VLEF - "Socrates"

SOCRAT 

1) WILL ("king") 

2) LOGIC ("rhetorician") 

3) EMOTION ("dry") 

4) PHYSICS ("slacker") 

The pupils, colleagues and successors of Socrates, the founding father of European philosophy, in the tradition of corporate myth-making have concocted a sweet myth about the kindest, sweetest old man, who allegedly became the innocent victim of the most vile and nefarious of his fellow citizens. However, despite the fact that today the death penalty seems too harsh as a measure of social self-protection, we must still say that Socrates was not the sweetest, kindest old man that the self-serving corporate legend portrays him as. And the sacrifice made by the Athenians in his person was not entirely innocent. In any case, a basic acquaintance with the essence of the conflict between Socrates and his fellow citizens compels us to treat the latter, if not with sympathy, then with understanding. 

It should be remembered that Socrates was formally accused by only a few people, and the accusation was, for better or for worse, subject to Athenian law at the time (for example, the accusation of heresy). In reality, however, Socrates was a bone in the throat of the entire city and was being tried for an unprosecutable reason: his trashy character. 

In Plato's "Apologia of Socrates" (a work which, according to scholars, most accurately conveys the image of the philosopher) Socrates himself set forth, as was his custom in many words, his personal position and the motives of the city's annoyance with himself: "So, O men of Athens, you should defend yourselves and try in a little time to refute the slander that has been going on between you for a long time.... Only I think it is difficult, and it is no mystery to me what an undertaking it is... 

Perhaps some of you will say, "Socrates, what do you do? Where do these slanders come from?" Listen... This fame, O men of Athens, I received no other way than through a certain wisdom. What wisdom is that? Yes, it must be human wisdom. With this wisdom I may indeed be wise... And you make no noise, O men of Athens, even if it seems to you that I speak somewhat arrogantly; I will not speak my own words, I will refer to words that are reliable for you. Witness my wisdom, if only it is wisdom, and what it consists in, I will bring you the god who is in Delphi. After all, you know Cherephontes... Well, here we are, coming one day to Delphi, he dared to address the oracle with such a question. I told you to be quiet, O men! So he asked if there was anyone in the world wiser than me, and Pythia answered him that no one was wiser. And though he himself is dead, here is his brother to testify it to you. 

Now see why I say this; my intention is to explain to you where the slander against me comes from. When I heard this, I began to ponder with myself in this way: what would God want to say and what does he mean? Because, of course, I myself am not at all conscious of my wisdom; what does he mean by saying that I am wiser than everyone else? He can't lie; he's not supposed to. For a long time I was perplexed what he wanted to say; then, having gathered my strength, I resorted to this solution of the question: I went to one of those people who are reputed to be wise, thinking that here I will most likely refute the oracle, announcing to the oracle that this, they say, is wiser than me, and you called me the wisest. Well, when I had a closer look at this man - there is no need to call him by name, I will only say that the man, when I looked at him, what I saw, was one of the men of state, O men of Athens - so when I had a closer look at him (and had a conversation with him), it seemed to me that this man only seemed wise to many others and especially to himself, but that in fact he was wise, it was not so; And I tried to prove to him that he only thinks he is wise, but that he is not really wise. This made him and many of those present hate me... From thence I went to another, of those who seem wiser than the other, and I saw the same thing; and from that time he and many others hated me. 

After that, I began to walk in order. I noticed that I was becoming hateful, I was upset by it and I was afraid of it, but at the same time it seemed to me that the words of God must be put above everything. So, to understand what the saying of God means, it seemed to me necessary to go to all who are said to know something... After the men of state, I went to the poets... I am ashamed, men, to tell you the truth, and yet I should tell you. Well, yes, in a word, almost all of those present were better able to explain what was done by these poets than they were... and at the same time I noticed that because of their poetic talent, they considered themselves the wisest of men in other respects as well, which was not the case. I left there too, thinking that I excelled them in the same way that I excelled the state people. 

Toward the end I went to the craftsmen... But, O men of Athens, it seemed to me that they sinned in the same way as the poets...so, returning to the saying, I asked myself what I would prefer for myself, to remain as I am, being neither wise by their wisdom nor ignorant by their ignorance, or, like them, to be both. And I answered myself and the oracle that it was more profitable for me to remain as I am. 

