Socrates A Poisonous, Unexamined Fascist?

The Pathos Of Truth Seeked & Violated. Unexamined Fascist, Unexamined Prostitute? Both. Why Was That Covered Up, So Long? For The Same Exact Cause Which Made Socrates Famous!

The death of Socrates keeps haunting philosophy. And that, per se, is a sad, yet very revealing tale. The old common wisdom was that Socrates died, as a martyr to truth (as Hypatia, Boetius, Giordano Bruno, and many others certainly were). You want a hero for philosophy? Celebrate Jean Cavaillès. In the presence of Cavaillès, Sartre nearly wetted his pants. We will see that the mood behind Socrates’ actions is significantly different. Socrates was rather on the side of those who killed Cavaillès.

Indeed, a casual look at the basic setup of Socrates’ trial contradicts the theme that Socrates was mostly a martyr for truth. Socrates was simply accused to be the mastermind of the young dictators who ruled Athens after her tremendous defeat, and half annihilation at the hands of Sparta, the tool of Persia. Socrates was also mentor, friend and lover (!) of the young Alcibiades who, deprived of a generalship by Athens, then betrayed her for her lethal enemy, fascist, ultra-racist, Persian financed Sparta.

Agreed, philosophy needs heroes, and has plenty. Here is one:

Jean Cavaillès. Here Is A Hero For Truth & Philosophy. Socrates Was Nearly The Exact Opposite.

Jean Cavaillès, Anti-Fascist Martyr. Here Is A Hero For Truth & Philosophy. Socrates Was Nearly The Exact Opposite.

[Jean Cavaillès was tortured and assassinated by the Gestapo in 1943-1944. He is buried in the crypt of the Sorbonne.]

Thus Socrates was a sort of Charlie Manson of serial traitors and killers, whose mental actions led, or accompanied, Athens’ near-death experience in losing a devastating war, and the resulting dictatorship by Socrates’ students. Temples of democracy such as Britain, France, and the USA have gaily executed traitors, or incompetents, for much less than that.

Socrates Used To Look At People As A bull Does. Ugly Inside Out? To Reveal the Truth, Some Will Say Torture Works Even Better

Socrates Used To Look At People As A bull Does. Ugly Inside Out? To Reveal the Truth, Some Will Say Torture Works Even Better

Stanford political science and classics professor, Josiah Ober opines in “The Civic Drama Of Socrates’ Trial” that:  “Conventional wisdom sees Socrates as a martyr for free speech, but he accepted his death sentence for a different cause… In his influential interpretation The Trial of Socrates (1988), the US journalist-turned-classicist I F Stone saw this trial as an embattled democracy defending itself. In Stone’s view, Socrates had helped to justify the junta’s savage programme of oligarchic misrule and was a traitor. More commonly, Socrates is seen as a victim of an opportunistic prosecutor and a wilfully ignorant citizenry. In truth, politics is indispensable to understanding the trial of Socrates, but in a slightly more sophisticated way.”

I love sophistication, philosophy is all about increased sophistication (so is science). Sophistication, translated, is wisdomization: sticking to reality ever better by ever more subtle, complex logic.

The point was not so much that Socrates justified the savage programme, but that he formed the minds who organized said programme, “corrupting the youth”. And he was at it again, even after being amnestied. Professor Ober describes the problem well (although he fails to fathom the enormity of what he describes).

Stanford’s Josiah: For what people today call ‘the wisdom of crowds’, Socrates had nothing but scorn. Athenian democrats who argued that the many, the group, were collectively more likely to get important matters right than any individual expert earned his antipathy. Whether or not anyone actually was expert in the art of politics, Socrates certainly supposed that there could be such an expert, and that the Athenians were deluded in thinking themselves collectively wise.”

The “experts” would have been naturally his rich, best (“aristos”) boyfriends. Professor Ober is led to the obvious question, but fail to recognize that he does not answer it:

“How did Socrates both scorn the idea of collective wisdom and yet maintain obedience to Athens’ laws, even when he disagreed with how they were interpreted? The rudimentary answer lay in the foundation that Athens (as opposed to, for example, Sparta) provided in its laws and political culture. Athens mandated liberty of public speech and tolerance for a wide range of private behaviour.”

