This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK.
America is changing and so is the world.
But what's happening in America isn't just a cause of global upheaval.
It's also a symptom of disruption that's happening everywhere.
I'm Asma Khalid in Washington DC.
I'm Tristan Redman in London and this is The Global Story.
Every weekday we'll bring you a story from this intersection where the world and America meet.
Listen on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcasts.
This is In Our Time, from BBC Radio 4, and this is one of more than a thousand episodes you can find on BBC Sounds and on our website.
If you scroll down the page for this edition, you'll find a reading list to go with it.
I hope you enjoy the programme.
Hello.
In 399 BC, Socrates' friends were pleading for him to escape from prison in Athens, where he was awaiting his death by hemlock.
Plato recounted this in two works the Crito, in which Socrates shows his respect for the laws under which he'd been convicted, and the Phaedo, where he embraced death as the immortal soul's release from the prison of the body.
In both, Socrates remains calm and keeps working on his philosophy, so consoling his friends and, for the last two and a half thousand years, inspiring others by his example.
With me to discuss Plato's Crito and Phaedo are Fiona Lee, Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy at University College London, James Warren, Professor of Ancient Philosophy at the University of Cambridge and Fellow of Corpus Christi College Cambridge, and Angie Hobbs, Professor of the Public Understanding of Philosophy at the University of Sheffield.
Angie Hobbs, what had just happened in the life of Socrates?
Why was he in prison?
Yes, he's just been convicted of refusing to believe in the city's gods, of believing in new divine beings and of corrupting the young.
And he's been sentenced to death and he's awaiting the hemlock.
The hemlock can't be administered, while the Athenians have sent a sacred mission to the island of Delos in honour of Apollo.
And they do this every year.
And the boat was sanctified the day before the trial.
And they have to wait for the return of the boat from Delos before the hemlock can be administered.
So that just adds to the drama.
And Crito is with Socrates in the prison.
And Crito says, I think you're going to die tomorrow because the boat has been sighted at Sunium.
And Socrates says, no, it'll be not tomorrow, but the day after.
I've just had an amazing dream.
A woman in white came to me and said in three days you're going to return to fertile Phthia, which is a quote from Homer in terms of Achilles returning to his homeland in Phthia.
And the idea is Socrates says he's going to die the day after tomorrow.
And why did he get the death sentence?
What happens is that the jury found him guilty and then both the prosecutor, Miletus in this case, and the defendant Socrates, can propose a penalty.
Miletus proposes the death penalty and Socrates is allowed to propose an alternative penalty, so that the jurors can choose.
He could have proposed exile.
They would almost certainly have accepted that.
He could have died. proposed a very hefty fine.
His rich friends, Crito and Plato and others, had guaranteed that.
He doesn't do that.
Initially he says well, I've benefited Athens so much that Athens should maintain me at their expense for the rest of my life.
That didn't go down too well.
He then proposes a pretty small fine.
That doesn't go down well either.
And then eventually he proposes a larger fine, which...
Plato and Crito and others say that they will act as backers for.
But by this time Socrates is so annoyed the jurors that they go no no, we're going to give you the death penalty.
So he has chosen to die.
And I think we need to think maybe that Socrates is trying to provide an example of a good death.
As part of a good life, how you die is part of how you live.
And he's trying to set an example.
I think he's maybe taking the long view here and realising that how he dies might have as much influence as his philosophical conversations.
Thank you, James.
James Warren, can you tell us a little more about Crito and about his relationship with Socrates?
Yes, Crito is a rough contemporary of Socrates.
He's a longstanding friend of Socrates.
And it's evident from their discussion that they've spent a lot of time talking together in the past talking through philosophical questions, talking through precisely the philosophical questions that they revisit in the dialogue that bears Crito's name.
He was evidently very wealthy.
Angie has already said he's mentioned by Socrates as being one of the people prepared to put up a huge amount of money should Socrates be fined?
But when we meet him in the Crito, he arrives in the prison extraordinarily agitated, very worried that he's going to lose his friend and that this is something that he thinks is avoidable.
And so he wants to try to persuade Socrates to to do whatever it can be done and not to go against convention actually.
That this would probably have been expected that if you had rich friends, they would intervene and prevent you from being executed in the manner that Socrates eventually faces.
Can you give listeners an idea of the place of Socrates in the society in Athens at that time?
Well, Socrates is a member of elite Athenian society.
He's very well connected.
He's depicted in Plato's dialogues talking with most of the great and the good of Athens of the time, including visiting intellectuals from all around the Greek world.
So it's pretty clear that he's a well-known individual.
He'd been depicted in Athenian comedies of the time in a way that's recognisable to the mass audience.
