The Presocratics and Socrates

Feeling his legs grow heavy, the philosopher lay on his back. Surrounded by students and followers who couldn’t hold back their tears, he awaited his final breath. Suddenly, the gaze of the seventy-year-old man froze. Socrates (470–399 BCE) had died.

“A virtuous citizen and person does not act this way,” was the philosopher’s response to friends who suggested escaping from prison after his death sentence was handed down. By drinking poison with his own hands, Socrates remained faithful to philosophy, even in death. But why did he have to die? The answer lies in Heraclitus’ tears and Democritus’ laughter.

Before Socrates, philosophers—known as the Presocratics—studied the cosmos and nature. They did not feel the influence of Socrates, which is why they are referred to as Presocratics, even though many of them lived during his time.

The Presocratics include philosophers from the 7th to 4th centuries BCE, such as Thales, Anaximander, Anaxagoras, Xenophanes, Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Leucippus, and others. As we already know, they explored the cosmos and nature, while criticizing traditional mythology and religion. The work of Presocratic philosophers encompassed many fields—physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, meteorology, psychology, embryology, and others.

With Socrates, the era of natural philosophy came to an end, and philosophy in its modern sense began. Socrates placed the human being at the center of philosophy, drawing a distinct boundary between philosophy and other sciences. His philosophy examined humanity, life and death, good and evil, freedom, and society.

Socrates, who is called the founder of ethics, sees the main purpose of philosophy in the welfare of society and in teaching people how to live. He is interested in the nature of ethics, morality, and spirituality. He also seeks ways to properly apply them in everyday human life.

Thus, the goal of practical ethics is to determine what is right and wrong.

Ethics must be formed by man through reason, the philosopher believes, and should not rely on religion. Ethics are the norms by which a person should live in society. According to Socrates, a person’s morality is their rational thinking and wisdom. Therefore, to enhance one’s morality, one must increase their wisdom. As a result, they will achieve happiness and inner freedom. Evil  is born from ignorance. Thus, ignorance must be eradicated, and man must be made wise.

Socrates asserted that a person’s primary goal is self-improvement. He distinguished between happiness and pleasure and identified key virtues: wisdom, courage, and justice. He also explored the concept of free will.

Socrates argued that behavior stems from thoughts, and thoughts are formed based on knowledge. Thus, human will depends on knowledge, leading to the idea that free will might not fully exist.

The question of free will has been a central philosophical concern, especially in ethics, since ancient times. This debate, beginning with the Pre-Socratic philosophers, continues to this day: “Does free will exist or not?”

Free will refers to the ability to make choices independently of internal or external influences. It is closely tied to moral responsibility.

Are human decisions truly free, or are they influenced by external forces? Modern philosophy offers three main perspectives on this issue:

1. Free will exists.
2. Determinism, which argues that all events are consequences of preceding events and natural laws.
3. Fatalism, the belief that events are predetermined and inevitable.

Determinism, in its simplest form, posits that the future is the result of past events and the laws of nature. Humans lack the ability or capacity to alter past events or natural laws. Therefore, determinism concludes that free will does not exist, as there is only one possible outcome.

Fatalism, on the other hand, asserts that there is no choice at all. Resembling the concept of “destiny,” fatalism declares that all events are predetermined and inevitable, leaving humans powerless to change or prevent them.

For example, determinism explains a plane’s flight as the result of human initiation and adherence to the laws of aerodynamics. Fatalism, however, would claim that the plane will fly at a predetermined time, regardless of whether it is started or the laws of aerodynamics are followed. In this comparison, determinism appears more rational.

The earliest philosophers also contemplated free will. The Pre-Socratics, who believed that the cosmos operates according to natural laws, extended these principles to humanity. If the universe has an initial cause or substance, then this cause must govern all events. However, some ancient philosophers entertained the possibility of free will.

As we already know, Leucippus argued that every event has a cause. He believed that everything happens due to necessity and causation, meaning the future is the outcome of past processes, leaving only one possible scenario.

The first philosopher to challenge determinism was Aristotle. He proposed that “chance” could be among the causes of events, thus making free will possible. A similar view was later developed by Epicurus.

This problem continued to intrigue philosophers in the Modern Era. Descartes argued for the existence of free will, while Spinoza held the opposite view. Locke, however, thought the question itself was flawed, insisting that the focus should be on investigating human freedom rather than the will itself. Newton’s laws further reinforced the deterministic worldview. Nietzsche claimed that the belief in free will is an illusion, stating that reality is a sum of mathematics, necessity, and determinism. Modern science, though it has yet to provide a definitive answer, leans towards supporting this perspective.

Over time, the study of free will became a central concern in science. It remains an unresolved issue today, with many expecting that science will ultimately provide the definitive answer. Finally, we can recall Schopenhauer’s words: “Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills.”