Yes, but public incompetence could lead to trial (as happened to Pericles and many strategoi, generals and admirals). Anyway, that is not an answer. I will give a better answer: Socrates himself had no answer to his drastic self-contradictions, so hise self-delusion fatally committed him to self-destruction. Yet political science professor Ober sees the problem:

“By 399 BCE, however, four years after the end of the tyranny, and with Socrates doing the same things in public that had seemingly inspired the junta’s leaders, the Athenians regarded his speech very differently. In the eyes of the majority of his fellow citizens, Socrates was no longer an eccentric with potential for contributing to public life. He was now either a malevolent public enemy, or deluded and dangerously unable to recognise that his speech predictably produced seriously bad outcomes. And so the way was left open for Meletus to launch his prosecution.”

Right. What professor Ober fails to mention is that only the intervention of mighty Sparta prevented Athens’ annihilation after she surrendered, having lost already half of her population (other cities wanted to do to Athens what Athens did to Melos). Try to imagine this: the city-state half annihilated, democracy destroyed by Socrates’ students, and then? The strongest mood that Socrates had been instilling was to oppose democracy. And he was again at it, after the amnesty he had profited from. What could motivate such a rage?

Unsurprisingly, Socrates was put on trial for “corrupting the youth and impiety”. (The City was to some extent divinized, with Athena as her protecting goddess.)

“With unsettling metaphors and logical demonstrations, he made it clear that he [Socrates] opposed democracy… Xenophon implies that Socrates chose that sort of speech as a method of jury-assisted suicide: he was… tired of life and allowed the Athenians to end it for him.”

This is what I believe. And I go further than Xenophon, by explaining the cause of Socrates’ depression. Socrates may have been tired of his own contradictions.And may have been ravaged by regret. (Regret, I reckon, is a powerful human instinct.)

The Socrates’ worship interpretation is due to Plato. It poses Socrates as martyr to civic duty. But, as it turns out, “civic duty”, for Socrates, seems to be mostly blind obedience to “the Laws”, while viciously criticizing the Direct Democracy which gave birth to them.

That Socrates respected the laws of Athens while despising the Direct Democracy which had passed them is illogical in the extreme. Yes, I know Socrates said he respected “the Laws”, as if they were disembodied gods with a life of their own. But We The People passed said laws, and they lived only because We The People had created them, and We thge People could extinguish them just the same.

The “Laws” were nothing. We The People was everything. Socrates behaved as if he could not understand that.

Insisting that the Laws were everything reveals that the concept of blind obedience was more important to Socrates than arguing about the nature of what one should be obeying to, and why. Blind obedience is also the traditional ultimate value of standard fascism: law and order as supreme.

Blind obedience had been what the junta’s rule was all about. What the rule of Socrates’ young students and lovers had been all about. That’s also what fascism is all about. However, arguing, debating, fighting is how to get to the thorough examination necessary for the “examined life”.   

The contradiction was, and is, blatant. Socrates’ mental system was shorting out. Socrates had been shorting out for half a decade or more: he ambitiously wanted to “examine life”, but he could not even examine the minds of his followers, let alone his own, or why he was hanging around them. Why was he hanging around them? They were rich, he was not, but he lived off their backs and crumbs. And the feeling of power they provided with (after Obama got to power I saw some in his entourage becoming drunk with power).  

Arguably, Socrates was a martyr to fascism, a Jihadist without god. There is nothing remarkable about that. The very instinct of fascism is to give one’s life, just because fanatical combat is the ultimate value, when one gets in the fascist mood. In this case, the fanatical combat was against We The People.

Posing Socrates as a martyr for intellectual freedom is farfetched: fascism, blind obedience, passion for oligarchs are all opposed to the broad mind searching for wisdom requires.

Some will sneer: you accuse Socrates to be a fascist, why not a racist? Well, I will do this too. The golden youth Socrates loved so much and drank with were hereditary so. Socrates believed knowledge was innate (so an ignorant shepherd boy knew all of math: this is the example he rolled out!) If knowledge was innate, one can guess that the “aristos”, the best, were also innately superior. That is the essence of racism.

Logically enough, Socrates disliked science: nothing was truly new under the sun (as all knowledge was innate). So much for examining life.

It is more probable that Socrates was indeed, just a stinging insect buzzing around, stinging the idea of Direct Democracy. In exchange, his rich, young, plutocratic boyfriends would fete and feed him. Such was Socrates’ life, a rather sad state of affair, something that needed to be examined, indeed, by the head doctor.