So the Athenians knew him quite well and would probably have formed an opinion of him likely somewhat negative, I would have thought.
Well, as someone who's a bothersome intellectual, who's constantly raising troubling questions about Who did you raise him with?
Well, the youth of Athens, in part.
It's certainly true that his discussions encouraged the young people of Athens to rethink and critically examine fundamental moral concerns that seem to be generally accepted by society in general.
Such as?
Well, such as that courage involves fighting your place in a hoplite rank, for example, or that certain religious beliefs are important for the cohesion of Athenian society.
Socrates encourages them to think critically about all of those.
It's worth saying, some of these young people and some of the people he's talking with were famously involved in an anti-democratic coup just five years before Socrates' trial.
And it's quite possible that the democratic jury thought that Socrates was involved in some way in encouraging these kinds of uprisings, or at least he was associated with people who'd shown themselves to be enemies of Athenian democracy.
The references in the notes of all of you of him being very unpopular, going around the marketplace asking people what is meant by virtue, what is meant by courage, and making them look fools when they don't answer in the way that satisfies him in his logic.
Can you speak to that?
Yeah, he must have been extraordinarily annoying to have around.
And he, in the apology that we've mentioned more than once...
He describes himself as famously a gadfly who was sent on a kind of divine mission to provoke and rouse the noble but sort of slovenly horse of Athens into further reflection.
How does Crito set about trying to persuade Socrates to escape one way or another?
Well, he explains to Socrates that, first of all, there's no need for Socrates to stay and be executed.
He explains that arrangements could be made to bribe the right people to get him out of jail.
That arrangements could be made to find him somewhere outside of Athens where he could stay and live comfortably.
That arrangements would be made for Socrates' family, particularly his children.
I should also add that Critus says it would make Socrates' friends look bad if they allow the sentence to be carried out.
Fiona Lee, how does Socrates respond to Critus' argument about popular opinion?
Socrates does something interesting right away.
He suggests that they examine the matter together.
He reminds Crito that he's the sort of person who listens to nothing inside him except what he thinks on reflection is the best argument.
And the argument, as far as he's concerned, hasn't changed and the principles on which he based his reasoning haven't changed.
So he wants to examine these new suggestions from Crito together with him.
And he starts with an argument by analogy.
He says, just as if you wanted to look after your body, its health and well-being, you would look to a trainer who is expert in these things, and not the popular opinion of the majority.
So too, you would look for an expert in thinking about actions, whether they were just and unjust, whether you should perform the good or the bad thing, the shameful or the noble thing.
If you listen to the majority in the care of your body, you'll end up doing yourself harm.
So too, Socrates suggests that if you look to the majority in the care of the thing that's benefited and harmed by just actions and unjust actions the soul although he doesn't actually say it, that's what he has in mind then you will harm your soul if you listen to the majority.
He then goes on to suggest that life itself is not the most important thing, that living a life with a corrupted body or a corrupted soul isn't a life worth living, but instead, what's worth living is a good life, a beautiful life, a just life.
And so he says we should ignore the opinions of the majority.
Then the laws come into play.
Can you tell us what is meant by the laws and how they were effective or not in this case?
Just before the great twist of the dialogue happens, where the laws come into play.
Socrates tries to reason with Crito more directly.
He reminds Crito of the principle that you should never do harm willingly, even if it's in retaliation for harm that someone else has done to you.
And he asks Crito whether they should go ahead with his plan for Socrates to escape from prison without the permission of the Athenians, whether that will be doing harm to the people they should least harm.
And by this, he's got to have in mind himself and Crito.
And it follows from the idea that he's stated just earlier that if you do something unjust, you harm your own soul.
Now they've agreed.
Socrates has agreed in his trial to go along with the verdict insofar as he willingly chose not to go into exile.
So the question is, if they break the agreement, are they breaking a just agreement?
And Crito can't answer.
And this is really important.
It's the pivot on which the dialogue turns.
Because he can't answer, he says, I just don't know, Socrates.
Socrates can't talk to him any longer.
And that's when the laws come in.
Socrates starts speaking with the laws of Athens.
He personifies them as able to speak.
And the laws are the ones asking Socrates the questions.
Usually Socrates is asking other people questions and they have to answer, but it's the laws.
So Plato creates a fiction within the dialogue of Socrates, having this conversation with the laws, and the laws are cross-examining him on the supposition that he's persuaded by Crito that it would be just, it would be okay to escape prison.
Angie, for anyone who's read Plato, why would Socrates' deference to the laws seem odd?
Well, as we've been hearing in the Crito, if you undermine the laws, you're undermining the whole fabric of the state, and that's bad.
And it's quite strange, I think, for two reasons.
