And in fact I really think they should be placed together as one work, but I’ll get around to explaining why I feel this way later. Now please bear in mind, you few readers I have, that this is not an essay and I am not an academic. I’m just a brainlet with a lot of free time, and so I’m simply giving my thoughts on these works as I go through them.

In life you’ll often read a lot, and then forget a great deal about what you read. My Books series is really driving that point home for me as I am struggling to recall a lot as I go through all these books I read years ago. My goal in writing about the books I read going forward is that I will be able to take what thoughts they inspire and make them more permanent, so I have something to return to that can jog my memory. Hopefully as well, even though I am not studying philosophy as I said but simply reading it as a hobby, some of the insights I have will be of interest to anyone reading this. And even if I do look like a complete idiot who is totally out of his depth, it doesn’t matter so much because this blog is anonymous.

So I’ll quickly talk about the other two works in here, just to give an idea of why I’m not focusing on them. The first one is simply very short, it’s essentially just a pamphlet that was primarily written to counteract the propaganda against Socrates that was going around after his trial and death. At least, this is how Xenophon perceived it but we weren’t there so who can say for sure what the truth was. It seems in particular he was trying to present an opposing perspective to one given by another pamphlet that was circulating in Athens at the time, written by a certain Polycrates. The work itself is a short dialogue, featuring Socrates of course. First in conversation with one of his followers, Hermogenes, where he explains that he went into the trial fully expecting to be condemned to die and content that he lived a good life.

Then going on to depict his speech in front of the jury and an exchange with one of his primary accusers, Meletus, which is where Xenophon takes the opportunity to argue against the accusations being levelled against Socrates. That’s not to say that the speech is entirely fabricated, certainly there would have been one, but we know that Plato’s account of the very same speech differs quite drastically so why assume one or the other is the more accurate of the two? In fact I believe it makes sense to assume that neither were accurate, or that they were even meant to be intended as so by the readers of these dialogues. After all, the entire literary genre of the Socratic Dialogue (and that’s what it was, a genre) doesn’t seem to have ever tried to suggest that the various different versions of Socrates used as characters were representations of the real Socrates and what he believed.

One of the only things that we can say we know for sure about Socrates is that he questioned people, and he associated with the kinds of people we might call intellectuals. Even if it was because he spent all day arguing with such people, due to his associations he eventually became a kind of figurehead in the eyes of the regular Athenian citizenry for this group. This probably came to a head when he was literally portrayed this way in a play, written by the comic (closer to what we’d call a satirist today perhaps) playwright Aristophanes, called The Clouds. The play still exists to this day and you can read the script if you’re interested, there are translations online that are easy to find. It’s not entirely about Socrates, he is a secondary character in the play.

In this play he is presented as someone who takes money for lessons, something which Plato, Xenophon and I believe even Aristotle (who was born after Socrates died but would have still known far more than we do today about him) claimed he refused to ever do. He’s also used to express the ideas of various other philosophers that existed at the time, but reduced to absurdity, so as to make them all look like a bunch of old fools with their heads stuck in the clouds.. get it? There has been a lot written about how the trial was not so much about Socrates, but rather about sending a political message to this group, many of whom had anti-democratic views. Plato (one of Socrates’ followers and therefore also part of this loose group of individuals) certainly puts some of the blame at the feet of Aristophanes for Socrates being pushed into this role, but he also portrays Socrates and Aristophanes as friends in one of his dialogues.

Now here comes my own speculation, I think that the response of this disparate group was to create the Socratic Dialogue format as a way of memorialising Socrates. The dialogue format more generally speaking is a great way to flesh out a philosophical concept after all, because you can present various perspectives, and now they had this character (who in the eyes of the average citizen was just a stand in for “smart guy”) to be the character who asks the most pressing questions and has all the right answers. This was not only a fantastic way of getting complex ideas across though, it was also a message sent in response to the one meant by the execution of Socrates. “Us and our ideas will long outlive you and yours”. Again pure speculation, there’s absolutely no evidence for it whatsoever, but it’d be cool.

