Socrates and the Critics
Must a philosopher withdraw from the world to deserve the name? Learned critics said yes and held up Socrates against al-Razi, and the reply questions their Socrates.
The charge was that al-Razi mixed with people, served a ruler and earned his living, while Socrates kept away from kings and lived on herbs in a jar. Al-Razi grants the report and corrects the picture: that severity belonged to Socrates' youth, and later he had children, fought and joined festivities. The difference between them is one of degree. He then measures himself on the two counts that make a philosopher, knowledge and conduct, and asks critics to name a fault in his books.
- philosophical life
- Socrates
- asceticism
- austerity
- criticism
- philosophical identity
- philosophical reputation
- scholarship
- knowledge
- theory and practice
- patronage
- historical interpretation
Enter a dialogue
- The Socrates your critics admire ate wild herbs and lived in a jar. What did he do later in life that they leave out?
- You call the young Socrates' harshness an excess of zeal for philosophy. Was he then failing to live as a philosopher should in those years?
- You served a ruler as his physician and adviser. How is that different from the courts Socrates refused to visit?
- Years of reading and copying damaged your eyes and your hand. Why does that belong in a defence of how a philosopher should live?
- You ask readers to take your knowledge even where your conduct falls short. Should people learn from a teacher who does not live up to his teaching?