So in the apology, in his defense speech, in Plato's Apology, Socrates says at one point to the jurors If you say you will acquit me on condition that I stop doing philosophy, that I stop tramping around Athens and buttonholing people and interrogating them, I will refuse.
I won't obey you.
Is that Socrates defying the laws of Athens?
I think that's a moot point because he is telling the jurors in advance what he will do.
I think a more serious tension is with other dialogues that Plato writes, in which Plato characterises Socrates as being really quite critical of democratic Athens and its laws.
You get that criticism in the Gorgias, for instance.
And in the first book of the Republic there is a whole general discussion about what is the relationship between laws and morality.
Is it always just to obey the law?
You get the start of that long-running debate.
So it is really interesting to me that in the Crito the arguments of the laws are seen as absolutely to be obeyed.
So it's really interesting that in the Crito the arguments of the laws are seen as absolutely authoritative.
The laws say if you undermine us, if you disobey us on this matter, you're undermining the whole rule of law.
And that's going to undermine the very fabric of the state, that the policy, the city state just can't exist unless the rule of law operates.
And we have done three specific things.
We have acted as we've brought you to birth through our marriage laws.
We've raised you through the education of the state.
We've acted as your parents and even more than your parents have done.
And you owe us gratitude and obedience even more than you would to your parents.
Furthermore, we have specifically benefited you, Socrates.
We've allowed you to go around doing philosophy until we didn't.
And thirdly, by choosing to remain in Athens, you could have left.
You never did.
Apart from going on military campaign, you never left Athens.
So you have implicitly made a contract with us.
You've made a contract to obey us.
James, do you want to take that further?
Yes, I think the speech that Socrates gives to the laws is tremendously important in the history of philosophical thinking about political authority and obligation.
Because, as Angie has just pointed out, in barely three or four pages they present two of the most important and long-running arguments for political obedience and political authority.
On the one hand, there's the argument from benefit that says you owe us obedience because of the good that we do to you.
On the other, there is the argument that Socrates owes obedience to the laws on the grounds that he's agreed to do so.
This agreement is an implicit agreement.
He's never explicitly been asked the question, do you agree to live by the laws of Athens?
But the evidence is there that, having had the opportunity to move elsewhere, if the laws say, if you didn't like us, you could have moved you could have raised objections to us previously.
Socrates has failed to do so.
And so the implicit agreement that they rely on means that he would indeed be acting unjustly and breaking a kind of contract between him and the city, were he to fail to obey them on this occasion.
Fiona, what's your impression of Socrates' submission, as it were, to the laws?
So it's a very difficult question to answer, in a way because under questioning he seems to agree to some of the things that the laws say.
But as James has pointed out, they speak in long speeches.
So it's hard to know exactly what it is that Socrates is agreeing to.
He definitely agrees to their conclusion that by his deeds, particularly his actions of remaining in the city, he's agreed to live amongst the laws and with the laws.
One can interpret that two ways.
One can have a minimal view and say that he doesn't really endorse what the laws are saying, and one can say alternatively that he does.
Some people think that he does endorse what the laws say and that he is submissive to the laws.
There's the moral agreement that you get in words explicitly by argumentation.
And then there's agreement by action.
So there's agreement in deed.
And that Socrates is presenting these views as not incompatible, but as possibly even mutually supporting.
Most people in fact take it that Socrates can't be fully endorsing what the laws say, that the agreement is only at best minimal.
And one of the reasons that people have thought this is that Socrates makes it very clear from the beginning that he's committed to the principle that one should never do wrong willingly.
Whereas the laws make it plain in their question and answer session with Socrates in their long speech, that the moral relationship they see between themselves, the laws of the city and the citizen is asymmetrical and paternalistic.
So the citizen is required, as Angie and James have explained, to either obey the laws or else to persuade the laws.
They're not allowed to retaliate, any more than a child is allowed to retaliate against its parents for a perceived wrong.
So the moral codes here must be different.
Socrates, for Socrates, non-retaliation is absolute, whereas for the laws, it's asymmetrical.
Why would Plato write a dialogue which illustrates presents these two moral codes.
One suggestion has been, I think it's a really interesting suggestion, is that the question, what is the virtue justice, is what these two moral codes answer differently.
And so Plato is prompting the reader to reflect on that question and think, what is justice really?
Well, you want to come and answer, yes.
For me, one of the most extraordinary things of all, and most powerful and moving, is not just what Socrates says.
And I absolutely agree with James and Fiona.
There's a real debate about the extent to which he accepts the arguments of the laws.
It's the fact he's having this debate at all.
He's in the very final days of his life, as we're going to see in the Fido, right up to his last breath.