I will say that it seems that it was really only those who were friendly to Socrates, rather than this entire group of intellectuals, who developed this genre at first. However if my little theory has any truth to it, the effort paid off because the style did take off. Soon all kinds of people were writing such dialogues, people who never met Socrates. Aristotle supposedly wrote some, and even as far ahead as the early middle ages the format was still being used. So, I kind of went on a tangent there even though I said I would hardly talk about these other works. You read my blog title though, I ramble. I don’t plan these out I just write down my thoughts as they come, nothing more.

So anyway my point is that just because this first dialogue in the collection describes a much more real event than most of them, it doesn’t mean it’s any less like the other works in this genre. This is not meant to be a depiction of the trial of Socrates, which Xenophon wasn’t even present for as he was off fighting in Persia at the time, but a fictional work based on the event that was written with the goal of defending against the slander that was going around about Socrates. Or at least what Xenophon thought was slander. It is an attempt to rehabilitate his memory, which in my opinion is admirable.

The other work I won’t really talk about is the Symposium, again retitled in this collection as The Dinner Party. This is the most self contained work in here, and also the most similar to one of Plato’s dialogues. In fact it’s apparently very similar to a work of the same name by Plato, and they both primarily deal with the same subject. At least on the surface they do, and that subject is love. Now I haven’t read Plato’s Symposium yet, but from what I understand it is an examination of what love is. Even though most people haven’t read the work, the term “Platonic love” is something we’ve all heard before. It’s a common phrase, at least in English. So I have to assume that his conclusions somehow align with what is meant by that phrase, which generally means a love that is true or pure in a sense. I guess I’ll find out soon enough, when I read the work for myself.

Xenophon’s Symposium is really only using the subject to further define his idea of the “truly good man”. Among other things that is, the work describes an entire evening’s events (which makes it quite historically interesting, I certainly enjoyed reading the descriptions of the food they ate and party games they played, and so on) and several conversations. The discussion of love is just the one that is most fleshed out, and it takes up a significant portion of the text. He makes this quite clear, in the very first paragraph he explains that the purpose of this work is to present how a truly good man behaves not in serious activity as in many of his other works, but in a more recreational one. In this case a dinner party, or symposium as they were called.

This idea of the truly good man is Xenophon’s real core philosophical idea, and even though he uses that exact expression over and over it wasn’t until the end of the Oeconomicus that I really “got it”. The reason being that the Memorabilia is presented similarly to the Apology, the work I talked about at the start, in that it claims to have been written to defend Socrates’ name. The first of the four “books” that it’s divided into is an introduction explaining that the purpose of the work is to present through various short conversations why Socrates was in fact a truly good man and not the nefarious character people were making him out to be in the period following his trial and death.

Unlike the Apology though, which was short and concise, this work goes on to explain why Socrates was in fact a truly good man in excruciating detail. Really, I have to be honest, this work (which is by far the longest of the four) was incredibly dull and took me a really long time to finish. As I said it’s mostly a collection of many short conversations between Socrates and other Athenians, including some names I recognised from the books I read about the Peloponnesian war. He talks to Pericles and Alcibiades and some other characters, but most of the dialogues are between him and his followers. Plato of course, but many others who’s own writings are now completely lost.

A lot of these conversations are almost certainly made up, in fact the translator’s introduction points out that some are provably made up because they feature Socrates talking with people about events that happened after both their deaths. Now I don’t think the translator gave much of an opinion on this, but from my perspective this tells us that it was a way for Xenophon to communicate the real purpose of the work. Because everyone alive at the time would have known this, and as well as this there are conversations in here that are more intimate like between Socrates and his own sons, that Xenophon couldn’t have possibly been around the observe. The real purpose of the work I think, being to give a thorough description of what a truly good man is, and why.

So the Memorabilia is split into four “books” as they’re called, but really the separation doesn’t make much sense. The first book I can understand being made separate, as it is an introduction of sorts that doesn’t feature any actual dialogues. The others however, while they all start by saying they’ll focus on one particular thing, are all over the place. For example, Xenophon opens the second book by saying he will now talk about how Socrates practiced self discipline in all areas of life. The thing is, there are many conversations which aren’t really about that in this book, and there are conversations which you think would relate to the stated subject that are left for other books. It’s all over the place, totally unfocused and hard to follow.

There is actually speculation that this isn’t the original structure, and that the text has been re-edited by some other individual in the centuries following Xenophon’s death, or even that there may be additional writings that were part of the work that have been lost. It would certainly make a lot of sense, and in fact as I said I think that the Oeconomicus may have originally been the final book. If not, then it should have been because it clarifies the Memorabilia so well. In fact from what I understand scholars do believe that it was originally part of the work but then Xenophon decided to turn it into a work of it’s own. Because it starts with no introduction, but rather like the various other shorter conversations in the Memorabilia. The first line of the Oeconomicus is “I once heard him discussing estate management…” which is a line he uses over and over to introduce a new conversation in the Memorabilia. It’s his way of saying, and now on to the next example.

The Oeconomicus is much more focused, and it is split into two parts. The first is a conversation much like all the others in the Memorabilia, between Socrates and one of his followers. And the second is framed within the context of that first conversation, as Socrates retelling a story from his younger years of when he met a man known as Ischomachus who was a wealthy estate owner/ farmer. This is where it really gets interesting, because up until this point Xenophon’s description of a “truly good man” essentially lines up with a kind of generic traditional/ conservative view on how to live. That’s why I haven’t really explained it in this post, because it’s something you’ve already heard before.

Of course, Xenophon was one of the earliest prose writers in European history so we should be a little forgiving, but to a contemporary reader it does feel like you’ve heard it all before. So even though I’m kind of that way inclined personally, and I found myself largely in agreement with him when he had Socrates talk about the things like exercising restraint and self discipline, I did find it quite boring to read about as I said. I also think that Socrates came off much more like a lecturer than the inquistive character that we tend to see him as thanks to Plato’s portrayal of him. He does ask a lot of questions in the Memorabilia, but for the most part they’re very leading questions that are all trying to move the conversation to where he can make his final point. A lot of the people he talks to don’t have much personality either, outside of a few notable exceptions most of the followers are presented as yes men who kind of just go along with whatever he says.

So the second conversation is between a young Socrates and Ischomachus as I said, and on the surface the discussion is about how best to run a farm and make it profitable. It’s not particularly hard to grasp that this is an elaborate analogy for how to live what Xenophon would have considered the life of a truly good man. Through it he talks about the different but complementary roles of men and women (ever heard that one before?), the way to behave around subordinates and superiors, the importance of physical fitness and discipline, and most interestingly of all about how conscientiousness rather than either innate talent or learned skill is most important for success.

As well as all that however the work is also kind of an extolment of the virtue of the profession of farming/ agriculture, which is something Xenophon clearly has a great deal of respect for. He seems to think of it as one of the most noble professions, and as well as this he also thinks that it is the most natural. A large portion towards the end of the second conversation deals with Ischomachus explaining to Socrates that you don’t need to learn agriculture, it’s essentially in your nature already and anyone with a little common sense can hypothetically have a farm as profitable as someone who studied the subject of farming for years. Now of course, this isn’t quite true as we now understand that agriculture took a couple hundred thousand years to develop, but that’s not important.

His point of view, is actually one that a lot of conservative minded people still seem to have today funnily enough. Which is that rural living is more natural and healthy, and city living has a sort of hazy and hard to define but clearly damaging affect on both the body and soul. This final part of the work has a fair bit of detail on farming techniques, which does drag on a little, but it’s not a treatise on agriculture really. Someone couldn’t read this book today, and then understand how to run a farm. However the analogy still works, because the greater point he’s making is worth hearing. Which is this idea that those who pay attention and actually put in the work they know is required, possess the truest virtue.

This is where it all comes together, and why I think that the Memorabilia (and to a lesser extent the other works I talked about) works so much better with the Oeconomicus to clarify it. Because this idea, which doesn’t really come up until this point, is the through line that connects everything else he says about what makes a good or bad person. When I got to the end of the Oeconomicus, I was able to retroactively appreciate the Memorabilia (which I had disliked when reading it) a whole lot more. As I’ve said it was kind of all over the place, very scattershot and even the translator pointed this out about it in his introduction. Now though, it’s all tied together and it makes a sort of sense. There’s an underlying philosophy to Xenophon, and if you were to have say only read one of these works you might have missed it. I certainly would have.

Now I don’t entirely agree that this one characteristic is what makes a good man, I would say I disagree with Xenophon actually because that’s very reductive, but it’s interesting that he does. Conservatively minded people do tend to score higher for the trait conscientiousness when taking personality tests and things like that, it’s not the most reliable thing in the world but it’s something. I’m also reminded of one of my older posts, Thinking about thinking about things. It’s from very early on so please forgive it being such an unfocused mess, but in there I kind of talked about this trait without really naming it. In thinking more though, conscientiousness really does describe what I was talking about back then, among other things.

It’s funny because it’s something I’ve been thinking about a bit lately, which is why when I was reading through the Oeconomicus I had this “aha!” moment. There was something that happened that got me thinking about this exact subject, and I was thinking about trying to write a whole post about it but then I kind of got distracted as you might realise if you’ve been following my recent uploads. See I live with my dad as I’ve said before, and a few weeks ago I was making a sandwich for lunch and I decided to put some lettuce in there. So I picked some leaves off and went to wash each leaf in the sink, and my dad came in and saw me and then laughed about how I wash each lettuce leaf individually. I’ve always done it this way, and I’ve even explained why when he’s mocked me for it before.

The reason being that simply holding all the leaves under the tap together doesn’t clean them properly, it’s not exactly hard to grasp. Also if you just tear a bunch of leaves off of the whole plant you ruin the ones you don’t take, which is exactly what he always does, and if you carefully pluck the few leaves you want one at a time this is avoided. It seems silly when I explain it like this, and of course when I explain it in person it sounds even more funny because it’s an odd thing to talk about, but it’s not like I put a great deal of thought into it. Whenever I reached the age where I was able to make a sandwich for myself, I just developed this way of doing things.

It’s such a insignificant event, but it exemplifies the difference between myself (and I think I can be described as rather conscientious) and my father. Once you notice the difference you see it everywhere, when I wash up the plates and cutlery I take slightly longer than he does, but almost every time he does it he leaves bits of food and stains on things so they need to be washed a second time and I never have this problem. I spend a lot longer in the shower, but I feel like I need all the time I take to wash myself properly. This can only mean that, at least following the standards I hold myself to, he’s not washing properly. Mostly though this temperamental difference shows itself through very small things, the way he wipes down a counter or how he’ll leave crisp packets and used napkins lying around for days.

This and a thousand other things I am starting to realise may have played more of a role in the issues I’ve had with him since we started living together after my mum passed away than anything else. I find him disgusting to live around honestly, and I hate to say it because he is my father and it’s not like I don’t love him like any other child loves a parent. This post isn’t for me to vent about my relationship with my dad though, already done that, and may again but not today. My point is that we are fundamentally very different people, which is odd because a lot of people tend to be very similar to their parents, and the difference is really primarily because of this trait. Now imagine if I had to live with someone like this, and I didn’t even have that familial bond to temper my resentment about his slothfulness.

That is how someone grows to hate a certain kind of person, and in time to glorify their opposite as well. In response to this negative reaction, one might put undue emphasis on trying to be as different from that person as possible. Indeed I have myself done this to an extent, over the last seven years since we’ve been living together. I’m trying to psychoanalyse a two and a half thousand year old man, but it’s something to think about. I also don’t like it when people use philosophy as self help, or to try and interpret something in their own life, that’s not what I’m doing. It’s just funny that I was thinking about this subject myself, and then this quite similarly minded writer touched on the same thing. He really does, the thing underpinning his ideal figure of the truly good man is this diligence.

It’s not like it doesn’t make sense either, it’s very easy to understand why he would see things this way. It’s not a guarantee, as my own failures go to show, but this trait almost certainly is a requirement for success in life. The kind of inattentive, easy going attitude that Xenophon’s Socrates rails against is a characteristic of peasants and slaves. The disagreement I might have is that perhaps too much importance is granted to this quality, and other things are also important. Not to say Xenophon praises this to the exclusion of everything else, but it is of primary importance to him. Or at least, that is how it seems. The other disagreement I have is that this can be learned, I don’t think so. I think this is a core personality trait, and that nothing can really be done to change it. I don’t think most people would want to change for that matter.