Even if we disregard the fact that here the essence of the conflict is presented in the mouth of the accused himself, i.e., biased by definition, Socrates' speech looks shocking. It does not take much imagination to imagine how things really happened and in color. A busy man, not the last in his field, is rushed in by a ragged, dirty old man, a notorious slacker and chatterbox in town (even his wife characterized Socrates in this way). And bursting in tells him that his dead friend has managed to get the answer "no" from the Oracle of Delphi to the question: is there anyone wiser than Socrates? The dead man is not much in demand, nor is the Oracle much in demand. But the problem is not even what the oracle said, and not even that the old man piously believed in this prophecy. The problem is that with all the passion and excitement he took it upon himself to prove its validity. Simply put, to prove to the Athenians that all of them, minus one of them, were complete idiots. Not only are such tasks not of great intelligence (only an advanced age can excuse Socrates here), but they are downright unsafe anywhere at any time. 

To the Athenians' credit, even the artisans did not dare to beat the old man, and all the offended classes, having agreed, simply dragged Socrates to court, hoping to use him to pacify the philosopher, who was in everyone's sore throat. This is where the main, fatal difficulty was discovered. It was impossible to try him for his bad language and bad temper, and the articles he drew up for the occasion turned out to be "sub-memorable. More precisely, the fact was that the philosopher had ample means and opportunities to avoid death, but Socrates would not have been a "Socrates" if he had not brought the process to the point he did. The temptation to declare himself a figure on a citywide scale was so strong that Socrates simply could not help but fall into his own order of functions. And he did. 

Being by his 1st Will a very self-confident man. Socrates refused the services of a lawyer, undertook to defend himself and, defending himself, as can be seen from the above, has already publicly stated what had previously been expressed in private: the Athenians - morons, he - one clever. Thus, the 2nd Logic of the philosopher, having found such a luxurious rostrum, could not refuse himself the pleasure of explaining about this delicate subject in as much detail and at length as possible. Not only did the third emotion not decorate the speech of the accused, but it dried it up and impoverished it to the utmost. Although Socrates, being aware of this weakness, warned the judges: "You will not hear a speech, ornamented, as these people (accusers -A.A.) have, with refined expressions, but you will hear a simple speech, consisting of the first words that come up," - I think the judges could hardly listen to this preface. Finally, the natural fearlessness of the 4th Phys. in general relegated the question of life and death to the end of the philosopher's preoccupations. The question of personal prestige (the 1st Will) stood incomparably above the question of physical existence (the 4th Physics). And Socrates, to his credit, succeeded: his body died prematurely, but his name became immortal and became almost synonymous with the title which the philosopher vainly solicited from his fellow citizens - "sage". 

* * * 

It is not only the name of Socrates that makes this mental type famous. Calvin, Becket, Newton, Robespierre, Charles XII of Sweden, Berkeley, Peter Chaadayev, Mikhail Tukhachevsky, Khomeini, Thatcher, Brodsky, Putin, former world chess champion Anatoly Karpov belonged to "Socrates". Politicians prevail among the "Socrates", in accordance with their 1st Will, but if you put Socrates, Robespierre and Brodsky in one row, it becomes a vivid illustration of a simple but very important thesis: psychotype is not destiny, it is only character. Robespierre realized in politics the 1st Will of "Socrates", Socrates himself in philosophy the 2nd Logic, Brodsky in poetry the 3rd Emotion, but he could have remained in the factory as a turner, realizing the 4th Physics. 

Biographies are shaped not only by inner predisposition, but also by external circumstances. Robespierre would have remained a provincial lawyer if revolutionary ferment had not broken out in France at the time. For the poor plebeian Socrates, the road to politics was closed, and to write poetry in the spirit of Brodsky, in Greece at the time, only a madman could do so. Brodsky himself, a Jew in the country of state anti-Semitism, had no career at all, and only literary work allowed him to count on any decent place in life. 

At the same time, psychotype is also destiny. Despite their different professions, both Socrates, Robespierre, and Brodsky were engaged in the most socially significant occupations for their time and place: philosophy in Y century Greece, politics in late XYIII century France, poetry in 60's Russia. Socrates and Robespierre were executed, Brodsky underwent political execution, not the least of which was the self-confidence and fearlessness (1st Will + 4th Physics) of all three. That is, there are biographical points where psychotype, character, converge with fate. 

The most important thing for psychology is that profession, time, space, nationality are in principle unable to bury a psychotypical commonality: a system of values, worldview, style, reactions, etc. For example, at all times and any "Socrates", being put before the choice between sex and conversation, will certainly prefer the latter, since he has Physics 4 and Logic 2. And examples from the lives of the three named "Socrates" confirm this thesis very well. When Alcviades, the object of lust of both halves of Athens, tried in a famous way to pay Socrates for the joy of communication, the philosopher said that sex is a beautiful thing, but talking about it is even better. It is known how much effort the most charming of Parisian women spent to seduce Robespierre, but all their efforts proved futile, and the case was limited to a long admonishing monologue. Baryshnikov said that once when he visited Brodsky, he found a beautiful girl in his house. Brodsky, paying no attention to her, seized Baryshnikov, took him to a nearby bar and for two hours reprimanded him for some unsuccessful TV show, which Baryshnikov had forgotten about. And you should have seen the expression of extreme bewilderment and even fright on his face Baryshnikov told this story about an alien to him "Socratic" system of values. 