He continues in respectful, friendly, but serious and keen philosophical debate.
That, for me, is almost as important, if not as important, as anything he actually says.
So Crito ends with Socrates staying put in prison, open to being persuaded by Crito, but neither of them thinking that it's at all likely.
Can you continue, Angie?
There's considerable pathos in a work which follows sometime later, in a longer work, Phaedo.
Yes.
So in the Phaedo, we get an account of the final day of Socrates' life.
It's told by Phaedo, who was there in the prison cell, and he tells it to Ecclesiastes, who was not there.
And before we even get into the account of the final day, it is so interesting.
The very first question in the Phaedo is Achecrates asking Phaedo were you there on the day that Socrates took the poison, the hemlock, that you've been talking about?
Now, the word for poison is pharmacon, from which we, of course, get pharmacy and so on.
And yes, it can mean poison, but it can also mean medicine.
And that whole notion about whether it's the hemlock and Socrates' death is is actually a poison or whether it's a medicine that's going to cure him from the ills of the body and release him to the next life is going to be central.
So Phaedo says yes to pick up the story of the drama of the boat returning from Delos the day before his friends were with Socrates in the prison cell.
And when they came out, they heard the boat from Delos, the sacred mission to Delos.
It's now arrived back in Athens.
That means that Socrates is going to be put to death the next day.
So his friends gather very early before dawn.
And there's a very powerfully written scene that they're let in.
And when they're actually in the cell.
I counted 15 named associates and friends of Socrates in the cell, plus various other unnamed Athenians.
It was very crowded.
And they ask Socrates, what is it that we hear that you've been composing poetry?
And he says, well, all my life I've had a dream saying Socrates make music and work at it.
And the word for music here, musica, means poetry and embraces poetry as well as music.
And Socrates says, I always assumed that this was the god Apollo telling me to just keep doing philosophy in the way I was doing.
But now in my final days, I think maybe Apollo means me literally to write poetry.
So I'm turning the fables of Aesop into poetry and I've composed a hymn to Apollo.
But that also allows Plato to raise the whole question. of what is philosophy?
What's the relationship between philosophy and literature and myth?
And does philosophy need myth as well as rational arguments?
Thank you.
America is changing, and so is the world.
But what's happening in America isn't just a cause of global upheaval.
It's also a symptom of disruption that's happening everywhere.
I'm Asma Khalid in Washington, D.C., I'm Tristan Redman in London, and this is The Global Story.
Every weekday, we'll bring you a story from this intersection, where the world and America meet.
Listen on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcasts.
James, Socrates suggests that his whole philosophical life has been leading up to this point, death.
And in that case, death means in him separation of the soul from the body.
The soul is in prison in him, just as he is in prison.
Can you develop that?
Yes.
The strange circumstance Socrates finds himself in allows him to make a much more general point, as you say, which is that each of us is, when alive, a combination of a soul and a body, and the soul and the body can be more or less entangled with one another.
Philosophy, says Socrates, is a preparation for death, and what he means by that is that in doing philosophy, one ought to try as best one can to disentangle one's soul from one's body, even while you are living.
So What does he mean by soul?
Well, a soul, good question, is whatever it is.
The principle of life is one way to think about it.
What does that mean?
It's the thing whose presence makes you a living thing rather than a corpse, for example.
So when spoilers at the end of the dialogue, Socrates dies, what's left is a corpse, which is a body without a soul.
The soul, Socrates says, has left and has departed.
But during his own life importantly, Socrates says he's been trying as hard as he can to make sure that the soul was as little entangled with the body as possible.
And this is by doing whatever you can to free yourself from the concerns of the body, freeing yourself from being led by physical pleasures or physical pains, and instead being led by the goods of the soul principally, I would think, wisdom and virtue, and so on.
And so if you concentrate on the good of the soul rather than the good of the body, then you're turning the soul away from the concerns of the body and are doing as best you can to prepare it for its eventual final separation from its embodied state.
Thank you, Fiona.
Can you take that on?
It keeps arguing for the soul and it's very contentious, isn't it?
As it turns out?
Can you just say a little more?
That was well put by James.
Is there more to say there?
Well, there is.
I mean this is the first sort of set of considerations Socrates offers his friends, who are really upset that he's about to die.
And he's trying to console them because he seems to sincerely believe that the soul is immortal.
And so that he's going to persist and indeed go to a better place.
So the first lot of considerations.
Sorry to interrupt.
That's all right.
Does he specify the place?
Is there a place or is it a state?
What is it?
It's Hades.
It's the underworld.
And so he thinks he'll be able to go there and carry on having philosophical conversations with other people, other philosophers.
He hopes even to talk to Homer.