Socrates may have been clever enough to feel that he was an ethical wreck. His suicidal submission may have been an attempt to redeem himself, or whatever was left of his honor (which he also tried to regain with his insolence to the jury).

Plato would pursue the fight for fascism (“kingship”). Aristotle, by teaching, mentoring, educating, befriending, advising a number of extremely close, family-like friends, the abominable Alexander, Craterus and Antipater, finally fulfilled Socrates’ wet dream: Athenian Direct Democracy was destroyed and replaced by an official plutocracy overlorded by Antipater (supremo dictator, and executor of Aristotle’s will, in more ways than one).

This trio of philosophical malefactors became the heroes 22 centuries of dictatorship (“monarchy”) needed as a justification. A justification where “civic duty” was defined as blind obedience to the “Laws” (whatever they were, even unjust “Laws”). This amplified Socrates’ hatred of Direct Democracy. So the works of the trio were preciously preserved, and elevated to the rank of the admirable.

It is rather a basket of deplorables. We owe them the destruction of Direct Democracy for 23 centuries, and counting.

And what Of Socrates’ regret for being so deplorable? (Which I alleged he had to experience.) A dying Socrates lying on a couch, uncovered his face and uttered— “Crito, I owe the sacrifice of a rooster to Asklepios; will you pay that debt and not neglect to do so?”  Asklepios cured disease, and provided with rebirth, symbolized by the singing of the rooster calling the new day. This has been traditionally interpreted (by Nietzsche) as meaning that (Socrates’?) death was a cure for (his?) life. Nietzsche accused Socrates to be culprit of the subsequent degeneracy of civilization (and I do agree with that thesis). Certainly, Socrates, a self-described “gadfly” was deprived of gravitas.

Wisdom needs to dance, but cannot be altogether deprived of gravitas, as it is, after all, the gravest thing.. Maybe Socrates felt this confusedly, besides having regrets for his status of thinking insect. Socrates could have easily escaped, and Crito had an evasion ready. By killing himself Socrates behaved like a serious Japanese Lord opening his belly to show his insides were clean, and its intent good. Well, many a scoundrel has committed seppuku, and hemlock is nothing like cutting the belly.

Human beings are endowed with the instinct of regret, because we are the thinking species. It is crucial that we find the truth, and when we have lived a lie, indulged in error, the best of use are haunted by the past, and revisit it to find what the truth really was. Regrets has many stages, like cancer. The most correct philosophical form of regret is to re-established the truth. The cheap way out is to flee from reality, as Socrates did.

How to explain Socrates’ insolence to the jury? There again, it was a desperate attempt at reaching the sensation of self-righteousness and trying to impart it to the jury (this is often seen  on the Internet, with the glib one-liners and vacuous logic which pass for depth nowadays).

The inexperienced democracy in Athens did not always behave well. Athens behaved terribly with Melos (see link above). But the case of Socrates is different. Ultimately, the train of thoughts and moods promoted by Socrates weakened those who wanted to defend the free republics of Greece against the fascist, exterminationist Macedonian plutocracy. Demosthenes and Athenian Direct Democracy was mortally poisoned by Socrates.

Thus, Socrates execution was not just tit for tat. It was not enough of tit for tat. It was a preventive measure, in defense of Direct Democracy, which failed, because it was too meek.

Democracy does not mean to turn the other cheek, to have the golden beast eat that one too. In ultimate circumstances, democracy has an ultimate weapon too, and that is fascism. This is why the Roman, French and American republics prominently brandish the fasces. Fascism is the ultimate war weapon. But fascism is not the ultimate society. Far from it: political fascism, just a few individuals leading entails intellectual fascism, namely just a few moods and ideas leading. Before one knows it, one is in plutocracy, where not only wealth rules, but so does the cortege of the worst ideas and moods which characterize it.

Socrates often talk the talk, contradicting completely the way he lived (for example he said one should never return an injury, but, as a hoplite, he killed at least four men in combat!)

Socrates spoke so well sometimes, that he can stay a symbol of truth persecuted. But, because it is a lie, replacing him by Hypatia, Boetius, Bruno and, or Cavaillès, and, or, others, is urgent. Indeed, the reality is that Socrates was not just inimical to democracy. The current of thought he floated by was inimical to science, mental progress, and the truth he claimed to be pining for.  And even him may have been so overwhelmed by these astounding contradictions, that, in the end, assisted suicide for his pathetic mental writhing was, indeed, the optimal outcome.