If there is a chance to talk about the sexuality of the "Socrates," it is better not to hide the fact that this type is the most frigid of all those types that, out of laziness, indifference, or coldness, do not hurry to the bed of pleasure. Not only that, but the main sexual functions: Emotion and Physics, are at the bottom of the "Socratic. They are the most libidinous of all: the 3rd Emotion, the 4th Physics. If we remember that the dryness of the 3rd Emotion and the laziness of the 4th Physics are multiplied in "Socrates" by the extreme individualism and aloofness of the 1st Will, then the voluntary virginity of even such eminent men as Newton, Chaadayev and Karl XII will not seem too surprising. 

* * * 

Of literary characters, perhaps, the most accurate type of "Socratic" is conveyed by the unforgettable Sherlock Holmes. According to the 1st Will, Holmes is an aloof, internally lonely, imperious, self-confident man; his thinking is strict and slender, and his memory is vast in the 2nd Logic; he is dry and ironic, but his coldness is combined with a secret crush on his amateur violin, which is common for the 3rd Emotion; at last, fearlessness and indifference to everyday life and financial problems clearly indicate the 4th Physic of this character. And together they testify to the accuracy of Conan Doyle's reproduction of the "Socratic" type and at the same time confirm the writer's words that Sherlock Holmes had a real prototype. 

Conan Doyle was also prescient in making his hero a private detective, a profession of this kind, as well as work in the anti-criminal sphere in general, is given to "Socrates" without difficulty. Which does not prevent them from being quite on the spot as crooks and card cheats (3rd Emotion). 

However, the greatest fortune awaits the "Socratic" in politics, a sphere that lives at the crossroads between cops and thieves. Margaret Thatcher's name and image are still fresh in the memory of her contemporaries, so it is easy to imagine a "Socratic" engaged in politics just by her example. Biographers say of Thatcher: "She is best known for her masculine qualities, such as aggressiveness and power. And one MP, who was not one of her admirers, remarked, "She is an absolutely fearless politician." And even when she was joking, which she did not do more than once a year and only with her loved ones, her humor was stern... 

Assessing Thatcher's "absolutist worldview" and her intentions to, as he put it, "change the soul" of the people, her former cabinet member Biffen even called her a "Stalinist"... 

One journalist asked Thatcher why her speeches gave the impression of being unfriendly and harsh. Thatcher replied: "I understand why some people might think that. I try to contain myself at all times. My parents, who had the greatest influence on my attitude to life, including politics, taught my sister and me to be restrained. I was instilled that I should never lose my temper, at least not in public... If I'm going to worry about what people say or write about me, and I sometimes worry about that, I don't think it would be right to mourn my fate in public." And when a journalist hinted that the impression was given of her as an insensitive woman ("a cold fish," he said), Thatcher remarked irritably, "I suppose people understand the difference between restraint and insensitivity..." 

The success of her speeches depended above all on a very good knowledge of the subject. Her speeches proved once again that Cicero (whom she studied at Oxford) was right when he said that oratory is inconceivable without perfect mastery of the subject. In her speeches and press conferences she used to cite a lot of figures, quotes, statements, all from memory, rarely looking at the papers. She presented her thoughts in simple language, following the Aristotelian principle that the main virtue of speech is clarity. Therefore, to make it more intelligible, she often compared the affairs of the state with those of the family, the budget of the state with the personal budget, etc. .... 

Her polemical speeches were strong. She herself said of herself: "I like to argue..." 

One of the most experienced British journalists wrote: "Interviewing her is like talking to an answering machine. You ask a question, you get an answer. 

Although these quotations do not refer to an ancient Greek man and philosopher, but to our contemporary, an Englishwoman and politician, one opens the Apologia of Socrates and other works devoted to the philosopher, and the miracle of recognition, of recognition down to the last detail, and of a combined photograph showing Thatcher's face and Thatcher's face through Socrates' face, will take place. 

* * * 

The "Socrates" appears to be a lean, casually, faintly dressed, but tightly dressed man. He is stately, ceremonious, unperturbed. The gesture is calm, stately, confident, precise. Speech is even, assertive, ironic, monotonous. Secretly has a weakness for music, literature, art, and, after drinking, not averse to sing something himself in a soft, little expressive voice. His eyes are persistent, attentive, thoughtful, without gleam. Mimicry and gestures are almost absent. The haircut is short and neat, even women rarely resort to hair coloring. He is very fond of nature, and pets seem to be the only creatures with power over this aloof, rigid, cold-hearted man.