And he wants to convince his friends that this is what's going to happen.
They're not convinced by the set of considerations James has relayed, because the dualism that Socrates supposes here presupposes that the soul doesn't endure destruction at death.
So they want better arguments precisely for the immortality of the soul.
Socrates goes on to offer a whole raft of arguments and I could, because I find it really interesting, tell you about the last argument.
This last argument is interesting in part because Socrates takes it to be conclusive.
It's very short and and it's very, very abstract.
He says that the soul always brings life with it, and most people take this to mean the claim that the soul is essentially alive, that it has as an essential characteristic being alive, and it brings that with it wherever it goes.
The second move in the argument is to say that since death is the opposite of life and the soul is essentially alive, the soul will not admit death, so the soul is deathless.
The third move of the argument that initially struck people from ancient times on as a bit suspect is that because the soul is deathless and death means going out of existence the soul can't perish.
So Socrates thinks he's shown therefore, that the soul is immortal because it's essentially alive and deathless, and that means it's indestructible.
Angie, can you take up the influence of Pythagoras and Orpheus on Plato?
Does that knit in with what's just been said?
So Plato.
After the death of Socrates in 399, Plato travelled for about 10 years, including in southern Italy where, in what was known as Greater Greece, Magna Graecia, he visited Pythagorean communities there.
And certainly for a time he was very, very influenced by Pythagorean teachings, which are closely allied to the Orphic mystery religion.
These are teachings in poems which were ascribed to almost certainly a mythical Orpheus.
Not all followers of Orpheus were Pythagoreans, but all Pythagoreans to some extent embrace some of the teachings of Orpheus.
And the whole We've been hearing about the notion of the body as a tomb, death as the release of the soul from this tomb of a body.
That's Orphic.
All the notion that sort of the barnacles and mud of our body kind of tie us down to this earthly life.
That's all Orphic.
So that is key to a lot of this dialogue.
Now, the problem...
As Simias himself, who's one of the interlocutors, and Kibis, who we've been hearing about from Fiona.
They're both Pythagoreans.
But they realize that there are some problems with their Pythagorean theories, which Socrates points out.
Again within hours of his death.
We're interrogating this notion because Siemens puts forward.
Another of the arguments is that maybe our soul is just a harmony, the right composition of our bodily life parts.
But that's bad news for the soul as an immortal being, because just as the melody of the lyre disappears as soon as the physical lyre is destroyed, so if our bodies are destroyed, the harmony of our soul will be destroyed.
And Socrates says, you know, that is not compatible with a lot of our other arguments.
So, though Plato is very influenced by Pythagoreanism and Orphism in the Phaedo, at this stage of his life, incredibly ascetic, he's still willing to interrogate it.
That's the key point.
Just one final thing.
I always used to find this extreme asceticism in the Phaedo just very off-putting.
It's the most body denying of all Plato's dialogues.
And Plato himself does not stay this ascetic in later works.
I now come to think of it as Plato who, by the way, is not there on the final day of Socrates' life couldn't face it pretends to be ill.
This is Plato's way of trying to come to terms with the absence of Socrates' body.
Thank you.
James, later of course, the Roman writer Cicero was to say he found Socrates' arguments plausible.
While reading them.
But afterwards, he was unconvinced.
Would you go along with Cicero?
Oh, yes.
I think most of them are terrible arguments in various ways, including the one that Fiona set out very clearly.
Cicero is an interesting case.
Cicero thinks of himself in some way as a follower of Plato.
I mean, in the sense that he calls himself an academic, someone who's a member of the academy.
But he takes that to license a certain degree of independence of thought.
That reading Plato encourages you to reflect on various arguments, and some you may find plausible, some less so.
But you're entitled to go along with your own judgment on these matters.
I think he wants to be persuaded.
Cicero likes the idea that the soul is immortal and that death, as it were, the physical death of an embodied person is not the end of that person's existence.
But for various reasons he doesn't find conclusive any of the demonstrations that Socrates tends to offer.
Nevertheless, he's prepared in works such as the Tusculan Disputations, the first book of which is devoted to the question of whether death is a bad thing.
He's prepared to think.
No, mostly.
Plato probably has it right that death is most likely and most plausibly thought of as the separation of the soul from the body.
And Cicero takes this to be a great consolation, actually.
He's writing that work shortly after the death of his own daughter.
He's writing the work in the shadow of the Roman civil wars that have claimed many of his friends and will shortly claim him in a violent reprisal from Antony.
And he finds, as many readers did in antiquity...
He finds reading the Phaedo in particular to be extremely helpful in coming to the terms with the prospect of his own death.
Fiona, can you tell the listeners how does the Socrates of the Crito compare with the one in Phaedo?
