this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2026
568 points (100.0% liked)
PhilosophyMemes
381 readers
17 users here now
Memes must be related to phil.
The Memiverse:
!90s_memes@quokk.au
!y2k_memes@quokk.au
!sigh_fi@quokk.au
founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Keep in mind we don't have anything about what he said. at least not directly. all we have is Plato writing him as a character. Even his "apology" was written by Plato after the trial. It being more a propaganda speech by Plato than an actual trial recording.
look at any sources regarding " 30 tyrants " wiki is a good start (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Tyrants). also, non Platonic accounts like Erastophanes portray him as a grifter (https://youtu.be/76lkcYbjdFk).
And after all, he was found guilty for that Athenian genocide (even though Plato denied it) by his own people. so there's that.
Plato got spared, he was invited to participate in the 30 tyrants government (which included his cousin and uncle), but decided not to once the genocide started. https://medium.com/the-first-philosophers/plato-4-5-the-thirty-tyrants-2447c90f3af1
for something so well documented, It is insane that no one knows about it
There are also accounts by Xenophon. And I'm aware of the limitations of citing Plato's accounts, but that doesn't justify leveling any accusation one can come up with. Also, the satires of Aristophanes hardly count as historical evidence.
Neither of the other two sources you provided say anything about Plato or Socrates being complicit with the regime or guilty of genocide. In fact, it seems like they had some animosities towards the thirty tyrants.
Where are you getting this claim that Socrates was found guilty for the Athenian genocide? It says right here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Socrates) that the charges were impiety and corrupting the youth (by encouraging them to question their elders).
The impious acts cited were "failing to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledges" and "introducing new deities" (apparently Reason (διάνοια) was a deity in their view...)
the trial was due questioning democracy and leading to an extremely violent coup.
that's like saying the civil war was because state rights.
keep in mind that Aristotle and Plato were extremely influential and enmeshed in the political elite (Alexander the Great). their views and erasure of that genocide was intentional.
That trial was for the Athenian genocide, and he was found guilty of corrupting the youth, that what it meant.
i get that a comedy play calling Socrates a grifter isn't proof, but just part of the evidence that contemporaries thought he was one.
Everything that I've read so far says the "coup" you're referring to was a result of the Spartans after the Peloponnesian war. You haven't substantiated Socrates or Plato's involvement with any sources that even suggest that.
It's not at all like the civil war because it happened millennia ago with only fragmentary evidence. We have far more records from the civil war era due to it only having been a couple hundred years ago, which isn't that long in the grand scheme of things.
Aristotle was Alexander's tutor, yes, but Plato had no involvement with Alexander and the trial and execution of Socrates happened long before Alexander was even born. Plato and Aristotle are diametrically opposed philosophically, so bringing up Aristotle's involvement with Alexander has zero bearing on the philosophy of either Plato or Socrates.
Plus, the modern sciences owe far more to Aristotle than he's given credit for, so if tutoring Alexander the Great is such a demerit then we have to throw out basically all human inquiry that took place in the western world from medieval scholasticism to the modern scientific method. That would be a pretty severe ad hominem, but I guess if you're going that far then you'd have to throw out the field of logic too, so then you can commit all the fallacies you want because hey, the father of systemic logic tutored a Macedonian imperialist so all the fundamentals of logic must be flawed, right?
the comparison with the civil war was because twats say it was "States rights" while technically true, it was for the States rights to have slaves.
I compared it with Socrates, because his trial was due to corruption of the youth. which meant corrupting them against democracy into violent tyrants.
the wiki on the 30 tyrants literally has a section called "Socrates and the thirty".
and the wiki on the trial has a section "Association with Alcibiades and the Thirty Tyrants". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Socrates)
Also, worth noting (again), in his apology he never denounced any of his students that committed the genocide. and while he did defy them when asked to provide info on people to kill, he was spared by the tyrants.
From the section in the link you cited:
The reference points to Xenophon's Memorobilia.
Husserl taught Heidegger, and Heidegger became a nazi, but that doesn't make Husserl a nazi. In fact, Husserl was Jewish and had to flee nazi Germany. So you see, a person isn't necessarily responsible for the things one's pupil does.
And from the "Socrates and the thirty" section on the thirty tyrants page:
The only quotes suggesting he was responsible for the thirty tyrants on either page were from a contemporary writer, and it seems more like speculation than anything else.
There's really no compelling evidence suggesting that Socrates was responsible for the thirty tyrants or their slaughter of Athenian citizens.
"Corrupting the youth" simply meant teaching them to think for themselves. The "pious" aristocrats didn't like that sort of thing back then, any more than their ilk like that sort of thing today.
Can you explain how the "introducing new deities" accusation fits into your interpretation of the trial?
pulling them away from the old religion into his grift.
Let's invert the dialogue. do you think someone being sentenced to death, and the same someone's students (whom they failed to denounce or even acknowledge) committing a genocide and a foreign coup, have nothing to do with each other?