Patrice Ayme’


Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

11 Responses to “Socrates A Poisonous, Unexamined Fascist?”

  1. dominique deux Says:

    When I waded through Plato’s eulogies of Socrates, as a student, I recall thinking that one of the crimes he was indicted for, sophistry, was fully proven and documented.

    A sophist was one who used eloquence to lie, a capital crime it seems, even though in the Hellenistic world (post-Alexander) it was seen as a lucrative and legitimate occupation – think US lawyer.

    When you follow Socrates in one of his exercises of “maieutics” (which he claimed proved that knowledge was indeed innate and only had to be drawn from the student, rather than imparted to him) you see a transparently manipulative crook who uses leading questions in a way even an US judge would not tolerate in her courtroom.

    I thought executing him for that was a bit harsh, but in the light of Brexit I’m not so sure!

    However this steered me away from the universal worship of Plato and Socrates, made me a lifelong skeptic and also got me interested in the political nature of his trial.

    That he fought democracy was not on the books then and I was not aware of that – thanks for the insight. But I could see that his trial was a well organized and managed operation, complete with mass media massaging of the public. Athen’ s mass media were theatrical plays, and Aristophanes did a splendid, and reportedly effective, hatchet job.

    It is, I think, in The Clouds that he shows a visitor entering Socrates’ house and wondering aloud where he is.

    He is in a hammock having a nap, and he replies

    “Aerobato kai periphrono ton Helion”

    which simply means “I am gliding through the skies and meditating upon the Sun”, thus a farcical mocking of Socrates’ well-known pompousness.

    But “The Sun” was also a name of Zeus – God Almighty – and “periphronein” also could mean “despise”.

    So the word-savvy audience fully took the double meaning – “I despise God”. And this did play a part in his conviction for impiety.

    I felt sorry for him but I loved the tale.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Dominique: After Athens lost the war, half of her population, was nearly annihilated (arguably in part from Socrates’ lovers activities), and submitted to Socrates’ lovers dictatorship, the general amnesty was gracious. Rightly so, European countries who had been abused by fascists and Nazis executed thousands of them, and some brought back the death penalty (Netherlands, Norway). Of course Athens had lost the war (whereas the anti-Nazis won WWII).

      Socrates, though, insisted on Athens’ bashing, when Athens was actually fragile and potentially ready to be annihilated again: Sparta had defeated, and then SAVED Athens (not for the first time!). But Athens’ enemies were increasing in power. Soon enough, Thebes would defeat Sparta. Yet, by then, Athens was strong enough to not fear annihilation, and Socrates’s execution may have helped: Aristotle, the lover of Alexander, Craterus , Antipater and other monsters, fled Athens for his life when Athenian authorities started to bear down on that other traitor…

      Actually, come to think of it, Direct Democracy could have perhaps been saved, had ARISTOTLE BEEN TRIED AND EXECUTED (I retrospectively do so, though!) Why? It would have precipitated total war between Athens and the Macedonians. The natural ally was then Thebes, and together, with their allies (all of Greece, Sparta would have probably joined as it always hated Macedonia), they would have crushed the plutocrats from the north.


  2. dominique deux Says:

    I read Thucydides’ Wars of the Peloponnese when I was about fourteen, and so, much of it must have gone over my head. Especially as I was deeply enthralled by the parallel of the war’s inception with the ongoing Cold War. This, I thought, is the blueprint for WW3: two world empires, one land-based, totalitarian, militaristic, and one sea-based, democratic, fighting at first by proxy, subverting each other’s satellites, maintaining enemy political factions all over the known world, confident that conflict could be contained – and proven disastrously wrong. Of course having Sparta play the part of the Soviet Union made me blind to its plutocratic sides. Yet I still think the parallel (much like those Plutarch more or less artificially contrived) was generally an eye-opening one.

    It was interesting to read the (reconstructed) speeches by leaders on both sides, all going on about peace, friendship, democracy… I was and still am a friend of peace, democracy and the sea, but it gave me pause.

    Much later I found a (much underrated IMHO) book by Joseph Heller, “Picture This”, which took much the same view but in a more robustly critical light.