So, in terms of the drama surrounding Socrates, there's a great deal of continuity, because it's only a couple of days later.
It's the day of his death.
There are other continuities in the person of Socrates as well.
He's still seeking agreement when the people he's talking to are not convinced and say so.
He thinks of a new argument and he really wants to examine the reasons behind one conclusion or another.
But in lots of ways actually, there's a great discontinuity between the Socrates of the Crito and the Apology and the other dialogues generally thought of as early, and the Socrates of the Phaedo.
In the so-called early dialogues and in the Crito.
Socrates' prime concern is with how we should live and what the virtues really are, how we should acquire them in order to truly flourish.
That's his primary concern.
By contrast, in the Phaedo we find him interested in questions of natural science, in questions of causation, in metaphysical questions such as the nature and existence of the soul.
So the characters are really different insofar as they're interested in and focused upon radically different philosophical questions.
Most of all the difference though, for a lot of scholars, including me, lies in the fact that Socrates postulates these very special abstract entities called forms for the first time, it's thought, in the Phaedo, in order to explain what it is that the soul is able to grasp, when it grasps the truth about something.
What's a form?
What's a form?
Okay.
A form is a purely intelligible entity that's abstract in the sense of not being in space or time, often said to be everlasting in the dialogue that we can access or grasp with our minds.
And what it is to be a form many scholars, including me, think is to be the true nature of some property or characteristic.
What is a true nature?
It's the thing that you grasp with your mind if you give a definition of that characteristic.
So say, you stumble upon something that Socrates searches for for a long time in the Republic the nature of justice.
What this virtue is, you can give a definition of justice.
And when you articulate that definition, you're articulating the nature of the property in question and you're explaining what the form is in that case.
Angie.
Back to the prison, back to the death of Socrates.
Can we have a brief description of people around, of his last words, how he died?
Yes.
So he's given his arguments for the immortality of the soul, four arguments.
Fiona very eloquently summed up the final argument.
Then we have a myth about what he thinks.
The other world will be like an eschatological myth about what will happen to good and bad souls after our death.
It's a wonderful piece of writing.
It looks back to make music and work at it, why we might need myth as well as rational arguments.
When that's finished, first of all, Socrates says, I'm going to go and bathe now.
And that will save the women the trouble of bathing my corpse after I'm dead.
So he considerately goes off and has his bath before the hemlocks brought in.
Then his old friend, Crito, still very upset, says, how are we going to bury you, Socrates?
And Socrates says, well, however you like, if you can catch me.
I'm not going to be there.
It's just going to be my body.
I don't really care.
Burn me, bury me.
I really don't care.
His wife and children are brought back in briefly, but then they're sent away again.
And then the jailer comes in and says, look, it's nearly time.
And the jailer gets very emotional.
The jailers become very fond of Socrates, bursts into tears.
That gets them all going.
Apart from Socrates, all the others start crying.
Socrates says, no, no, no, no tears.
It's not an unhappy thing that's going to happen.
The executioner comes in, gives Socrates the hemlock.
He walks around until his legs start to feel heavy.
And then he lies down.
Rigor mortis starts to set in.
He's very calm.
He's very cheerful.
And his final words he says to his old friend from childhood, Crito.
He says Crito, we owe a cock to Asclepius.
Make sure that you pay it back. i.e. you need to sacrifice a cock to the god of healing, Asclepius.
And the idea, of course, is that his death is going to be a healing from the sickness of life, a release of the soul from the prison of his body.
Thank you, James.
How has his time in prison shaped his reputation?
Well, I think it's probably the most iconic part of his life.
It's the way in which he's depicted often.
It's hard to find a philosophy book these days without that picture of him talking to his friends in the prison on the front of it.
What it shows is his lifelong and consistent commitment to philosophical inquiry.
No matter what the possible repercussions of that might be.
It shows him continuing to be open-minded, continuing to be receptive of new ideas and new suggestions and prepared even to reconsider commitments that he'd formed in his previous discussions should a better argument come along, but also committed that, in the absence of a better argument, he will continue to act, no matter what peculiar circumstances he might find himself in, whatever the risks might be.
He will continue to act on the basis of the commitments that he's come to through a process of rational, philosophical argument.
So in some ways, his death presents him as the great, committed philosopher, and it's aped through antiquity by various Romans who find themselves facing death, or indeed killing themselves rather than compromise themselves in various ways.
He becomes, in a way, you might think, a kind of philosophical martyr.
And in some traditions and some discussions, he's offered as perhaps paradoxically given what we were talking about in the Crito as a figure of civil disobedience, as a figure who, rather than compromise his ideals, will allow himself to be subject to the ultimate penalty that the state can inflict.
Fiona, what aspect of the Crito and the Fido have resonated most over the years and why?
That's a very hard question to answer on behalf of Western philosophy generally.
So perhaps the best I can do is answer it for my own part.
In lots of ways, I agree with James.
Socrates shows the courage of his convictions, so he's inspirational generally for anybody who wants to show the integrity of standing by what they really believe in.
Moreover, he does it on the basis of critical rational reflection.
The other legacy really, of the two dialogues we've been talking about today, for me is the commitment to agreement with other people.
It's not a question of Socrates sitting on his own contemplating whether or not he's done the right thing.
He wants to make sure that what he's thinking is in agreement with what other people who have the right kind of methodology, that is, of rational, critical reflection, considering counterexamples and so on, what they think as well.
He wants not just to convince other people.
In fact, I don't think he does want to convince other people.
He really wants to be in agreement with other people and for them to be in agreement with him, because he's always leaving it open that he's made a mistake.
Despite that...
That he may have made a mistake.
Exactly, that he might have made a mistake.
He's always open to revising and modifying his views.
But for all that, he's carefully reviewed his arguments sufficiently to have confidence that he is doing the right thing and that to do otherwise would be to act unjustly.
And that's hugely admirable.
Well, we've come to the end of the time now unfortunately, but ending with you as Angie, why do you think his resonance after two and a half thousand years is still strong enough to have the three of you engaged and possibly spending a lot of your intellectual life following or trying to follow what he said?
How did he manage to achieve that position and that distinction?
It's just a short question to end with.
Three very brief points.
So, as Fiona said earlier on the criteria, says the important question isn't how to live, but how to live well.
And we are getting a model not the only model, but a model about how to die well and dying being seen as part of life, as part of the good life.
And for all the slightly chilling aspects I've mentioned in Socrates, twice sending away his women and children from the cell.
He only wants his male friends around him.
But for all that, Plato does present him as heroic at the end.
And I think rightly so.
He is calm.
He is brave.
He is courteous and friendly until the end.
And the third thing is, as Fiona was saying, he doesn't just continue philosophical debate literally until the hemlock is administered.
He does it in an open minded way.
He invites challenge.
And indeed, after all these very eloquently put arguments.
Simis and Kimis are not entirely convinced.
And Socrates says, well, I agree with you.
I think there are some loopholes here.
The discussion needs to be continued more after his death, of course.
And that model about how to work towards agreement, as Fiona was saying, but in this careful thoughtful respectful, open-minded way where you're always prepared to admit you're wrong and be open to challenge anything.
For all those reasons, I think that for all his faults, he is a hero.
Well, thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Angie Hobbs, Fiona Lee and James Warren.
Next week the persistent legend of Pope Joan, the woman who supposedly reigned as Pope in the 9th century, disguised as a man.
Thank you for listening.
And the In Our Time podcast gets some extra time now, with a few minutes of bonus material from Melvin and his guests.
I'll start with you, Jamie.
What would you like to have said you didn't have time to say?
Well, this might sound like a strange question, but I think it's an important one.
And the question is, does Socrates die at the end of the Phaedo?
He says, well, I won't be here.
So, in a way, if Socrates is his soul, if we are our souls and we separate from the body at the end of our lives, then we don't die.
The soul doesn't die, can't die, as Fiona was saying.
That's the argument.
And if that's who I am, then I will not die.
On the other hand, the last lines of the Phaedo say, and that was the end of our friend Socrates.
So what has ceased to be is this particular charismatic individual, this person who has spent his life in Athens talking with people about all sorts of extraordinarily fundamental, challenging questions.
That person is no longer.
So I think it's not a straightforward question whether Socrates dies at the end of the Phaedo.
And it depends what Socrates is, in fact.
And that's a big question that the Phaedo invites us to think quite carefully about.
Would you like to say something?
In relation to that.
Actually, the identification, it seems, in the Phaedo, of Socrates with his soul is something that is going to contrast quite starkly with the development of the conception of the soul and the self that Plato presents in his masterwork The Republic.
There, the person or the soul is not understood as reducible to the part with which we reason and can grasp truth.
There the soul is described as consisting of three elements.
There is the rational part.
That is the most important part.
But there's also the part with which we love winning and we want honour and we get angry the spirited part of us and the part of the soul, not the body.
There's the part of the soul that desires all the pleasures of the body and wants to avoid the pains of the body.
So these three elements are what make up the personality.
And this is a much more appealing conception of the self than the sort of highly intellectualist notion of the self that we get in the Fido.
So the question of what dies and who dies becomes even more complex in the Republic.
I have two big questions about the arguments for immortality of the soul and the phaedo.
The first is whether any of the arguments address the request that the two main interlocutors, the Pythagoreans Simeon and Cybe, say.
They want to know whether Socrates is going to attain personal immortality.
Do any of the arguments we get address personal immortality?
It's all very well to say well, the soul, whether you regard it as a concept or a form.
There's a big debate about that.
We don't need to go into that.
But if it always is attached to or comes with the form of life in some way.
So the concept of soul can't admit death, because that's just not what the concept of soul is about.
That's fine.
But does that tell you anything about personal immortality, which is what Simias and Kibis and his other friends say? care about I'm not sure the other big question I have and in terms of the arguments for immortality to me they really are divided between those which see the soul as reasoning mind in the way that Fiona's just been discussing and those which see the soul as animating force which is something James talked about earlier and it's not clear to me that those conceptions I think Plato is really wrestling with very deep issues here for the first time.
He's moving away from the historic Socrates and he's grappling with things which he will clarify a bit more later.
Well, I think Angie's absolutely right that one way to put it is the Phaedo doesn't put to the test whether there are such things as souls.
Right really, that it's very quickly agreed by all of those present that when we're living, we are a combination of a body and the soul, and when those two separate, that's what death is.
So it's never really subject to any critical reflection whether that makes sense as a conception of life and death.
Whether we should think ourselves in this kind of dualist fashion as a body plus a soul is what makes a living animal.
Plato's helped himself by having these Pythagoreans as the interlocutors, because they're all on board with this kind of stuff and are quite a receptive audience to this kind of thinking.
Now, it may be that we're asking too much of Plato here, but it does strike me that he's started halfway along to his goal already.
So I wanted to now respond to James's earlier question in terms of the Fido alone by saying that I think that Socrates does die.
The Socrates, the fleshy thing that is a personality, a character.
That is what he is because he's in a body.
He leaves us.
And we're led to believe that his soul, which is reduced to this intellectualist notion, carries on and goes to Hades, where it can have philosophical conversations.
But I wonder if that's not actually problematic for the picture that Plato's got, because Socrates shows great courage in his soul.
And where does that courage come from?
That's part of enduring in conversation courage.
Arguably, some of the characteristics that we need to be spirited enough to endure when it's difficult to stand by our principles which we've been talking about come from precisely being the kind of compound that we are fleshy creatures, souls with a body.
It's very paradoxical.
If death isn't a bad thing, then it doesn't take courage to stand up to it.
So you can't have it both ways.
You can't admire Socrates' courage in the face of death if you don't also consider death to be potentially a harm.
Finally now, I think we're coming towards the end.
Is there anything that you would regret not saying in two years' time?
I want to point, you know I think we should emphasize that there's quite a lot of humor in the Phaedo.
It's the last day of his life.
But Plato cracks a few jokes.
Socrates cracks a few jokes.
And that fits in with what Phaedo says to Achecrates right at the beginning, that the whole day was a mixture of tears and laughter.
Our emotions were all over the place, apart from Socrates, who was a calm and cheerful man.
Now, you say if you think there's nothing to fear in death, can there be any courage in facing it?
I don't know.
I mean, I think that's a bit tough, isn't it?
I mean there can be a lot of people who believe in a life after death but still might have a few tremors as they draw their last breath.
I don't know.
Well, I'm going to leave it at I don't know.
I think our producer Simon is going to come in now.
So you want tea or coffee or hemlock or anything?
Pass on the hemlock.
Do you have perhaps any description?
I'd love a cuppa.
I'll have a bit of coffee, please.
One coffee, two teas and Something with ginger in it, something with peppermint in it, something like that.
In Our Time with Melvin Bragg is produced by Simon Tillotson and it's a BBC Studios audio production.
Hello, Greg Jenner here.
I am the host of You're Dead to Me from BBC Radio 4.
We are the comedy show that takes history seriously and then laughs at it.
And we're back for a brand new series, Series 9, where we're covering all sorts of things from Aristotle to the legends of King Arthur, to the history of coffee, to the reign of Catherine of Medici of France.
We are looking at the arts and crafts movement and the life of Sojourner Truth and how cuneiform writing systems worked in the Bronze Age.
Loads of different stuff.
It's a fantastic series.
It's funny.
We get great historians.
We get great comedians.
So if you want to listen to You're Dead to Me, listen first on BBC Sounds.
America is changing and so is the world.
But what's happening in America isn't just a cause of global upheaval.
It's also a symptom of disruption that's happening everywhere.
I'm Asma Khalid in Washington, D.C.
I'm Tristan Redman in London.
And this is The Global Story.
Every weekday, we'll bring you a story from this intersection, where the world and America meet.
Listen on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcasts.