Now, let us return to Socrates.

According to Socrates, governance should consist of knowledgeable, skilled, and virtuous individuals. Evidently, the philosopher cannot be considered an advocate of modern democracy.

Socrates believed that obeying the law is essential for the existence and proper functioning of the state. Democracy is the rule of the people, so there is nothing inherently wrong with citizens adhering to laws. If people wish to change a law, they must do so through legal means. Laws, after all, are norms accepted by the majority.

However, as we already know, Socrates was skeptical of democracy. He argued that selecting leaders is a challenging task that requires expertise. Relying on intuition for governance decisions, he claimed, is flawed. Socrates compared the state to a ship and questioned whether it should be steered by an uninformed majority or by those trained in navigation over many years. The answer, of course, is the latter.

Thus, not everyone should have the right to vote; only those with proper reasoning and deep thinking abilities should be entitled to make such decisions. Otherwise, democracy risks devolving into demagoguery.

Indeed, Socrates’ perspective reflects a profound truth. Why? Every choice, regardless of its nature, requires the assimilation and analysis of a substantial amount of information. This is a skill and interest possessed by only a minority. In democratic elections, this informed minority often lacks significant influence—a fact history has repeatedly demonstrated.

An uninformed individual or one lacking the capacity or desire for critical thinking is easily manipulated. However, the absence of democracy does not necessarily demand tyranny. These two systems can be replaced by the governance of a wise ruler, akin to Heraclitus’ philosopher-king.

While such a notion might seem subjective, its objective benefits can be traced in historical examples. All that is needed is the will to implement such an ideal.

“I know that I know nothing,” says Socrates. “I am ignorant, but I am wise because I recognize my ignorance. Many are unaware of their ignorance. I, however, am conscious of it. If someone believes they know all the answers, such a person is already dead to philosophy.”

Here, it is hard not to agree with Socrates. A person who claims to “know everything” knows nothing correctly. As people learn more, they realize the insignificance of their knowledge. Every new discovery uncovers countless unknowns and vice versa. Those unaware of even one thing remain oblivious to the countless things they don’t know.

This lack of awareness often gives rise to the popular cognitive bias known as the “illusion of confidence.” People with limited knowledge and skills tend to overestimate their abilities. This phenomenon, known as the Dunning-Kruger effect, was empirically demonstrated in the late 20th century by American psychology professor David Dunning and his colleague Justin Kruger. Their experiments showed that individuals with insufficient knowledge significantly overvalue their competence and fail to appreciate the abilities of others. Conversely, skilled individuals are often overly critical of themselves [1].

Socrates’ philosophy, though primarily grounded in metaphysics and ethics, aligns closely with this psychological effect.

Socrates never gave formal lectures or speeches. Instead, he asked questions, aiming to uncover the truth through dialogue. Thus, he developed what is now known as the Socratic method.

The Socratic method is a dialogue involving two or more participants engaging in a question-and-answer format. Through this process, contradictory hypotheses are eliminated, and new ones are constructed. The method aims to uncover unknown truths for all parties involved or demonstrate the fallacies in another’s reasoning. It represents an early form of dialectics, laying the groundwork for critical inquiry.

“Man must know himself, because man desires happiness, and from this desire, we make decisions. Therefore, a person who knows himself will make wiser decisions and, as a result, will be happy. ‘I want to convince everyone, both old and young, that they should take care of their hearts, not their bodies or money, so that it becomes more beautiful: positive human qualities do not come from money, but through them, people achieve money and other benefits’ – says Socrates.

According to Socrates, knowledge is virtue, meaning the positive moral qualities of a person. Ignorance is the source of immorality. The philosopher concludes that many people do not understand this. They see knowledge and virtue as different entities. But this is not the case. Morality, as we know, according to Socrates, must be based on knowledge.

In 339 BC, the 70-year-old wise man was accused of denying the gods, creating the cult of new gods, and corrupting the morals of the youth. The accusation was as follows: Socrates does not recognize the gods of the city and creates new ones. He is accused of corrupting the youth’s morals. The requested punishment was death.

Of course, the main reason for the accusation was Socrates’ tendency to mock and, in an ironic manner, expose the ignorance of many high-ranking Athenians, including those who were also his accusers, through his dialogues. His critical stance towards democracy and the open criticism of the traditions and public opinion of his time also contributed.

The philosopher rejects the accusations and personally defends himself in court. However, the 501 judges, selected by lottery from ordinary people, once again prove the correctness of Socrates’ thoughts on democracy.

Socrates is found guilty by the court, and a punishment is demanded. However, instead of accepting the punishment, Socrates requests a meal at the Prytaneion (town hall). As a result, the philosopher is sentenced to death. On his final day, the philosopher, discussing the immortality of the soul, drinks the poison with his own hands.

[1] Kruger, Justin; Dunning, David (1999). “Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.