    The parallel approach is of course anecdotal at best. I don’t see our current situation being properly illustrated in the classical Antiquity. The recent attempts (in cinema) to conflate Islamic assault with Persia’s imperialist drive are propaganda constructs; Persia was an enemy but not an existential threat, it was seen as quite civilized (“barbarian” meant only “non-Greek speaking”), and Themistocles actually ended his days in the service of a satrap… I’d probably have to travel East and look at China and the Mongols… maybe in another life.


    • Gmax Says:

      True. Persia was immensely civilized. Zarathustra was a very advanced philosopher (see how he inspired Nietzsche)


    • dominique deux Says:

      Not really wanting to pull this thread further off track, I still cannot resist mentioning that “the Thucydides Trap” is being used in exploring the mounting US-China confrontation.

      Not a cheerful vision.


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        To all: I have been too busy to answer some comments as they deserve. Let me say, once again, though, that I think far-out context are often extremely relevant. The concept of “Off Track” does not apply often, in my mind. (Even when the occasional Nazi comes to sing the praises of Hitler, I feel that’s very relevant, as other examples of insanity are).
        People do not realize how easily we could get in a world war.
        I will read the link later… and, no doubt, comment. The South China Sea situation, keeping North Korea in mind, and the fact that the US empire laps all around China, has all the ingredients for sudden nuclear war.That should become clearer soon, be it Trump, or HRC…


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        “The Thucydides Trap: Are the U.S. and China Headed for War?” Very interesting, I read it all, thanks. However, I don’t agree, I never agreed fully with Thucydides’s analysis. It’s the difference in political systems which made war unavoidable between Sparta and Athens, not just the rising fearful power syndrome (BTW, the analysis of Thucydides is just this one sentence pontification: Thucydides did not try to write an elaborate argument!)

        Why not to look at the Sparta-Thebes war (which diminished Sparta forever)? Or the Thebes-Macedonia war? Or the Greece-Macedonia war?

        Similarly, many wars on the list do not have to do with rising power versus ruling power. And there were many other wars, same place, roughly same time. The Dutch-England was of 1688 was puny…. Nothing like the much more significant Russian-Swedish war, or the enormous 30 year war in Germany, or the war of Spanish succession soon after…

        This said, at the present rate of absurdities, war with China is likely. To think the US and its parents (usual suspects) won’t win it, silly. Why did France sell those hyper sophisticated subs to Australia>>>????? World War III prevention or execution, obviously (with full cooperation USA, BTW…)


        • Kevin Berger Says:

          C’est vraiment ce genres de commentaires, depuis celui de DD jusqu’à la fin de l’échange, qui me font regretter de ne pas avoir eu d’éducation classique.
          Je dirais bien que je n’ai pas d’excuses, bibliothèque, internet maintenant etc, etc,… mais, après tout, on n’est jamais que la somme de ce que l’on pouvait être au tout début, et de ce que l’on y a mis par la suite, soi-même comme les autres.
          Je préfère donc blâmer mon époque, et cette putain d’éducation nationale, cette armée rouge qui n’arrive même plus à apprendre à lire et à écrire à nos chères têtes blondes (et brunes).
          Sinon, pour la guerre, entre ce qui se prépare au PO, ce qui se prépare en Mer de Chine, et ce qui se prépare en Europe, nous n’y couperont pas, à court ou moyen terme… et je crois bien que c’est l’idée générale : un petit “remake” de la 2GM, pour en retirer les mêmes bénéfices. Peut-être cela fonctionnera-t-il? Je garde néanmoins foi en la technologie, pour franchir les douves géantes qui protègent les Maitres du Monde. Wait & See, donc.


          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            The educational system is indeed to blame. It is not demanding and informative enough. And not by accident.
            Just as it is no accident that my comments are blocked in the New York Times, the Guardian and many pseudo-left publications. The reason is the same: through ignorance we shall rule…


  3. Gmax Says:

    Maieutics that ‘s giving birth, the Socrates method. What arrogance! Like nobody gave birth to an argument before. Reminds me of Trump and birthism


  4. Socrates On The Lake Of Selfishness | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] upon the deepest thinking imaginable, or won’t be. To strive towards the deepest methods, we have to eschew the Socratic method of cutting hair into pieces, somewhere out there, irrelevant to the situation at hand. Hypo-crisy […]


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: