知识与信仰：苏格拉底的哲学动机研究
摘要
若研究苏格拉底,许多主题可供选择：他为何年轻时学习自然哲学、后来对伦理问题感兴趣?他的伦理学关注普遍的道德概念还是具体的道德行为?他的哲学与他以前的自然哲学、与他同时代的伟大智者的哲学有何异同?他的理念论与柏拉图的理念论有何不同、能否以它为标准将苏格拉底和柏拉图二人彻底区分开?然而这些研究方式都把苏格拉底的哲学当作某种知识或理论,而本论文将苏格拉底的哲学定义为一种“生活方式”。本论文由审查苏格拉底的哲学动机即苏格拉底为何献身于哲学活动出发,试图得出下列结论：苏格拉底的一切哲学活动旨在促使人们不论生前还是死后,都要关心最重要的事物——自身灵魂的完善,灵魂的完善、道德上不受伤害即幸福。
对苏格拉底哲学动机的最佳解释是他的名言——“未经审查的生活不值得过”。本文结合雅典人对苏格拉底的控告(雅典人从常识的立场看待苏格拉底)以及苏格拉底面对控告所作辩护(苏格拉底从哲学的立场为自身一切哲学活动作解释),从苏格拉底哲学活动的方法论、知识问题以及信仰问题三方面对苏格拉底的哲学活动作解释。
对苏格拉底的任何研究,首先应该为自己的研究对象划定范围,即所研究的是哪个苏格拉底,是历史上的苏格拉底、柏拉图的苏格拉底、色诺芬的苏格拉底,抑或其他人著作中的苏格拉底。本文研究的苏格拉底是以柏拉图《申辩篇》为主、以《欧绪弗洛篇》《克里托篇》等其他早期对话为辅的苏格拉底,其理由在于,早期对话尤其是《申辩篇》中的苏格拉底具有最大程度的历史真实性。
确定了研究的基本范围后,应考证苏格拉底哲学活动中使用的方法——诘问法,以及苏格拉底使用这种方法时的态度——真诚还是反讽。所谓“诘问法”即对话法、问答法。对话过程中,苏格拉底以“说你所相信的”作为对话的基本要求,在不断地提问中使对话者拥有的不同信念陷入自相矛盾,使对话者陷入困惑中。因此,对诘问法的争论主要集中在以下两方面：第一,从对象上看,诘问法的终极目的是审查人的信念还是审查人。其意义在于,如果诘问法是为了追求人们对事物的共同信念,那么它的最终目的在于获得关于事物的定义和知识；如果诘问法是为了审查人,那么它的最终目的在于探究人的信念(“说你所相信的”)在人的一切活动中的作用。第二,从结果上看,诘问法只具有消极作用,即消解人已有的信念,抑或也有积极作用,即能在一定程度上树立起人们对事物的新看法?本文认为,诘问法是苏格拉底不同于之前一切哲学的新的哲学范式,同时也是他的生活方式。
将诘问看作苏格拉底的生活方式,这意味着苏格拉底使用诘问法时态度真诚、绝非反讽。在《申辩篇》中,研究苏格拉底的态度尤为重要,诘问是苏格拉底针对“败坏青年”的控告作辩护时使用的方法,而辩护的成功与否、能否获得审判者们的认可直接导致苏格拉底被释放还是被处死。在这种关联下,认为苏格拉底态度真诚有助于我们更好地理解苏格拉底对死亡的看法。
“苏格拉底的知识和‘教’”这一章,针对“败坏青年”的控告为苏格拉底作辩护。辩护分为三个方面：第一,在知识上,苏格拉底不应该为“败坏青年”负责任。苏格拉底并不否认“知识”本身确实存在,但他否认他本人以及所有具有智慧名声的人确实有这种知识。苏格拉底与有智慧名声的人的根本区别在于：他无知并且意识到自己无知,这就是苏格拉底所具有的“人的智慧”；“人的智慧”与另一种智慧——“神的智慧”——形成鲜明对比。第二,在教育方式上,苏格拉底确实应该为“败坏青年”负责任：从后果上看,苏格拉底的“诘问”确实起到了教导青年的效果。美诺悖论表明,企图教人新知识的做法必定要失败。然而,苏格拉底的“教”不在于教青年以知识,而在于使青年人习得了诘问的生活方式；随之而来的是,使更多有智慧的人的已有信念陷入自相矛盾。这正是哲学教育的意义所在：哲学教育使人意识到自己对最重要事物的无知,进而关心最重要的事物——自身灵魂的完善。第三,对于苏格拉底是否“败坏青年”以及雅典人对“败坏青年”的人的憎恨,应该放在雅典民主政治极大发展、智者运动兴起、传统教育制度以及苏格拉底与智者的相似性这一更大背景环境下加以理解。对此我们应该注意,雅典民主制度的发展和智者专职教师的兴起相得益彰,然而智者运动的过度发展冲击了雅典的传统教育和道德；同时,由于最主要的控告者阿尼图斯即民主政体的领导人之一,因此有必要考察苏格拉底是否真正对雅典民主政体构成了威胁。
“苏格拉底的虔诚、‘服从’和幸福”这一章,针对苏格拉底“不信神灵”即“不虔诚”的控告为苏格拉底作辩护。辩护分为三个方面：第一,从雅典人的立场看,苏格拉底应该为“不虔诚”的控告负责任。对此,我们至少能找出两个理由支持雅典人对苏格拉底的控告：一方面,苏格拉底改变了人与神交流的方式；由传统上祷告、献祭并重,变为单纯的祷告,这容易使人怀疑他对神灵“无所求”、不需要神灵的帮助。另一方面,苏格拉底将自己与英雄(半神)阿基里斯做对比,而且他在审判中、在一切哲学活动中的依据——戴蒙——极具私人性,这使人相信苏格拉底本人自诩为半神,因而苏格拉底不虔诚。第二,从哲学角度看,苏格拉底并没有不虔诚。一个理由在于苏格拉底的所有哲学活动都源自对德尔菲神谕的解读,他坚决“服从”作为上级的神灵所发出命令；以践行德尔菲神谕、证明“苏格拉底最聪明”为自己的终生使命。更重要的理由在于,《申辩篇》中的“服从”与死亡密切相关：若“服从”神灵、坚守使命,则会带来死亡；尽管如此,苏格拉底仍然选择坚守自己的“使命”,只要还活着,就永不止息的进行哲学活动。第三,苏格拉底之所以永不停止哲学活动,原因在于哲学活动能带给他幸福；哲学家的幸福就在于灵魂不受伤害。《申辩篇》中,苏格拉底所讲的灵魂是个整体,绝没有柏拉图中后期哲学中“灵魂三分”的观念；幸福就在于可以与古往今来一切最有智慧的灵魂对话,这为诘问法发挥作用开辟了新领域。
本文主要运用了以下方法：第一,既研究一般概念又研究具体事例：对苏格拉底使用的诘问法进行抽象研究,对苏格拉底的反讽进行具体案例分析。第二,背景还原法,将苏格拉底对“败坏青年”的控告应负的责任放到当时的希腊政治、教育背景下加以理解。第三,论证苏格拉底的某些观点时,从古希腊词语的原意作解释。
本文通过对《申辩篇》的考察得出以下主要结论：第一,在雅典,哲学的合法性从来未出现危机,苏格拉底之所以被控告是由于他把哲学由一种理论思维、知识体系转变为生活的态度和方式。第二,“败坏青年”这一控告具有一定程度的合理性,因为在雅典人看来苏格拉底的诘问法和智者的辩论术有着相同的修辞学功能——使对话者陷入自相矛盾从而驳倒对方。第三,“不信神灵”的控告也具有一定程度的合理性,苏格拉底改变了人与神交流的方式。但是这并不能说明苏格拉底不虔诚；要么生要么死的对比更能体现苏格拉底对神灵的虔诚。第四,苏格拉底是个幸福主义者,他不仅关心自己的幸福,同时关心他人的幸福。
本文的结论力图冲击人们对苏格拉底的传统看法,即苏格拉底的被控告和被处死既冤枉又高尚、他是哲学和道德的殉葬者,以及,苏格拉底以理性论证为自身一切行为的最终依据、他是理性主义哲学传统的开端。本文力图给人们留下这种印象：苏格拉底确实应该为“败坏青年”和“不信神灵”的控告负责任；然而这并不意味着苏格拉底是智者或他不虔诚。相反,支撑这一切的是他对神灵的服从和虔诚：虔诚使得他不论生前还是死后,以诘问法追求灵魂的幸福和满足。
People do research on Socrates from a variety range of topics:why does Socrates do research on natural philosophy when he is young, but interest in ethics when he grows up? Does he focus on different conceptions/definitions of virtues or particular moral activities? What is the difference between his philosophy and many great Pre-Socratic natural philosophers or sophists? What are the differences between his and Plato's'idea theory'? Could we take 'idea theory' as a standard to differentiate Socrates from Plato? All above researches take Socrates' philosophy as some kind of knowledge or theory. In contrast, this dissertation defines Socrates' philosophy as some certain kind of'life style'. We aimed to argue for the following thesis:whenever people are live or dead, all of Socrates philosophizing aimed to urge people caring for the most important things. That is perfecting your souls. It is the greatest happiness.
This dissertation focus on Socrates motive to do philosophizing, that is equal to say why does Socrates devote his whole life to philosophizing? I hold that Socrates'motto, the unexamined life is not worth living, is the best explanation to the question. Under the consideration of Athens' accusation to Socrates and Socrates' responding, this dissertation will give explanations to Socrates' Philosophizing on three aspects: Socrates' method to do philosophizing, his views on knowledge, and his points on faith.
Whenever you want to do some research on Socrates, first of all, you'd better make it clear what do you mean by the word 'Socrates'. Is it the historical person, or the literature figure which is described in Plato or Xenophon's books? This dissertation takes Socrates in Plato' early dialogues (the Apology, Euthyphro, and Crito), especially the Apology, as the researching object. For the trial of Socrates is a public affair, and the Apology is the work has a high degree of historical reliability.
After determining the research object, the following step is to examine Socrates' method to do philosophizing, which is named elenchus, and his attitude, whether he is sincere or irony. Elenchus is a dialogue or ask-answer method. In the process of dialogue, Socrates takes'say what you belief as the basic requirement to the interlocutor; and the result is that the interlocutor find his believes contrary with each other. The debate on elenchus concentrated mainly on two aspects:first, what is the ultimate purpose of elenchus? Does it take the interlocutor's believes or the interlocutor himself as the object? If the interlocutor's belief, it will be pursuing knowledge and definition of things as the end of elenchus. If the interlocutor himself, the elenchus' ultimate end will be exploring what kind of role does one's belief play in his life. Second, what is the result of elenchus? Does it purely destructive, clearing up ones' believes, or it has also the positive effect, bringing one with new views? The dissertation holds that elenchus is the new paradigm of philosophy, which is totally differentiate with natural philosophy before Socrates. Meanwhile, it is Socrates'life style.
Taking elenchus as Socrates' life style, it means that Socrates is sincere but not irony when he talks with the interlocutors. It is especially important to research Socrates' attitude to do philosophizing in the Apology, for Socrates takes elenchus as his method to offering defense. As long as he failed the defense, he will be sentenced to death. So taking Socrates' attitude as sincerity, it will help us to get a better understand of Socrates' view on death.
Chapter3, Socrates' knowledge and 'teaching', argues for Socrates Against the accusation 'corrupting the youth'. The whole argument constitutes three parts. Firstly, Socrates has no responsibility to the charge' corrupting the youth' from the consideration of knowledge. Socrates has never denied that the knowledge itself does exist, but he tries his best to prove that both he and the persons with a wise fame possess no such knowledge. Socrates has some kind of 'human wisdom' which means that when Socrates doesn't know something, neither does he think he knows. It is the fundamentally difference between Socrates and the wise-fame persons. There is a sharp contrast between the 'human wisdom' and 'a wisdom more than human'. Secondly, Socrates has responsibility to the charge 'corrupting the youth' from the consideration of his teaching method. Socrates' elenchus does have the consequence of leading the youth. From the Meno paradox, we conclude that all activities aimed at imparting knowledge to others are doomed to failure. However, what Socrates'teaching cares for is not imparting knowledge, but the life style. It makes more and more people taking elenchus as their life style. What follows is that more and more wise-fame people are exposed to be ignorance. It lies in the significance of philosophy education:it brings persons realizing that they are ignorance on the most important things, that is improve ones'soul; and further more, it leads persons to care for their souls. Thirdly, we'd better try to understand Socrates''corrupting the youth'under the more broad background: Athens democracy has made a great development, sophist-movement springs up, and the similarity between Socrates and sophists. We should pay attention to two aspects:on the one hand, Athens-democracy flourishing and the sophist-movement rising benefited each other, however, the sophist-movement goes so far that it impacts the traditional morality and education. On the other hand, Anytus, the main accuser, is the leader of democracy Athens, it is necessary to examine whether Socrates does threaten the Athens-democracy.
Chapter4, Socrates' piety,'obedience' and happiness, argues for Socrates Against the accusation' don't believe the god which is believed by the city', or briefly, the accusation of'impiety'. The argument also constitutes three parts. Firstly, from the standpoint of the Athens, Socrates has the responsibility to the charge of'impiety'. We could find out at least two reasons to support their accusation:for one thing, Socrates changed the communication form between human beings and divinity. Traditionally, people both sacrifice and pray to divinity. However, Socrates makes a lot of prayer but never sacrifice to divinity. For the other thing, Socrates compared himself with the hemi-divinity Achilles, meanwhile, he takes his daimon——the totally private divinity——as his ultimate ground for his whole defense. This brings people imagine that Socrates takes himself as hemi-divinity. Secondly, from the standpoint of philosophy, Socrates has never committed impiety. For, from the interpretation to the Delphic oracle, he got his lifetime mission. What is most important, obeying or refusing the Delphic oracle is closely connected with death. Obeying the oracle will bring him death. But under the threat of death, Socrates was unmoved to practice his philosophizing:as long as he draws breath and is able, he shall not cease to practice philosophy. Thirdly, the reason for Socrates'never ceasing philosophizing is that philosophizing will bring him happiness. Philosophers take the undamaged soul as their great happiness. What Socrates said about soul in the Apology is totally different from the tri-parted soul in Plato'middle and late dialogues. Talking with the most intelligent souls eternally in Hades, this is the greatest happiness.
This dissertation uses the following methods:firstly, both do research on general conceptions and detail cases. We give abstract analysis on Socrates' elenchus method, then, we analyze Socrates'irony in the trial. Secondly, go back to the background. Understanding the background of Athens democracy and educational tradition of Socrates' time, we could get a better understanding of the charge'corrupting the youth'. Thirdly, when arguing for some of Socrates views, we seek for help from the Ancient Greek words.
After examining the Apology, we arrived at the following conclusions:firstly, the Athenian has never oppugned the legality of philosophy. Socrates was accused, for he shifted philosophy from theoretical thinking to a life style. Secondly, it is reasonable to accuse Socrates for 'corrupting the youth'. Both Socrates' elenchus and sophists' sophistry have the same rhetoric function:the trap the interlocutors into self-contradiction. Thirdly, it is also reasonable to accuse Socrates for 'don' t believe the god', for Socrates changed the way of communication between human beings and gods. However, it has never proved that Socrates is impiety. Socrates' piety was best presented in the contrast——to live, or go to die. Fourthly, Socrates is a eudaimonist, he cares about both his and others happiness.
Our conclusions tried to impact the traditional views on Socrates' death:Socrates was wronged and noble when he was sentenced to death. This dissertation tries to leave readers the following impression:Socrates does have obligation to the two charges-'corrupting the youth' and 'don't believe gods'. However, it doesn't mean that Socrates is impiety. Reversely, Socrates has a steady ground for all of the above arguments: whenever he is alive or after death, piety urges him to pursue happiness with the method of elenchus.
对苏格拉底哲学动机的最佳解释是他的名言——“未经审查的生活不值得过”。本文结合雅典人对苏格拉底的控告(雅典人从常识的立场看待苏格拉底)以及苏格拉底面对控告所作辩护(苏格拉底从哲学的立场为自身一切哲学活动作解释),从苏格拉底哲学活动的方法论、知识问题以及信仰问题三方面对苏格拉底的哲学活动作解释。
对苏格拉底的任何研究,首先应该为自己的研究对象划定范围,即所研究的是哪个苏格拉底,是历史上的苏格拉底、柏拉图的苏格拉底、色诺芬的苏格拉底,抑或其他人著作中的苏格拉底。本文研究的苏格拉底是以柏拉图《申辩篇》为主、以《欧绪弗洛篇》《克里托篇》等其他早期对话为辅的苏格拉底,其理由在于,早期对话尤其是《申辩篇》中的苏格拉底具有最大程度的历史真实性。
确定了研究的基本范围后,应考证苏格拉底哲学活动中使用的方法——诘问法,以及苏格拉底使用这种方法时的态度——真诚还是反讽。所谓“诘问法”即对话法、问答法。对话过程中,苏格拉底以“说你所相信的”作为对话的基本要求,在不断地提问中使对话者拥有的不同信念陷入自相矛盾,使对话者陷入困惑中。因此,对诘问法的争论主要集中在以下两方面：第一,从对象上看,诘问法的终极目的是审查人的信念还是审查人。其意义在于,如果诘问法是为了追求人们对事物的共同信念,那么它的最终目的在于获得关于事物的定义和知识；如果诘问法是为了审查人,那么它的最终目的在于探究人的信念(“说你所相信的”)在人的一切活动中的作用。第二,从结果上看,诘问法只具有消极作用,即消解人已有的信念,抑或也有积极作用,即能在一定程度上树立起人们对事物的新看法?本文认为,诘问法是苏格拉底不同于之前一切哲学的新的哲学范式,同时也是他的生活方式。
将诘问看作苏格拉底的生活方式,这意味着苏格拉底使用诘问法时态度真诚、绝非反讽。在《申辩篇》中,研究苏格拉底的态度尤为重要,诘问是苏格拉底针对“败坏青年”的控告作辩护时使用的方法,而辩护的成功与否、能否获得审判者们的认可直接导致苏格拉底被释放还是被处死。在这种关联下,认为苏格拉底态度真诚有助于我们更好地理解苏格拉底对死亡的看法。
“苏格拉底的知识和‘教’”这一章,针对“败坏青年”的控告为苏格拉底作辩护。辩护分为三个方面：第一,在知识上,苏格拉底不应该为“败坏青年”负责任。苏格拉底并不否认“知识”本身确实存在,但他否认他本人以及所有具有智慧名声的人确实有这种知识。苏格拉底与有智慧名声的人的根本区别在于：他无知并且意识到自己无知,这就是苏格拉底所具有的“人的智慧”；“人的智慧”与另一种智慧——“神的智慧”——形成鲜明对比。第二,在教育方式上,苏格拉底确实应该为“败坏青年”负责任：从后果上看,苏格拉底的“诘问”确实起到了教导青年的效果。美诺悖论表明,企图教人新知识的做法必定要失败。然而,苏格拉底的“教”不在于教青年以知识,而在于使青年人习得了诘问的生活方式；随之而来的是,使更多有智慧的人的已有信念陷入自相矛盾。这正是哲学教育的意义所在：哲学教育使人意识到自己对最重要事物的无知,进而关心最重要的事物——自身灵魂的完善。第三,对于苏格拉底是否“败坏青年”以及雅典人对“败坏青年”的人的憎恨,应该放在雅典民主政治极大发展、智者运动兴起、传统教育制度以及苏格拉底与智者的相似性这一更大背景环境下加以理解。对此我们应该注意,雅典民主制度的发展和智者专职教师的兴起相得益彰,然而智者运动的过度发展冲击了雅典的传统教育和道德；同时,由于最主要的控告者阿尼图斯即民主政体的领导人之一,因此有必要考察苏格拉底是否真正对雅典民主政体构成了威胁。
“苏格拉底的虔诚、‘服从’和幸福”这一章,针对苏格拉底“不信神灵”即“不虔诚”的控告为苏格拉底作辩护。辩护分为三个方面：第一,从雅典人的立场看,苏格拉底应该为“不虔诚”的控告负责任。对此,我们至少能找出两个理由支持雅典人对苏格拉底的控告：一方面,苏格拉底改变了人与神交流的方式；由传统上祷告、献祭并重,变为单纯的祷告,这容易使人怀疑他对神灵“无所求”、不需要神灵的帮助。另一方面,苏格拉底将自己与英雄(半神)阿基里斯做对比,而且他在审判中、在一切哲学活动中的依据——戴蒙——极具私人性,这使人相信苏格拉底本人自诩为半神,因而苏格拉底不虔诚。第二,从哲学角度看,苏格拉底并没有不虔诚。一个理由在于苏格拉底的所有哲学活动都源自对德尔菲神谕的解读,他坚决“服从”作为上级的神灵所发出命令；以践行德尔菲神谕、证明“苏格拉底最聪明”为自己的终生使命。更重要的理由在于,《申辩篇》中的“服从”与死亡密切相关：若“服从”神灵、坚守使命,则会带来死亡；尽管如此,苏格拉底仍然选择坚守自己的“使命”,只要还活着,就永不止息的进行哲学活动。第三,苏格拉底之所以永不停止哲学活动,原因在于哲学活动能带给他幸福；哲学家的幸福就在于灵魂不受伤害。《申辩篇》中,苏格拉底所讲的灵魂是个整体,绝没有柏拉图中后期哲学中“灵魂三分”的观念；幸福就在于可以与古往今来一切最有智慧的灵魂对话,这为诘问法发挥作用开辟了新领域。
本文主要运用了以下方法：第一,既研究一般概念又研究具体事例：对苏格拉底使用的诘问法进行抽象研究,对苏格拉底的反讽进行具体案例分析。第二,背景还原法,将苏格拉底对“败坏青年”的控告应负的责任放到当时的希腊政治、教育背景下加以理解。第三,论证苏格拉底的某些观点时,从古希腊词语的原意作解释。
本文通过对《申辩篇》的考察得出以下主要结论：第一,在雅典,哲学的合法性从来未出现危机,苏格拉底之所以被控告是由于他把哲学由一种理论思维、知识体系转变为生活的态度和方式。第二,“败坏青年”这一控告具有一定程度的合理性,因为在雅典人看来苏格拉底的诘问法和智者的辩论术有着相同的修辞学功能——使对话者陷入自相矛盾从而驳倒对方。第三,“不信神灵”的控告也具有一定程度的合理性,苏格拉底改变了人与神交流的方式。但是这并不能说明苏格拉底不虔诚；要么生要么死的对比更能体现苏格拉底对神灵的虔诚。第四,苏格拉底是个幸福主义者,他不仅关心自己的幸福,同时关心他人的幸福。
本文的结论力图冲击人们对苏格拉底的传统看法,即苏格拉底的被控告和被处死既冤枉又高尚、他是哲学和道德的殉葬者,以及,苏格拉底以理性论证为自身一切行为的最终依据、他是理性主义哲学传统的开端。本文力图给人们留下这种印象：苏格拉底确实应该为“败坏青年”和“不信神灵”的控告负责任；然而这并不意味着苏格拉底是智者或他不虔诚。相反,支撑这一切的是他对神灵的服从和虔诚：虔诚使得他不论生前还是死后,以诘问法追求灵魂的幸福和满足。
People do research on Socrates from a variety range of topics:why does Socrates do research on natural philosophy when he is young, but interest in ethics when he grows up? Does he focus on different conceptions/definitions of virtues or particular moral activities? What is the difference between his philosophy and many great Pre-Socratic natural philosophers or sophists? What are the differences between his and Plato's'idea theory'? Could we take 'idea theory' as a standard to differentiate Socrates from Plato? All above researches take Socrates' philosophy as some kind of knowledge or theory. In contrast, this dissertation defines Socrates' philosophy as some certain kind of'life style'. We aimed to argue for the following thesis:whenever people are live or dead, all of Socrates philosophizing aimed to urge people caring for the most important things. That is perfecting your souls. It is the greatest happiness.
This dissertation focus on Socrates motive to do philosophizing, that is equal to say why does Socrates devote his whole life to philosophizing? I hold that Socrates'motto, the unexamined life is not worth living, is the best explanation to the question. Under the consideration of Athens' accusation to Socrates and Socrates' responding, this dissertation will give explanations to Socrates' Philosophizing on three aspects: Socrates' method to do philosophizing, his views on knowledge, and his points on faith.
Whenever you want to do some research on Socrates, first of all, you'd better make it clear what do you mean by the word 'Socrates'. Is it the historical person, or the literature figure which is described in Plato or Xenophon's books? This dissertation takes Socrates in Plato' early dialogues (the Apology, Euthyphro, and Crito), especially the Apology, as the researching object. For the trial of Socrates is a public affair, and the Apology is the work has a high degree of historical reliability.
After determining the research object, the following step is to examine Socrates' method to do philosophizing, which is named elenchus, and his attitude, whether he is sincere or irony. Elenchus is a dialogue or ask-answer method. In the process of dialogue, Socrates takes'say what you belief as the basic requirement to the interlocutor; and the result is that the interlocutor find his believes contrary with each other. The debate on elenchus concentrated mainly on two aspects:first, what is the ultimate purpose of elenchus? Does it take the interlocutor's believes or the interlocutor himself as the object? If the interlocutor's belief, it will be pursuing knowledge and definition of things as the end of elenchus. If the interlocutor himself, the elenchus' ultimate end will be exploring what kind of role does one's belief play in his life. Second, what is the result of elenchus? Does it purely destructive, clearing up ones' believes, or it has also the positive effect, bringing one with new views? The dissertation holds that elenchus is the new paradigm of philosophy, which is totally differentiate with natural philosophy before Socrates. Meanwhile, it is Socrates'life style.
Taking elenchus as Socrates' life style, it means that Socrates is sincere but not irony when he talks with the interlocutors. It is especially important to research Socrates' attitude to do philosophizing in the Apology, for Socrates takes elenchus as his method to offering defense. As long as he failed the defense, he will be sentenced to death. So taking Socrates' attitude as sincerity, it will help us to get a better understand of Socrates' view on death.
Chapter3, Socrates' knowledge and 'teaching', argues for Socrates Against the accusation 'corrupting the youth'. The whole argument constitutes three parts. Firstly, Socrates has no responsibility to the charge' corrupting the youth' from the consideration of knowledge. Socrates has never denied that the knowledge itself does exist, but he tries his best to prove that both he and the persons with a wise fame possess no such knowledge. Socrates has some kind of 'human wisdom' which means that when Socrates doesn't know something, neither does he think he knows. It is the fundamentally difference between Socrates and the wise-fame persons. There is a sharp contrast between the 'human wisdom' and 'a wisdom more than human'. Secondly, Socrates has responsibility to the charge 'corrupting the youth' from the consideration of his teaching method. Socrates' elenchus does have the consequence of leading the youth. From the Meno paradox, we conclude that all activities aimed at imparting knowledge to others are doomed to failure. However, what Socrates'teaching cares for is not imparting knowledge, but the life style. It makes more and more people taking elenchus as their life style. What follows is that more and more wise-fame people are exposed to be ignorance. It lies in the significance of philosophy education:it brings persons realizing that they are ignorance on the most important things, that is improve ones'soul; and further more, it leads persons to care for their souls. Thirdly, we'd better try to understand Socrates''corrupting the youth'under the more broad background: Athens democracy has made a great development, sophist-movement springs up, and the similarity between Socrates and sophists. We should pay attention to two aspects:on the one hand, Athens-democracy flourishing and the sophist-movement rising benefited each other, however, the sophist-movement goes so far that it impacts the traditional morality and education. On the other hand, Anytus, the main accuser, is the leader of democracy Athens, it is necessary to examine whether Socrates does threaten the Athens-democracy.
Chapter4, Socrates' piety,'obedience' and happiness, argues for Socrates Against the accusation' don't believe the god which is believed by the city', or briefly, the accusation of'impiety'. The argument also constitutes three parts. Firstly, from the standpoint of the Athens, Socrates has the responsibility to the charge of'impiety'. We could find out at least two reasons to support their accusation:for one thing, Socrates changed the communication form between human beings and divinity. Traditionally, people both sacrifice and pray to divinity. However, Socrates makes a lot of prayer but never sacrifice to divinity. For the other thing, Socrates compared himself with the hemi-divinity Achilles, meanwhile, he takes his daimon——the totally private divinity——as his ultimate ground for his whole defense. This brings people imagine that Socrates takes himself as hemi-divinity. Secondly, from the standpoint of philosophy, Socrates has never committed impiety. For, from the interpretation to the Delphic oracle, he got his lifetime mission. What is most important, obeying or refusing the Delphic oracle is closely connected with death. Obeying the oracle will bring him death. But under the threat of death, Socrates was unmoved to practice his philosophizing:as long as he draws breath and is able, he shall not cease to practice philosophy. Thirdly, the reason for Socrates'never ceasing philosophizing is that philosophizing will bring him happiness. Philosophers take the undamaged soul as their great happiness. What Socrates said about soul in the Apology is totally different from the tri-parted soul in Plato'middle and late dialogues. Talking with the most intelligent souls eternally in Hades, this is the greatest happiness.
This dissertation uses the following methods:firstly, both do research on general conceptions and detail cases. We give abstract analysis on Socrates' elenchus method, then, we analyze Socrates'irony in the trial. Secondly, go back to the background. Understanding the background of Athens democracy and educational tradition of Socrates' time, we could get a better understanding of the charge'corrupting the youth'. Thirdly, when arguing for some of Socrates views, we seek for help from the Ancient Greek words.
After examining the Apology, we arrived at the following conclusions:firstly, the Athenian has never oppugned the legality of philosophy. Socrates was accused, for he shifted philosophy from theoretical thinking to a life style. Secondly, it is reasonable to accuse Socrates for 'corrupting the youth'. Both Socrates' elenchus and sophists' sophistry have the same rhetoric function:the trap the interlocutors into self-contradiction. Thirdly, it is also reasonable to accuse Socrates for 'don' t believe the god', for Socrates changed the way of communication between human beings and gods. However, it has never proved that Socrates is impiety. Socrates' piety was best presented in the contrast——to live, or go to die. Fourthly, Socrates is a eudaimonist, he cares about both his and others happiness.
Our conclusions tried to impact the traditional views on Socrates' death:Socrates was wronged and noble when he was sentenced to death. This dissertation tries to leave readers the following impression:Socrates does have obligation to the two charges-'corrupting the youth' and 'don't believe gods'. However, it doesn't mean that Socrates is impiety. Reversely, Socrates has a steady ground for all of the above arguments: whenever he is alive or after death, piety urges him to pursue happiness with the method of elenchus.
引文
① [丹]克尔凯郭尔：《论反讽概念：以苏格拉底为主线》,汤晨溪译,北京：中国社会科学出版社,2005,第7-8页
① Gregory Vlastos, On 'The Socrates Story', in Political Theory, vol.7, No.4,1979, pp.533-536:p.534
② Gregory Vlastos. On 'The Socrates Story', in Political Theory, vol.7, No.4,1979, pp.533-536; p.533
③ Charles H Kahn, Plato and the Socratic dialogue, New York:Cambridge University Press,1996, pp. xiii-xv
① Mark L. McPherran, The Religion of Socrates, Pennsylvania:The Pennsylvania State University Press,1996, p.1//
① C.D.C. Reeve, Socrates in the Apology, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1989, p.162, pp.45-52
① C.D.C. Reeve, Socrates in the Apology, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1989, p.162, p.164
① C.D.C. Reeve, Socrates in the Apology, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1989, pp.75-76
② C.D.C. Reeve, Socrates in the Apology, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1989, p.82
③ Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Plato's Socrates, New York:Oxford University Press,1994, p.187
④ Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Plato's Socrates, New York:Oxford University Press,1994, p.184
① Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Plato's Socrates, New York:Oxford University Press,1994, p.183
② (ed.)Nicholas D. Smith and Paul B. Woodruff, Reason and Religion in Socratic Philosophy, New York:Oxford University Press,2000, p.17
③ Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Socrates on Trial, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1989, p.95
④ C.D.C. Reeve, Socrates in the Apology. Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1989, pp.63-65
① Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Socrates on Trial, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1989, p.244
② Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Socrates on Trial, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1989, p.239
① C.D.C. Reeve, Socrates in the Apology, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1989, p.114
② Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Socrates on Trial, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1989, pp.245-247
① Richard Kraut, Socrates and the State, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1984, p.194
① 关于汉语语境下希腊哲学研究进程的详细描述,参见胡孝根博士论文：《柏拉图对话文体与思想创制之关系》(浙江大学,2009)第12-18页。
① Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Socrates on Trial, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1989, p.98
① Neal Wood,'Socrates as Political Partisan', in Canadian Journal of Political Science, vol.7, No.1,1974, pp.3-31; p.4
① Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Socrates on Trial, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1989, pp.3-9
② Charles H. Kahn, Review:Vlastos "s Socrates, Phronesis,, Vol.37, No.2(1992), p.234
③ Gregory Vlastos, Socrates, Ironist and Moral Philosopher, New York:Cambridge University Press,1991, pp48-49
① A.E.Taylor, Parmenides, Zeno, and Socrates, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, Vol.16(1915-1916,pp.234-289),P.237
① John Burnet, Greek Philosophy:Thales to Plato, Macmillan and Co., London,1928, pp.133-134
② John Burnet, Greek Philosophy:Thales to Plato, Macmillan and Co., London,1928, p.154
③ John Burnet, Greek Philosophy:Thales to Plato, Macmillan and Co., London,1928, p.155
④ (Ed.)C.D.C Reeve and Patrick Lee Miller, Introductory readings in ancient Greek and Roman Philosophy, P13,转引自Clement, Miscellanies 6.23; Plotinus5.1.8=28B.2.
① Gregory Vlastos, Socrates:ironist and moral philosopher, New York:Cambridge University Press,1991, p.365
① Charles H. Kahn, Review:Vlastos's Socrates, Phronesis,, Vol.37, No.2(1992),pp233-258, p234
② Charles H. Kahn, Review:Vlastos's Socrates, Phronesis,, Vol.37, No.2(1992),pp233-258, p235-6
① Eric Alfred Havelock. The Evidence for the Teaching of Socrates. Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol.65(1934), pp.282-295
② Gregory Vlastos, The Socratic Elenchus, The Journal of Philosophy, Vol.79, No.11,(Nov.,1982), pp.712-714
③ C.D.C. Reeve, Socrates in the Apology, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1989, p.157
① J.O.Lofberg, The Trial of Socrates. The Classical Journal. Vol.23, NO.8(May,1928), pp.601-609
① (ed.)Hugh H.Benson, A company to Plato, Blackwell Publishing Ltd,2006, p56
② Eric Alfred Havelock, The Evidence for the Teaching of Socrates, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol.65,1934,pp282-295
③ Charles H.Kahn:Plato and the Socratic dialogue, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1996, p1-35
① Charles H.Kahn:Plato and the Socratic dialogue, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1996, p26
② Charles H.Kahn:Plato and the Socratic dialogue, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1996, p28
③ Richard Robinson, Plato's Earlier Dialectic, Oxford University Press,1951
④ Gregory Vlastos. The Socratic elenchus, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Vol.1,1983, p28
⑤ Gregory Vlastos, The Socratic elenchus, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Vol.1,1983, p30
① Gregory Vlastos, The Socratic elenchus, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Vol.1,1983, p30
⑤ Gregory Vlastos, The Socratic elenchus, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Vol.1,1983, pp52-54
① Donald R. Morrison, The Cambridge Companion to Socrates, New York:Cambridge University Press,2011, p185
② Richard Kraut, Comments on Gregory Vlastos'"The Socratic Elenchus", Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Vol.1,1983, p62
③ Richard Kraut, Comments on Gregory Vlastos'"The Socratic Elenchus", Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Vol.1,1983, p62
① Richard Kraut, Comments on Gregory Vlastos'"The Socratic Elenchus", Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Vol.1,1983, p60
② Richard Kraut, Comments on Gregory Vlastos'"The Socratic Elenchus", Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Vol.1,1983, pp66-67
① Richard Kraut, Comments on Gregory Vlastos'"The Socratic Elenchus", Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Vol.1,1983, p70
② (ed.)Gary Alan Scott, Does Socrates Have a Method? The Pennsylvania State University Press,2002, p37
③ (ed.)Gary Alan Scott, Does Socrates Have a Method? The Pennsylvania State University Press,2002, pp110-111
④ Donald R. Morrison, The Cambridge Companion to Socrates, New York:Cambridge University Press,2011, p180
① (ed.)Gary Alan Scott, Does Socrates Have a Method? The Pennsylvania State University Press,2002, pl05
② Donald R. Morrison, The Cambridge Companion to Socrates, New York:Cambridge University Press,2011, pp.186-7
① Donald R. Morrison, The Cambridge Companion to Socrates, New York:Cambridge University Press,2011, p190
② Donald R. Morrison, The Cambridge Companion to Socrates, New York:Cambridge University Press,2011, p185-6
① Ronald M.Polansky, Professor Vlastos's Analysis of Socratic Elenchus, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Vol.3,1985, p254
② Ronald M.Polansky, Professor Vlastos's Analysis of Socratic Elenchus, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Vol.3,1985, p257
③ Ronald M.Polansky, Professor Vlastos's Analysis of Socratic Elenchus, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Vol.3,1985, pp256-258
④ (ed.)Sora Ahbel-Rappe and Rachana Kantekar, A Companion to Socrates, Blackwell Publishing Ltd,2006, p442
① (ed.)Sora Ahbel-Rappe and Rachana Kantekar, A Companion to Socrates, Blackwell Publishing Ltd,2006, p258
② (ed.)Gary Alan Scott, Does Socrates Have a Method? The Pennsylvania State University Press,2002, pp147-156
① Thomas C.Brickhouse and Nicholas D.Smith, Vlastos on the Elenchus, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Vol.2,1984, p187
② Thomas C.Brickhouse and Nicholas D.Smith, Vlastos on the Elenchus, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Vol.2,1984, p194
③ (ed.)Hugh H.Benson, A company to Plato, Blackwell Publishing Ltd,2006, p59
④ (ed.)Gary Alan Scott, Does Socrates Have a Method? The Pennsylvania State University Press,2002, p63
⑤ (ed.)Gary Alan Scott, Does Socrates Have a Method? The Pennsylvania State University Press,2002, p65-68
① (ed.)Gary Alan Scott, Does Socrates Have a Method? The Pennsylvania State University Press,2002, pp69-72
① [英]F.M.康福德：《苏格拉底前后》,孙艳萍译,上海：上海人民出版社,2009,第5页
② [英]F.M.康福德：《苏格拉底前后》,孙艳萍译,上海：上海人民出版社,2009,第17页
③ 我们应当注意,此处的“认识你自己”并不关乎自我知识,它并没有太多知识论的含义；而是表述人与神之间不可逾越的界限,使人警醒、不要将自己置于神的位置。“认识你自己”作为神庙上镌刻的格言,它与公元前五世纪的许多格言一样,关心界限、谦逊和神灵；与赫拉克利特、苏格拉底等哲人的格言有着极不相同的形式。赫拉克利特、苏格拉底的格言考虑的是一种特殊的、新颖的“生活方式”的基础问题。见Harvey S. Goldman, Reexamining the 'Examined life' in Plato's Apology of Socrates, in The Philosophical Forum, Vol.35., No.1, Spring 2004, pp.1-33; p.8
① [德]黑格尔：《逻辑学》(上卷)杨一之译,北京：商务印书馆,2010,第29页
① Harvey S. Goldman, Reexamining the 'Examined life' in Plato's Apology of Socrates, in The Philosophical Forum, Vol.35., No.1, Spring 2004, pp.1-33; p.3, p.32
② Werner Jaeger, Paideia:The Ideals of Greel Culture, vol.2:In Search of the Divine Centre, trans. Gilbert Highet, New York:Oxford University Pres,1943, p46
① E.R.Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational, Berkeley and Los Angeles:University of California Press,1959, p.193
① (ed.)Julia Annas, New Perspectives on Plato:Modern and Ancient, Massachusetts:Cambridge University Press, 2002, p.40
① 本文以“反讽”一词来翻译英文单词irony和希腊词εlρωvεiα;但需要单独指出的是,irony并没有欺骗之意,而εlρωvεiα则具有多种涵义。
② Gregory Vlastos:Socrates:Ironist and Moral Philosopher, New York:Cambridge University Press,1991, p28
① Gregory Vlastos:Socrates:Ironist and Moral Philosopher, New York:Cambridge University Press,1991, pp22-26
② Gregory Vlastos:Socrates:Ironist and Moral Philosopher, New York:Cambridge University Press,1991, p28
③ Gregory Vlastos:Socrates:Ironist and Moral Philosopher, New York:Cambridge University Press,1991, p21
④ Gregory Vlastos:Socrates:Ironist and Moral Philosopher, New York:Cambridge University Press,1991, p29
① “在很好的掌握了法庭言辞这门技艺时却说他对它一无所知,这很符合苏格拉底”,“否认熟悉法庭演说是苏格拉底式反讽的一部分”,参见J. Burnet:Plato's Euthyphro, Apology of Socrates, and Crito. Oxford:Clarendon,1924,p59,p67；苏格拉底自称无能力做演说,但接下来的演说却是修辞学的杰作,这是苏格拉底第一层意义上的反讽,参见R.E. Allen, Socrates and legal Obligation. Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1980, p6
① C.D.C. Reeve, Socrates in the Apology, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1989, p5
② Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Socrates on Trial, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1989, p56
① Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Socrates on Trial, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1989, P77
② 一张纸上的希腊语辩护词念3分钟,控告词有n张,经过换算苏格拉底大约有53分钟作辩护；MacDowell:计算被告一方有2小时12分钟的时间辩护。因此,被控告者苏格拉底也拥有同样长的辩护时间。参见Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Socrates on Trial, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1989, p76
① R.E. Allen, Socrates and legal obligation, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1980, p7
① 莫里斯认为,即使其他城邦不能像苏格拉底的母邦雅典那样容忍他70年,忍受他35年是没问题的；很明显,莫里斯的这种看法忽略了雅典城邦独特的民主制政治制度,这种制度为苏格拉底式的“自由人”进行哲学活动、审查自己和他人提供了必要条件；离开了这种言论自由的氛围,在僭主制政体下的斯巴达等城邦,这种自由的哲学审查活动是不可能的。但即使如此,其他城邦仍能够在一定时间内容忍苏格拉底的哲学活动。因而我们基本同意莫里斯的看法：已经70岁的行将朽木的苏格拉底,即使被不断地由一个城邦驱逐到另一个城邦,这种流浪也不会持续太久,对苏格拉底而言也应该是可以接受的生活。(参见Thomas F. Morris, Why Socrates does not request exile in the Apology? In The Heythrop Journal,2011, pp.1-13; p.5)
① Thomas F. Morris, Why Socrates does not request exile in the Apology? In The Heythrop Journal,2011, pp.1-13; P.9
② Thomas F. Morris, The way in which Socrates is religious:The epilogue of the first speech of the Apology, In The Heythrop Journal,2011, pp.2-13; p.7
② Plato,Complete Works,(ed.)John M.Coope,Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1997,p33,注释8
② J.F.Humphrey, There is good hope that death is a blessing, in Re-Imaging Death and Dying, (ed.)Dennis R Cooley and Lloyd Steffen, Oxford:Inter-Disciplinary Press,2009.pp.25-32; p.29
① J.F.Humphrey, There is good hope that death is a blessing, in Re-Imaging Death and Dying, (ed.)Dennis R Cooley and Lloyd Steffen, Oxford:Inter-Disciplinary Press,2009,pp.25-32; p.28
① R.E. Allen, Socrates and legal obligation, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1980, p13
② 转引自R.E. Allen, Socrates and legal obligation, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1980, p11
③ Marina McCoy, Plato on the Rhetoric of Philosophers and Sophist, New York:Cambridge University Press,2008, p.24
① C.D.C. Reeve, Socrates in the Apology, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1989, p8
② Kenneth Seeskin, Poverty and Sincerity in the Apology, in Philosophy and Literature,1992(16:1), p.130
① James A. Colaiaco, Socrates Against Athens:Philosophy on Trial, New York:Routledge,2001, p.57
② C.D.C. Reeve, Socrates in the Apology, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1989, pp.30-31
① James A. Colaiaco, Socrates Against Athens:Philosophy on Trial, New York:Routledge,2001, p.70
② James A. Colaiaco, Socrates Against Athens:Philosophy on Trial, New York:Routledge,2001, p.70
① Hugh H. Benson, Socratic Wisdom:The Model of Knowledge in Plato's Early Dialogues, New York:Oxford University Press,2000, p.178
② Norman Gulley, The Philosophy of Socrates, London:MacMillan and Co.Ltd,1968, p.69,转引自Gregory Vlastos, Socratic Studies, (ed.)Myles Burnyeat, New York:Cambridge University Press,1994, p.39
③ Terence Irwin, Plato's Moral Theory:The Early and Middle Dialogues, Oxford:Clarendon Press,1977, pp.39-40,转引自Gregory Vlastos, Socratic Studies, (ed.)Myles Burnyeat, New York:Cambridge University Press,1994, p.39
④ Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Plato s Socrates, New York:Oxford University Press,1994, p.31
① Hugh H. Benson, Socratic Wisdom:The Model of Knowledge in Plato's Early Dialogues, New York:Oxford University Press,2000, p.171
② Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Plato's Socrates, New York:Oxford University Press,1994, p.34
① Hugh H. Benson, Socratic Wisdom:The Model of Knowledge in Plato's Early Dialogues, New York:Oxford University Press,2000, p.172
② Donald R. Morrison, The Cambridge Companion to Socrates, New York:Cambridge University Press,2011, p.222
① Donald R. Morrison, The Cambridge Companion to Socrates, New York:Cambridge University Press,2011, p.225
② Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Plato's Socrates, New York:Oxford University Press,1994, p.36
③ (ed.) Hugh H. Benson, Essays on the Philosophy of Socrates, New York:Oxford University Press,1992, p.87
① Hugh H. Benson, Socratic Wisdom:The Model of Knowledge in Plato's Early Dialogues, New York:Oxford University Press,2000, p.182
① Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, The Philosophy of Socrates, Colorado:Westview Press,2000, p.111
① Gregory Vlastos, Socratic Studies, (ed.)Myles Burnyeat, New York:Cambridge University Press,1994, p.49
② Gregory Vlastos, Socratic Studies, (ed.)Myles Burnyeat, New York:Cambridge University Press,1994, p.52
① Gregory Vlastos, Socratic Studies, (ed.)Myles Burnyeat, New York:Cambridge University Press,1994, pp.55-56
① C.D.C. Reeve, Socrates in the Apology, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1989, p.38
① C.D.C. Reeve, Socrates in the Apology, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1989, p.35
① Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Plato's Socrates, New York:Oxford University Press,1994, p.36
② Donald R. Morrison, The Cambridge Companion to Socrates, New York:Cambridge University Press,2011, p.21,
① Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Plato's Socrates, New York:Oxford University Press,1994, p.37
① Alexander Nehamas, Virtues of Authenticity:Essays on Plato and Socrates, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1999, p.5
① Alexander Nehamas, Virtues of Authenticity:Essays on Plato and Socrates, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1999, p.38
① Alexander Nehamas, Virtues of Authenticity:Essays on Plato and Socrates, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1999, p.33
② [古希腊]阿里斯托芬：《阿里斯托芬喜剧六种》,罗念生译,上海：上海人民出版社,2004,第170页
① C.D.C.Reeve, Socrates in the Apology, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1989, p.19
① C.D.C.Reeve, Socrates in the Apology, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1989, p.20
① [英]A.E.Taylor,[奥1Th.龚珀茨：《苏格拉底传》,赵继铨李真译,北京：商务印书馆,1999,第41页
② Michael J.O'Brien, The Socratic Paradoxes and the Greek Mind, Chapel Hill:The University of North Carolina Press,1967, p.79
③ Kenneth Seeskin, Poverty and Sincerity in the Apology, in Philosophy and Literature,1992(16:1), p.130
① Alexander Nehamas, Virtues of Authenticity:Essays on Plato and Socrates, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1999, p.62
② G.M.A.Grube, Plato's Thought, London:Methuen Co Ltd,1958, p.233
① Alexander Nehamas, Virtues of Authenticity:Essays on Plato and Socrates, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1999, p.62
② Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, The Philosophy of Socrates, Colorado:Westview Press,2000, p.70
① Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Socrates on Trial, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1989, p.78
② Thomas West, Plato's Apology of Socrates, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press,1979, p.166
② Thomas West, Plato's Apology of Socrates, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press,1979, p.168
① 吴飞：《苏格拉底的申辩》,华夏出版社,2007,第109页,注释7
② Thomas West, Plato's Apology of Socrates, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press,1979, p.179
③ Thomas West, Plato s Apology of Socrates, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press,1979, p.180
① Thomas West, Plato's Apology of Socrates, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press,1979, p.193
① Jacob Howland, The Paradox of Political Philosophy:Socrates'Philosophic Trial, Oxford:Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,1998,p23
② Ricky K.Green, Democratic Virtue in the Trial and Death of Socrates, New York:Peter Lang,2001, p.19
① [古希腊]修昔底德：《伯罗奔尼撒战争史》(上),谢德风译,北京：商务印书馆,1985,第130页
② Donald R. Morrison, The Cambridge Companion to Socrates, New York:Cambridge University Press,2011, pp151-155
① J. W. Roberts, City of Sokrates, London and New York:Routledge & Kegan Paul,1984, p53
② A.E.Taylor, Parmenides, Zeno, and Socrates, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, Vol.16(1915-1916,pp.234-289),p.242.
① (ed.)Lindsay Judson and Vassilis Karasmanis, Remembering Socrates:Philosophical Essays, New York:Oxford University Press,2006, p161
② (ed.)Lindsay Judson and Vassilis Karasmanis, Remembering Socrates:Philosophical Essays, New York:Oxford University Press,2006, p161
① G.M.A. Grube:Plato's Thought, London:Methuen Co Ltd,1958, p51
① G.M.A. Grube:Plato's Thought, London:Methuen Co Ltd,1958, p59
② G.M.A. Grube:Plato's Thought, London:Methuen Co Ltd,1958, p63
③ J.W.Roberts, City of Sokrates, An Introduction to Classical Athens, London and New York:Routledge&Kegan Paul,1984, p200
① Donald R. Morrison, The Cambridge Companion to Socrates, New York:Cambridge University Press.2011, p169
② J.W.Roberts, City of Sokrates, An Introduction to Classical Athens, London and New York:Routledge&Kegan Paul,1984, p204
① Donald R. Morrison, The Cambridge Companion to Socrates, New York:Cambridge University Press,2011, p140
② Donald R. Morrison, The Cambridge Companion to Socrates, New York:Cambridge University Press,2011, p14/
① John Burnet, Greek Philosophy:Thales to Plato, London:MacMillan and Co. Ltd,1928, p.188
② John Bumet, Greek Philosophy:Thales to Plato, London:MacMillan and Co. Ltd,1928, pp.186-187
① Gregory Vlastos, The Historical Socrates and Athenian Democracy, Political Theory, vol.11.No.4,1983, pp.495-516, p.499
① Richard Kraut, Socrates and the State, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1984, p.202
② Richard Kraut, Socrates and the State, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1984, p.214
① Thomas C.Brickhouse and Nicholas D.Smith, The Philosophy of Socrates, Colorado:Westview Press,2000, p.197
① Thomas C.Brickhouse and Nicholas D.Smith, The Philosophy of Socrates, Colorado:Westview Pre p.194
② Richard Kraut, Socrates and the State, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1984, p.222
① Richard Kraut, Socrates and the State, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1984, p.228
① Richard Kraut, Socrates and the State, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1984, p.237
① Julia Annas, Platonic Ethics:Old and New, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press,1999, p.52
② G.M.A. Grube, Plato's Thought, London:Methuen Co Ltd,1958, p.153
③ K.J.Dover, Greek Popolar Morality:In the Time of Plato and Aristotle, Oxford:Basil Blackwell,1974, p.77
① R.E. Allen, Plato's Euthyphro and the Early Theory of Forms, New York:Humanity Press,1970, pp.10-11
② Gregory Vlastos, Socrates; Ironist and Moral Philosopher, New York:Cambridge University Press,1991, p.166
① Gregory Vlastos, Socrates:Ironist and Moral Philosopher, New York:Cambridge University Press,1991, p.158
② Gregory Vlastos, Socrates:Ironist and Moral Philosopher, New York:Cambridge University Press,1991, p.159
① Gregory Vlastos, Socrates:Ironist and Moral Philosopher, New York:Cambridge University Press,1991, pp.169-170
② Gregory Vlastos, Socrates:Ironist and Moral Philosopher, New York:Cambridge University Press,1991, p.173
③ Mark L. McPherran, The Religion of Socrates, Pennsylvania:The Pennsylvania State University Press,1996, p.29,
① Mark L. McPherran, The Religion of Socrates, Pennsylvania:The Pennsylvania State University Press,1996, p.39
② R.E. Allen, Plato's Euthyphro and the Early Theory of Forms, New York:Humanity Press,1970, p.40
① (ed.) Gregory Vlastos, The Philosophy of Socrates, New York:Anchor Books,1971, p.173
② R.E. Allen, Plato "s Euthyphro and the Early Theory of Forms, New York:Humanity Press,1970, p.58
① (ed.)Nicholas D. Smith and Paul B. Woodruff, Reason and Religion in Socratic Philosophy, New York:Oxford University Press,2000, p.26
② (ed.)Nicholas D. Smith and Paul B. Woodruff, Reason and Religion in Socratic Philosophy, New York:Oxford University Press,2000, p.90
① R. Nicol Cross, Socrates:The Man and His Mission, New York:Books For Libraries Press,1970, p.235
② (ed.)Nicholas D. Smith and Paul B. Woodruff, Reason and Religion in Socratic Philosophy, New York:Oxford University Press,2000, pp.97-98
③ (ed.)Nicholas D. Smith and Paul B. Woodruff, Reason and Religion in Socratic Philosophy, New York:Oxford University Press,2000, p.102
① Mark L. McPherran, The Religion of Socrates, Pennsylvania:The Pennsylvania State University Press,1996, p.193
① Mark L. McPherran, The Religion of Socrates, Pennsylvania:The Pennsylvania State University Press,1996, p.201
② Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Plato's Socrates, New York:Oxford University Press,1994, p.190
③ Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, The Philosophy of Socrates, Colorado:Westview Press,2000, p.250
① Christopher Bruell, On The Socratic Education, Maryland:Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.,1999, p.153
② 苏格拉底将自己比作阿基里斯,还在于在荷马的著作中,阿基里斯不仅是个追求荣誉、有仇必报的英雄,他还是个公众人物；苏格拉底也是个公众人物。作为公众人物,阿基里斯努力使希腊联军免受阿波罗播撒的瘟疫的影响,他不仅冒生命危险追求自身荣誉,还努力恢复他人的荣誉；苏格拉底则致力于使人们意识到自己的无知、自己并不具有真正的智慧。(参见Richard Holway,'Achilles, Socrates, and Democracy', in Political Theory, vol.22, No.4,1994, pp.561-590; p.562)
③ Thomas West, Plato's Apology of Socrates, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press,1979, p.154
① Thomas West, Plato s Apology of Socrates, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press,1979, p.155
② Thomas West, Plato's Apology of Socrates, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press,1979, p.158
③ Thomas West, Plato's Apology of Socrates, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press,1979, p.160
① A.D.Woozley, Law and Obedience, Chapel Hill:The University of North Carolina Press,1979, pp.78-79
② A.D.Woozley, Law and Obedience, Chapel Hill:The University of North Carolina Press,1979, p.71
① (ed.)Gregory Vlastos, The Philosophy of Socrates, New York:Doubleday&Company,1971, p.308
① R.E.Allen, Socrates and Legal Obligation, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1980, p.104
② R.E.Allen, Socrates and Legal Obligation, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1980, p.109
① Richard Kraut, Socrates and The State, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1984, pp59-61
② Richard Kraut, Socrates and The State, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1984, p.74
③ Richard Kraut, Socrates and The State, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1984, p.71
① Nathan Hanna,'Socrates and Superiority', in The Southern Journal of Philosophy, vol.45,2007, pp.252-268, p.257
② Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Socrates on Trial, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1989, p.140
③ Alfonso Gomez-Lobo, The Foundations of Socratic Ethics, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1994, P.44
① C.D.C.Reeve, Socrates in the Apology, Indianapolis:Hackeet Publishing Company,1989, p.104
② C.D.C.Reeve, Socrates in the Apology, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1989, p.111
① Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Socrates on Trial, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1989, pp.144-145
② G.X.Santas, Socrates:Philosophy in Plato's Early Dialogues, London:Routledge&Kegan Paul,1979, p30
① Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, The Philosophy of Socrates, Colorado:Westview Press,2000, p.211
① C.D.C.Reeve, Socrates in the Apology, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1989, p.120
② C.D.C.Reeve, Socrates in the Apology, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1989, p.180
① Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, The Philosophy of Socrates, Colorado:Westview Press,2000, p.247
② Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Plato and the Trial of Socrates, New York and London:Routledge, 2004, p.175
① Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Socrates on Trial, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1989, p.266
① 苏格拉底在此处提到的帕拉默德斯、埃阿斯、奥德修斯三人别有意味。在奥德修斯的栽赃诬陷下,帕拉默德斯被控告背叛希腊城邦、经受不正义的审判而被处死；阿基里斯死后,在争夺他的盔甲的竞赛中,所有有死的凡人中勇猛仅次于阿基里斯的埃阿斯输给了以诡计取胜的奥德修斯,并由此悲愤而死。帕拉默德斯和埃阿斯的死都与奥德修斯有直接关系；奥德修斯凭借其言辞诡计(修辞)在竞赛和审判中取胜,“玩弄诡计的大师奥德修斯最能在逆境中生存,(荷马史诗中)他甚至游览地府后仍能够活下来。”因此,《申辩篇》中提到奥德修斯时将他当作以世俗的修辞(诡辩)努力争取胜利、以求生为第一要务之人,与之相对应的是美勒托等控告者以及现身审判庭时哭哭啼啼哀求审判者的诸多被告。荷马史诗中与之形成鲜明对比的是阿基里斯,阿基里斯更关心自身的声誉而非活命,因此宁愿自身死亡也要杀死赫克托尔尔；因此,《申辩篇》中提到阿基里斯时,苏格拉底实际上将自己比作了不惧死亡的阿基里斯。“阿基里斯的优秀体现在战场上,奥德修斯的优秀体现在辩论上；《伊利亚特》和《奥德赛》中的这两位主人公被用来定义优秀的不同领域”。只有奥德修斯能获得成功的世界,苏格拉底乐意将它抛掷脑后。苏格拉底坚守《伊利亚特》中阿基里斯的立场,以死亡换来了不朽的名声；《申辩篇》中的苏格拉底,《奥德赛》中的埃阿斯和帕拉默德斯是反对奥德修斯形象和世俗认可的成功的三个例证。(参见James Barrett,'Plato's Apology:Philosophy, Rhetoric, and the World of Myth',in The Classical World, Vol.95, No.1,2001, pp.3-30:p.18, p.23)
① David Leibowitz, The Ironic Defense of Socrates:Plato's Apology, New York:Cambridge University Press,2010, P.183
② J.F.Humphrey, There is good hope that death is a blessing, in Re-Imaging Death and Dying, (ed.)Dennis R Cooley and Lloyd Steffen, Oxford:Inter-Disciplinary Press,2009,pp.25-32; p.28
① Thomas G. West, Plato's Apology of Socrates, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press,1979, p.164
① C.D.C.Reeve, Socrates in the Apology, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1989, p.182
① G.M.A.Grube, Plato's Thought, London:Methuen Co Ltd,1958, p.120
② G.M.A.Grube, Plato's Thought, London:Methuen Co Ltd,1958, p.121
① Donald R. Morrison, The Cambridge Companion to Socrates, New York:Cambridge University Press,2011, p.294
② Gregory Vlastos, Socrates:Ironist and Moral Philosopher, New York:Cambridge University Press,1991, p203
① C.D.C. Reeve, Socrates in the Apology, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1989, p.142
① Alexander Nehamas, The Art of Living:Socratic Reflections from Plato to Foucault, Berkeley:University of California Press,1998, p.97
② (ed.)Jiyuan Yu and Jorge J.E.Gracia, Rationality and Happiness:From the Ancient to the Medievals, Rochester: University of Rochester Press, p.54
① Susan Wolf, Moral Saints, in The Journal of Philosophy, Vol.79, No.8(Aug.,1982), pp.419-420
② 李晨阳：《道与西方的相遇》,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005,第7页
1.[丹]克尔凯郭尔：《论反讽概念：以苏格拉底为主线》,汤晨溪译,北京：中国社会科学出版社,2005
2.[英]A.E.Taylor:《柏拉图：生平及其著作》,谢随知等译,山东人民出版社,1996
3. Terence Irwin, Plato's Ethics, New York:Oxford University Press,1995)
4. George Grote, Plato and the other Companions of Sokrates, London,1865
5. Paul Shorey, The Unity of Plato's Thought, Archon Books,1903
6. Anton-Hermann Chroust, Socrates:Man and Myth, London:South Bend Press,1957
7. I.F. Stone, The Trial of Socrates, Anchor Bools,1988
8. Gregory Vlastos,'On 'The Socrates Story", in Political Theory, Vol.7, No.4,1979, pp.533-536
9. W.K.C. Guthrie, Socrates, London:Cambridge University Press,1971
10. Karl R.Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, London:Routledge,1945
11.[古希腊]柏拉图：《游叙弗伦,苏格拉底的申辩,克力同》,严群译,北京：商务印书馆,1983
12.[古希腊]柏拉图：《柏拉图全集》第一、二卷,王晓朝译,北京：人民出版社,2002
13.[古希腊]柏拉图：《柏拉图对话集》,王太庆译,北京：商务印书馆,2004
14.汪子嵩等：《希腊哲学史》第二卷,北京：人民出版社,1993
15.叶秀山：《苏格拉底及其哲学思想》,北京：人民出版社,1986
16.包利民：《生命与逻各斯：希腊伦理思想史论》,北京：东方出版社,1996
17. Charles H Kahn, Plato and the Socratic dialogue, New York:Cambridge University Press,1996
18. Mark L. McPherran, The Religion of Socrates, Pennsylvania:The Pennsylvania State University Press,1996
19. C.D.C. Reeve, Socrates in the Apology, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company, 1989
20. Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Plato's Socrates, New York:Oxford University Press,1994
21. (ed)Nicholas D. Smith and Paul B. Woodruff, Reason and Religion in Socratic Phlosophy, New York:Oxford University Press,2000
22. Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Socrates on Trial, New Jersey: Princeton University Press,1989
23. Richard Kraut, Socrates and the State, New Jersey:Princeton University Press, 1984
24.胡孝根博士论文：《柏拉图对话文体与思想创制之关系》(浙江大学,2009)
25.张志伟(主编)：《形而上学的演变史》,中国人民大学出版社,2010
26. Charles H. Kahn, Review:Vlastos's Socrates, in Phronesis, Vol.37, No.2(1992)
27. Gregory Vlastos, Socrates:Ironist and Moral Philosopher, New York:Cambridge University Press,1991
28. A.E.Tayloyr,'Parmenides, Zeno, and Socrates', in Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, vol.16 (1915-1916), pp.234-289.
29. Neal Wood,'Socrates as Political Partisan', in Canadian Journal of Political Science, vol.7, No.1,1974, pp.3-31
30. John Burnet, Greek Phlosophy:Thales to Plato, Macmillan and Co., London,1928
31. (Ed)C.D.C Reeve and Patrick Lee Miller, Introductory readings in ancient Greek and Roman phlosophy, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,2006
32. Eric Alfred Havetock,"The Evidence for the Teaching of Socrates', in Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol.65,1934, pp.282-295
33. Gregory Vlastos,'The Socratic Elenchus', in The Journal of Philosophy, Vol.79, No.11,1983, pp.27-58
34. J.O.Lofberg, The Trial of Socrates', in The Classical Journal Vol.23, NO.8,1928, pp.601-609
35. (ed)Hugh H.Benson, A company to Plato, Blackwell Publishing Ltd,2006
36. Richard Robinson, Plato's Earlier Dialectic, Oxford University Press,1951
37. Donald R. Morrison, The Cambridge Companion to Socrates, New York: Cambridge University Press,2011
38. E.R.Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational, Berkeley and Los Angeles:University of California Press,1959
39. Richard Kraut,'Comments on Gregory Vlastos' The Socratic Elenchus', in Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Vol.1,1983, pp.59-70
40. (ed.)Gary Alan Scott, Does Socrates Have a Method? The Pennsylvania State University Press,2002
41. Julius Stenzel, Plato's Method of Dialectic, (Translated.) D.J.Allan, New York: Russell and Russe11,1964
42. Mary M.McCabe, Plato and His Predecessors, New York:Cambridge University Press,2000
43. Ronald M.Polansky, 'Professor Vlastos's Analysis of Socratic Elenchus', in Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Vol.3,1985, pp.247-260
44. (ed)Sora Ahbel-Rappe and Rachana Kantekar, A Companion to Socrates, Blackwell Publishing Ltd,2006
45. Thomas C.Brickhouse and Nicholas D.Smith, 'Vlastos on the Elenchus', in Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Vol.2,1984, pp.185-195
46.[英]F.M.康福德：《苏格拉底前后》,孙艳萍译,上海：上海人民出版社,2009
47.[德]黑格尔：《逻辑学》(上卷)杨一之译,北京：商务印书馆,2010
48. Harvey S. Goldman,'Reexamining the 'Examined life' in Plato's Apology of Socrates', in The Philosophical Forum, Vol.35., No.1, Spring 2004, pp.1-33
49. Werner Jaeger, Paideia:The Ideals of Greel Culture, vol.2:In Search of the Divine Centre, trans. Gilbert Highet, New York:Oxford University Pres,1943
50. J. Burnet: Plato's Euthyphro, Apology of Socrates, and Crito. Oxford:Clarendon, 1924
51. R.E.Allen, Socrates and legal Obligation. Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1980
52. (ed)Julia Annas, New Perspectives on Plato:Modern and Ancient, Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press,2002
53. Alfonso Gomez-Lobo, The Foundations of Socratic Ethics, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1994
54. Spiro Panagiotou,'Socrates' defiance in the Apology', in Apeirion,1987, pp.39-61
55. Thomas F. Morris,'Why Socrates does not request exile in the Apology?' in The Heythrop Journal,2011, pp.1-13
56. Thomas F. Morris,'The way in which Socrates is religious:The epilogue of the first speech of the Apology", in The Heythrop Journal,2011, pp.2-13
57. Plato, Complete Works, (ed) John M. Cooper, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1997
58. David Wolfsdorf,'The Irony of Socrates', in The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism,2007(65:2),pp.175-187
59. (ed)Dennis R Cooley and Lloyd Steffen, Re-Imaging Death and Dying, Oxford: Inter-Disciplinary Press,2009
60. Christopher W.Tindaale,'Textual Allusion as Rhetorical Argumentation', in Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Argumentation, Frans. Van Eemeren, et. al.,(eds,) Amsterdam:Sic Sat,2007:1359-1363
61. Kenneth Seeskin,'Is the Apology of Socrates a parody?' In Philosophy and Literature,1982, pp.94-105
62. James A. Colaiaco, Socrates Against Athens:Philosophy on Trial, New York: Routledge,2001
63. Michael J.O'Brien, The Socratic Paradoxes and the Greek Mind, Chapel Hill:The University of North Carolina Press,1967
64. Jacob Howland, The Paradox of Political Philosophy:Socrates' Philosophic Trial, Oxford:Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,1998
65. Ricky K.Green, Democratic Virtue in the Trial and Death of Socrates, New York: Peter Lang,2001
66. Hugh H. Benson, Socratic Wisdom:The Model of Knowledge in Plato's Early Dialogues, New York:Oxford University Press,2000
67. Norman Gulley, The Philosophy of Socrates, London:MacMillan and Co.Ltd,1968
68. Gregory Vlastos, Socratic Studies, (ed)Myles Burnyeat, New York:Cambridge University Press,1994
69. (ed.) Hugh H. Benson, Essays on the Philosophy of Socrates, New York:Oxford University Press,1992
70. Terence Irwin, Plato's Moral Theory:The Early and Middle Dialogues, Oxford: Clarendon Press,1977
71. Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, The Philosophy of Socrates, Colorado:Westview Press,2000
72. Alexander Nehamas, Virtues of Authenticity:Essays on Plato and Socrates, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1999
73.[古希腊]阿里斯托芬：《阿里斯托芬喜剧六种》,罗念生译,上海：上海人民出版社,2004
74.[英]A.E.Taylor,[奥]Th.龚珀茨：《苏格拉底传》,赵继铨李真译,北京：商务印书馆,1999
75. Kenneth Seeskin,'Poverty and Sincerity in the Apology", in Philosophy and Literature,1992(16:1), pp.128-133
76. G.M.A.Grube, Plato's Thought, London:Methuen Co Ltd,1958
77. Thomas West, Plato's Apology of Socrates, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press,1979
78. Christopher Bruell, On The Socratic Education, Maryland:Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.,1999
79. Arthur Lap An,'The Function of Socrates' Educational Method', in Educational Theory, vol.7,issue 2,1957,pp.135-139
80.[古希腊]柏拉图：《苏格拉底的申辩》,吴飞译,华夏出版社,2007
81.[古希腊]修昔底德：《伯罗奔尼撒战争史》(上),谢德风译,北京：商务印书馆,1985
82. J. W. Roberts, City of Sokrates, London and New York:Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984
83. Marina McCoy, Phto on the Rhetoric of Philosophers and Sophist, New York: Cambridge University Press,2008
84. (ed)Lindsay Judson and Vassilis Karasmanis, Remembering Socrates: Philosophical Essays, New York:Oxford University Press,2006
85. Gregory Vlastos,'The Historical Socrates and Athenian Democracy', in Political Theory, vol.11.No.4,1983, pp.495-516
86. R.E.Allen, Plato's Euthyphro and the Early Theory of Forms, New York:Humanity Press,1970
87. R.Hackforth, The Composition of Plato's Apology, London:Cambridge University Press,1933
88. R. Nicol Cross, Socrates:The Man and His Mission, New York:Books For Libraries Press,1970
89. B.Darrell Jackson,'The Prayers of Socrates', in Phronesis, vol.16, No.1,1971, pp.14-37
90. Richard Holway,'Achilles, Socrates, and Democracy', in Political Theory, vol.22, No.4,1994, pp.561-590
91. A.D.Woozley, Law and Obedience, Chapel Hill:The University of North Carolina Press,1979
92. Nathan Hanna,'Socrates and Superiority', in The Southern Journal of Philosophy, vol.45,2007, pp.252-268
93. G.X.Santas, Socrates:Philosophy in Plato's Early Dialogues, London:Routledge and Kegan Paul,1979
94. Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Plato and the Trial of Socrates, New York and London:Routledge,2004
95. K.J.Dover, Greek Popolar Morality:In the Time of Plato and Aristotle, Oxford: Basil Blackwell,1974
96. James Barrett,'Plato's Apology:Philosophy, Rhetoric, and the World of Myth', in The Classical World, Vol.95, No.1,2001, pp.3-30
97. David Leibowitz, The Ironic Defense of Socrates:Plato's Apology, New York: Cambridge University Press,2010
98. Terence Irwin, Plato's Moral Theory, Oxford:Clarendon Press,1977
99. Julia Annas, Platonic Ethics:Old and New, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press,1999
100. M.F.Burnyeat,'Apology 30b2-4:Socrates, Money, and the Grammer of ', in The Journal of Hellenic Studies, vol.123,2003, pp.1-25
101. (ed)Jiyuan Yu and Jorge J.E.Gracia, Rationality and Happiness:From the Ancient to the Medievals, Rochester:University of Rochester Press
102. Susan Wolf,'Moral Saints', in The Journal of Philosophy, Vol.79, No.8,1982, pp.419-439
103. Alexander Nehamas, The Art of Living:Socratic Reflections from Plato to Foucault, Berkeley:University of California Press,1998
104. 李晨阳：《道与西方的相遇》,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005
① Gregory Vlastos, On 'The Socrates Story', in Political Theory, vol.7, No.4,1979, pp.533-536:p.534
② Gregory Vlastos. On 'The Socrates Story', in Political Theory, vol.7, No.4,1979, pp.533-536; p.533
③ Charles H Kahn, Plato and the Socratic dialogue, New York:Cambridge University Press,1996, pp. xiii-xv
① Mark L. McPherran, The Religion of Socrates, Pennsylvania:The Pennsylvania State University Press,1996, p.1//
① C.D.C. Reeve, Socrates in the Apology, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1989, p.162, pp.45-52
① C.D.C. Reeve, Socrates in the Apology, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1989, p.162, p.164
① C.D.C. Reeve, Socrates in the Apology, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1989, pp.75-76
② C.D.C. Reeve, Socrates in the Apology, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1989, p.82
③ Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Plato's Socrates, New York:Oxford University Press,1994, p.187
④ Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Plato's Socrates, New York:Oxford University Press,1994, p.184
① Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Plato's Socrates, New York:Oxford University Press,1994, p.183
② (ed.)Nicholas D. Smith and Paul B. Woodruff, Reason and Religion in Socratic Philosophy, New York:Oxford University Press,2000, p.17
③ Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Socrates on Trial, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1989, p.95
④ C.D.C. Reeve, Socrates in the Apology. Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1989, pp.63-65
① Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Socrates on Trial, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1989, p.244
② Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Socrates on Trial, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1989, p.239
① C.D.C. Reeve, Socrates in the Apology, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1989, p.114
② Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Socrates on Trial, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1989, pp.245-247
① Richard Kraut, Socrates and the State, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1984, p.194
① 关于汉语语境下希腊哲学研究进程的详细描述,参见胡孝根博士论文：《柏拉图对话文体与思想创制之关系》(浙江大学,2009)第12-18页。
① Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Socrates on Trial, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1989, p.98
① Neal Wood,'Socrates as Political Partisan', in Canadian Journal of Political Science, vol.7, No.1,1974, pp.3-31; p.4
① Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Socrates on Trial, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1989, pp.3-9
② Charles H. Kahn, Review:Vlastos "s Socrates, Phronesis,, Vol.37, No.2(1992), p.234
③ Gregory Vlastos, Socrates, Ironist and Moral Philosopher, New York:Cambridge University Press,1991, pp48-49
① A.E.Taylor, Parmenides, Zeno, and Socrates, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, Vol.16(1915-1916,pp.234-289),P.237
① John Burnet, Greek Philosophy:Thales to Plato, Macmillan and Co., London,1928, pp.133-134
② John Burnet, Greek Philosophy:Thales to Plato, Macmillan and Co., London,1928, p.154
③ John Burnet, Greek Philosophy:Thales to Plato, Macmillan and Co., London,1928, p.155
④ (Ed.)C.D.C Reeve and Patrick Lee Miller, Introductory readings in ancient Greek and Roman Philosophy, P13,转引自Clement, Miscellanies 6.23; Plotinus5.1.8=28B.2.
① Gregory Vlastos, Socrates:ironist and moral philosopher, New York:Cambridge University Press,1991, p.365
① Charles H. Kahn, Review:Vlastos's Socrates, Phronesis,, Vol.37, No.2(1992),pp233-258, p234
② Charles H. Kahn, Review:Vlastos's Socrates, Phronesis,, Vol.37, No.2(1992),pp233-258, p235-6
① Eric Alfred Havelock. The Evidence for the Teaching of Socrates. Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol.65(1934), pp.282-295
② Gregory Vlastos, The Socratic Elenchus, The Journal of Philosophy, Vol.79, No.11,(Nov.,1982), pp.712-714
③ C.D.C. Reeve, Socrates in the Apology, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1989, p.157
① J.O.Lofberg, The Trial of Socrates. The Classical Journal. Vol.23, NO.8(May,1928), pp.601-609
① (ed.)Hugh H.Benson, A company to Plato, Blackwell Publishing Ltd,2006, p56
② Eric Alfred Havelock, The Evidence for the Teaching of Socrates, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol.65,1934,pp282-295
③ Charles H.Kahn:Plato and the Socratic dialogue, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1996, p1-35
① Charles H.Kahn:Plato and the Socratic dialogue, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1996, p26
② Charles H.Kahn:Plato and the Socratic dialogue, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1996, p28
③ Richard Robinson, Plato's Earlier Dialectic, Oxford University Press,1951
④ Gregory Vlastos. The Socratic elenchus, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Vol.1,1983, p28
⑤ Gregory Vlastos, The Socratic elenchus, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Vol.1,1983, p30
① Gregory Vlastos, The Socratic elenchus, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Vol.1,1983, p30
⑤ Gregory Vlastos, The Socratic elenchus, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Vol.1,1983, pp52-54
① Donald R. Morrison, The Cambridge Companion to Socrates, New York:Cambridge University Press,2011, p185
② Richard Kraut, Comments on Gregory Vlastos'"The Socratic Elenchus", Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Vol.1,1983, p62
③ Richard Kraut, Comments on Gregory Vlastos'"The Socratic Elenchus", Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Vol.1,1983, p62
① Richard Kraut, Comments on Gregory Vlastos'"The Socratic Elenchus", Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Vol.1,1983, p60
② Richard Kraut, Comments on Gregory Vlastos'"The Socratic Elenchus", Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Vol.1,1983, pp66-67
① Richard Kraut, Comments on Gregory Vlastos'"The Socratic Elenchus", Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Vol.1,1983, p70
② (ed.)Gary Alan Scott, Does Socrates Have a Method? The Pennsylvania State University Press,2002, p37
③ (ed.)Gary Alan Scott, Does Socrates Have a Method? The Pennsylvania State University Press,2002, pp110-111
④ Donald R. Morrison, The Cambridge Companion to Socrates, New York:Cambridge University Press,2011, p180
① (ed.)Gary Alan Scott, Does Socrates Have a Method? The Pennsylvania State University Press,2002, pl05
② Donald R. Morrison, The Cambridge Companion to Socrates, New York:Cambridge University Press,2011, pp.186-7
① Donald R. Morrison, The Cambridge Companion to Socrates, New York:Cambridge University Press,2011, p190
② Donald R. Morrison, The Cambridge Companion to Socrates, New York:Cambridge University Press,2011, p185-6
① Ronald M.Polansky, Professor Vlastos's Analysis of Socratic Elenchus, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Vol.3,1985, p254
② Ronald M.Polansky, Professor Vlastos's Analysis of Socratic Elenchus, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Vol.3,1985, p257
③ Ronald M.Polansky, Professor Vlastos's Analysis of Socratic Elenchus, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Vol.3,1985, pp256-258
④ (ed.)Sora Ahbel-Rappe and Rachana Kantekar, A Companion to Socrates, Blackwell Publishing Ltd,2006, p442
① (ed.)Sora Ahbel-Rappe and Rachana Kantekar, A Companion to Socrates, Blackwell Publishing Ltd,2006, p258
② (ed.)Gary Alan Scott, Does Socrates Have a Method? The Pennsylvania State University Press,2002, pp147-156
① Thomas C.Brickhouse and Nicholas D.Smith, Vlastos on the Elenchus, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Vol.2,1984, p187
② Thomas C.Brickhouse and Nicholas D.Smith, Vlastos on the Elenchus, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Vol.2,1984, p194
③ (ed.)Hugh H.Benson, A company to Plato, Blackwell Publishing Ltd,2006, p59
④ (ed.)Gary Alan Scott, Does Socrates Have a Method? The Pennsylvania State University Press,2002, p63
⑤ (ed.)Gary Alan Scott, Does Socrates Have a Method? The Pennsylvania State University Press,2002, p65-68
① (ed.)Gary Alan Scott, Does Socrates Have a Method? The Pennsylvania State University Press,2002, pp69-72
① [英]F.M.康福德：《苏格拉底前后》,孙艳萍译,上海：上海人民出版社,2009,第5页
② [英]F.M.康福德：《苏格拉底前后》,孙艳萍译,上海：上海人民出版社,2009,第17页
③ 我们应当注意,此处的“认识你自己”并不关乎自我知识,它并没有太多知识论的含义；而是表述人与神之间不可逾越的界限,使人警醒、不要将自己置于神的位置。“认识你自己”作为神庙上镌刻的格言,它与公元前五世纪的许多格言一样,关心界限、谦逊和神灵；与赫拉克利特、苏格拉底等哲人的格言有着极不相同的形式。赫拉克利特、苏格拉底的格言考虑的是一种特殊的、新颖的“生活方式”的基础问题。见Harvey S. Goldman, Reexamining the 'Examined life' in Plato's Apology of Socrates, in The Philosophical Forum, Vol.35., No.1, Spring 2004, pp.1-33; p.8
① [德]黑格尔：《逻辑学》(上卷)杨一之译,北京：商务印书馆,2010,第29页
① Harvey S. Goldman, Reexamining the 'Examined life' in Plato's Apology of Socrates, in The Philosophical Forum, Vol.35., No.1, Spring 2004, pp.1-33; p.3, p.32
② Werner Jaeger, Paideia:The Ideals of Greel Culture, vol.2:In Search of the Divine Centre, trans. Gilbert Highet, New York:Oxford University Pres,1943, p46
① E.R.Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational, Berkeley and Los Angeles:University of California Press,1959, p.193
① (ed.)Julia Annas, New Perspectives on Plato:Modern and Ancient, Massachusetts:Cambridge University Press, 2002, p.40
① 本文以“反讽”一词来翻译英文单词irony和希腊词εlρωvεiα;但需要单独指出的是,irony并没有欺骗之意,而εlρωvεiα则具有多种涵义。
② Gregory Vlastos:Socrates:Ironist and Moral Philosopher, New York:Cambridge University Press,1991, p28
① Gregory Vlastos:Socrates:Ironist and Moral Philosopher, New York:Cambridge University Press,1991, pp22-26
② Gregory Vlastos:Socrates:Ironist and Moral Philosopher, New York:Cambridge University Press,1991, p28
③ Gregory Vlastos:Socrates:Ironist and Moral Philosopher, New York:Cambridge University Press,1991, p21
④ Gregory Vlastos:Socrates:Ironist and Moral Philosopher, New York:Cambridge University Press,1991, p29
① “在很好的掌握了法庭言辞这门技艺时却说他对它一无所知,这很符合苏格拉底”,“否认熟悉法庭演说是苏格拉底式反讽的一部分”,参见J. Burnet:Plato's Euthyphro, Apology of Socrates, and Crito. Oxford:Clarendon,1924,p59,p67；苏格拉底自称无能力做演说,但接下来的演说却是修辞学的杰作,这是苏格拉底第一层意义上的反讽,参见R.E. Allen, Socrates and legal Obligation. Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1980, p6
① C.D.C. Reeve, Socrates in the Apology, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1989, p5
② Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Socrates on Trial, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1989, p56
① Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Socrates on Trial, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1989, P77
② 一张纸上的希腊语辩护词念3分钟,控告词有n张,经过换算苏格拉底大约有53分钟作辩护；MacDowell:计算被告一方有2小时12分钟的时间辩护。因此,被控告者苏格拉底也拥有同样长的辩护时间。参见Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Socrates on Trial, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1989, p76
① R.E. Allen, Socrates and legal obligation, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1980, p7
① 莫里斯认为,即使其他城邦不能像苏格拉底的母邦雅典那样容忍他70年,忍受他35年是没问题的；很明显,莫里斯的这种看法忽略了雅典城邦独特的民主制政治制度,这种制度为苏格拉底式的“自由人”进行哲学活动、审查自己和他人提供了必要条件；离开了这种言论自由的氛围,在僭主制政体下的斯巴达等城邦,这种自由的哲学审查活动是不可能的。但即使如此,其他城邦仍能够在一定时间内容忍苏格拉底的哲学活动。因而我们基本同意莫里斯的看法：已经70岁的行将朽木的苏格拉底,即使被不断地由一个城邦驱逐到另一个城邦,这种流浪也不会持续太久,对苏格拉底而言也应该是可以接受的生活。(参见Thomas F. Morris, Why Socrates does not request exile in the Apology? In The Heythrop Journal,2011, pp.1-13; p.5)
① Thomas F. Morris, Why Socrates does not request exile in the Apology? In The Heythrop Journal,2011, pp.1-13; P.9
② Thomas F. Morris, The way in which Socrates is religious:The epilogue of the first speech of the Apology, In The Heythrop Journal,2011, pp.2-13; p.7
② Plato,Complete Works,(ed.)John M.Coope,Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1997,p33,注释8
② J.F.Humphrey, There is good hope that death is a blessing, in Re-Imaging Death and Dying, (ed.)Dennis R Cooley and Lloyd Steffen, Oxford:Inter-Disciplinary Press,2009.pp.25-32; p.29
① J.F.Humphrey, There is good hope that death is a blessing, in Re-Imaging Death and Dying, (ed.)Dennis R Cooley and Lloyd Steffen, Oxford:Inter-Disciplinary Press,2009,pp.25-32; p.28
① R.E. Allen, Socrates and legal obligation, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1980, p13
② 转引自R.E. Allen, Socrates and legal obligation, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1980, p11
③ Marina McCoy, Plato on the Rhetoric of Philosophers and Sophist, New York:Cambridge University Press,2008, p.24
① C.D.C. Reeve, Socrates in the Apology, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1989, p8
② Kenneth Seeskin, Poverty and Sincerity in the Apology, in Philosophy and Literature,1992(16:1), p.130
① James A. Colaiaco, Socrates Against Athens:Philosophy on Trial, New York:Routledge,2001, p.57
② C.D.C. Reeve, Socrates in the Apology, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1989, pp.30-31
① James A. Colaiaco, Socrates Against Athens:Philosophy on Trial, New York:Routledge,2001, p.70
② James A. Colaiaco, Socrates Against Athens:Philosophy on Trial, New York:Routledge,2001, p.70
① Hugh H. Benson, Socratic Wisdom:The Model of Knowledge in Plato's Early Dialogues, New York:Oxford University Press,2000, p.178
② Norman Gulley, The Philosophy of Socrates, London:MacMillan and Co.Ltd,1968, p.69,转引自Gregory Vlastos, Socratic Studies, (ed.)Myles Burnyeat, New York:Cambridge University Press,1994, p.39
③ Terence Irwin, Plato's Moral Theory:The Early and Middle Dialogues, Oxford:Clarendon Press,1977, pp.39-40,转引自Gregory Vlastos, Socratic Studies, (ed.)Myles Burnyeat, New York:Cambridge University Press,1994, p.39
④ Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Plato s Socrates, New York:Oxford University Press,1994, p.31
① Hugh H. Benson, Socratic Wisdom:The Model of Knowledge in Plato's Early Dialogues, New York:Oxford University Press,2000, p.171
② Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Plato's Socrates, New York:Oxford University Press,1994, p.34
① Hugh H. Benson, Socratic Wisdom:The Model of Knowledge in Plato's Early Dialogues, New York:Oxford University Press,2000, p.172
② Donald R. Morrison, The Cambridge Companion to Socrates, New York:Cambridge University Press,2011, p.222
① Donald R. Morrison, The Cambridge Companion to Socrates, New York:Cambridge University Press,2011, p.225
② Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Plato's Socrates, New York:Oxford University Press,1994, p.36
③ (ed.) Hugh H. Benson, Essays on the Philosophy of Socrates, New York:Oxford University Press,1992, p.87
① Hugh H. Benson, Socratic Wisdom:The Model of Knowledge in Plato's Early Dialogues, New York:Oxford University Press,2000, p.182
① Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, The Philosophy of Socrates, Colorado:Westview Press,2000, p.111
① Gregory Vlastos, Socratic Studies, (ed.)Myles Burnyeat, New York:Cambridge University Press,1994, p.49
② Gregory Vlastos, Socratic Studies, (ed.)Myles Burnyeat, New York:Cambridge University Press,1994, p.52
① Gregory Vlastos, Socratic Studies, (ed.)Myles Burnyeat, New York:Cambridge University Press,1994, pp.55-56
① C.D.C. Reeve, Socrates in the Apology, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1989, p.38
① C.D.C. Reeve, Socrates in the Apology, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1989, p.35
① Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Plato's Socrates, New York:Oxford University Press,1994, p.36
② Donald R. Morrison, The Cambridge Companion to Socrates, New York:Cambridge University Press,2011, p.21,
① Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Plato's Socrates, New York:Oxford University Press,1994, p.37
① Alexander Nehamas, Virtues of Authenticity:Essays on Plato and Socrates, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1999, p.5
① Alexander Nehamas, Virtues of Authenticity:Essays on Plato and Socrates, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1999, p.38
① Alexander Nehamas, Virtues of Authenticity:Essays on Plato and Socrates, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1999, p.33
② [古希腊]阿里斯托芬：《阿里斯托芬喜剧六种》,罗念生译,上海：上海人民出版社,2004,第170页
① C.D.C.Reeve, Socrates in the Apology, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1989, p.19
① C.D.C.Reeve, Socrates in the Apology, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1989, p.20
① [英]A.E.Taylor,[奥1Th.龚珀茨：《苏格拉底传》,赵继铨李真译,北京：商务印书馆,1999,第41页
② Michael J.O'Brien, The Socratic Paradoxes and the Greek Mind, Chapel Hill:The University of North Carolina Press,1967, p.79
③ Kenneth Seeskin, Poverty and Sincerity in the Apology, in Philosophy and Literature,1992(16:1), p.130
① Alexander Nehamas, Virtues of Authenticity:Essays on Plato and Socrates, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1999, p.62
② G.M.A.Grube, Plato's Thought, London:Methuen Co Ltd,1958, p.233
① Alexander Nehamas, Virtues of Authenticity:Essays on Plato and Socrates, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1999, p.62
② Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, The Philosophy of Socrates, Colorado:Westview Press,2000, p.70
① Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Socrates on Trial, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1989, p.78
② Thomas West, Plato's Apology of Socrates, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press,1979, p.166
② Thomas West, Plato's Apology of Socrates, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press,1979, p.168
① 吴飞：《苏格拉底的申辩》,华夏出版社,2007,第109页,注释7
② Thomas West, Plato's Apology of Socrates, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press,1979, p.179
③ Thomas West, Plato s Apology of Socrates, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press,1979, p.180
① Thomas West, Plato's Apology of Socrates, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press,1979, p.193
① Jacob Howland, The Paradox of Political Philosophy:Socrates'Philosophic Trial, Oxford:Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,1998,p23
② Ricky K.Green, Democratic Virtue in the Trial and Death of Socrates, New York:Peter Lang,2001, p.19
① [古希腊]修昔底德：《伯罗奔尼撒战争史》(上),谢德风译,北京：商务印书馆,1985,第130页
② Donald R. Morrison, The Cambridge Companion to Socrates, New York:Cambridge University Press,2011, pp151-155
① J. W. Roberts, City of Sokrates, London and New York:Routledge & Kegan Paul,1984, p53
② A.E.Taylor, Parmenides, Zeno, and Socrates, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, Vol.16(1915-1916,pp.234-289),p.242.
① (ed.)Lindsay Judson and Vassilis Karasmanis, Remembering Socrates:Philosophical Essays, New York:Oxford University Press,2006, p161
② (ed.)Lindsay Judson and Vassilis Karasmanis, Remembering Socrates:Philosophical Essays, New York:Oxford University Press,2006, p161
① G.M.A. Grube:Plato's Thought, London:Methuen Co Ltd,1958, p51
① G.M.A. Grube:Plato's Thought, London:Methuen Co Ltd,1958, p59
② G.M.A. Grube:Plato's Thought, London:Methuen Co Ltd,1958, p63
③ J.W.Roberts, City of Sokrates, An Introduction to Classical Athens, London and New York:Routledge&Kegan Paul,1984, p200
① Donald R. Morrison, The Cambridge Companion to Socrates, New York:Cambridge University Press.2011, p169
② J.W.Roberts, City of Sokrates, An Introduction to Classical Athens, London and New York:Routledge&Kegan Paul,1984, p204
① Donald R. Morrison, The Cambridge Companion to Socrates, New York:Cambridge University Press,2011, p140
② Donald R. Morrison, The Cambridge Companion to Socrates, New York:Cambridge University Press,2011, p14/
① John Burnet, Greek Philosophy:Thales to Plato, London:MacMillan and Co. Ltd,1928, p.188
② John Bumet, Greek Philosophy:Thales to Plato, London:MacMillan and Co. Ltd,1928, pp.186-187
① Gregory Vlastos, The Historical Socrates and Athenian Democracy, Political Theory, vol.11.No.4,1983, pp.495-516, p.499
① Richard Kraut, Socrates and the State, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1984, p.202
② Richard Kraut, Socrates and the State, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1984, p.214
① Thomas C.Brickhouse and Nicholas D.Smith, The Philosophy of Socrates, Colorado:Westview Press,2000, p.197
① Thomas C.Brickhouse and Nicholas D.Smith, The Philosophy of Socrates, Colorado:Westview Pre p.194
② Richard Kraut, Socrates and the State, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1984, p.222
① Richard Kraut, Socrates and the State, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1984, p.228
① Richard Kraut, Socrates and the State, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1984, p.237
① Julia Annas, Platonic Ethics:Old and New, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press,1999, p.52
② G.M.A. Grube, Plato's Thought, London:Methuen Co Ltd,1958, p.153
③ K.J.Dover, Greek Popolar Morality:In the Time of Plato and Aristotle, Oxford:Basil Blackwell,1974, p.77
① R.E. Allen, Plato's Euthyphro and the Early Theory of Forms, New York:Humanity Press,1970, pp.10-11
② Gregory Vlastos, Socrates; Ironist and Moral Philosopher, New York:Cambridge University Press,1991, p.166
① Gregory Vlastos, Socrates:Ironist and Moral Philosopher, New York:Cambridge University Press,1991, p.158
② Gregory Vlastos, Socrates:Ironist and Moral Philosopher, New York:Cambridge University Press,1991, p.159
① Gregory Vlastos, Socrates:Ironist and Moral Philosopher, New York:Cambridge University Press,1991, pp.169-170
② Gregory Vlastos, Socrates:Ironist and Moral Philosopher, New York:Cambridge University Press,1991, p.173
③ Mark L. McPherran, The Religion of Socrates, Pennsylvania:The Pennsylvania State University Press,1996, p.29,
① Mark L. McPherran, The Religion of Socrates, Pennsylvania:The Pennsylvania State University Press,1996, p.39
② R.E. Allen, Plato's Euthyphro and the Early Theory of Forms, New York:Humanity Press,1970, p.40
① (ed.) Gregory Vlastos, The Philosophy of Socrates, New York:Anchor Books,1971, p.173
② R.E. Allen, Plato "s Euthyphro and the Early Theory of Forms, New York:Humanity Press,1970, p.58
① (ed.)Nicholas D. Smith and Paul B. Woodruff, Reason and Religion in Socratic Philosophy, New York:Oxford University Press,2000, p.26
② (ed.)Nicholas D. Smith and Paul B. Woodruff, Reason and Religion in Socratic Philosophy, New York:Oxford University Press,2000, p.90
① R. Nicol Cross, Socrates:The Man and His Mission, New York:Books For Libraries Press,1970, p.235
② (ed.)Nicholas D. Smith and Paul B. Woodruff, Reason and Religion in Socratic Philosophy, New York:Oxford University Press,2000, pp.97-98
③ (ed.)Nicholas D. Smith and Paul B. Woodruff, Reason and Religion in Socratic Philosophy, New York:Oxford University Press,2000, p.102
① Mark L. McPherran, The Religion of Socrates, Pennsylvania:The Pennsylvania State University Press,1996, p.193
① Mark L. McPherran, The Religion of Socrates, Pennsylvania:The Pennsylvania State University Press,1996, p.201
② Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Plato's Socrates, New York:Oxford University Press,1994, p.190
③ Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, The Philosophy of Socrates, Colorado:Westview Press,2000, p.250
① Christopher Bruell, On The Socratic Education, Maryland:Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.,1999, p.153
② 苏格拉底将自己比作阿基里斯,还在于在荷马的著作中,阿基里斯不仅是个追求荣誉、有仇必报的英雄,他还是个公众人物；苏格拉底也是个公众人物。作为公众人物,阿基里斯努力使希腊联军免受阿波罗播撒的瘟疫的影响,他不仅冒生命危险追求自身荣誉,还努力恢复他人的荣誉；苏格拉底则致力于使人们意识到自己的无知、自己并不具有真正的智慧。(参见Richard Holway,'Achilles, Socrates, and Democracy', in Political Theory, vol.22, No.4,1994, pp.561-590; p.562)
③ Thomas West, Plato's Apology of Socrates, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press,1979, p.154
① Thomas West, Plato s Apology of Socrates, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press,1979, p.155
② Thomas West, Plato's Apology of Socrates, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press,1979, p.158
③ Thomas West, Plato's Apology of Socrates, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press,1979, p.160
① A.D.Woozley, Law and Obedience, Chapel Hill:The University of North Carolina Press,1979, pp.78-79
② A.D.Woozley, Law and Obedience, Chapel Hill:The University of North Carolina Press,1979, p.71
① (ed.)Gregory Vlastos, The Philosophy of Socrates, New York:Doubleday&Company,1971, p.308
① R.E.Allen, Socrates and Legal Obligation, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1980, p.104
② R.E.Allen, Socrates and Legal Obligation, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1980, p.109
① Richard Kraut, Socrates and The State, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1984, pp59-61
② Richard Kraut, Socrates and The State, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1984, p.74
③ Richard Kraut, Socrates and The State, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1984, p.71
① Nathan Hanna,'Socrates and Superiority', in The Southern Journal of Philosophy, vol.45,2007, pp.252-268, p.257
② Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Socrates on Trial, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1989, p.140
③ Alfonso Gomez-Lobo, The Foundations of Socratic Ethics, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1994, P.44
① C.D.C.Reeve, Socrates in the Apology, Indianapolis:Hackeet Publishing Company,1989, p.104
② C.D.C.Reeve, Socrates in the Apology, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1989, p.111
① Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Socrates on Trial, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1989, pp.144-145
② G.X.Santas, Socrates:Philosophy in Plato's Early Dialogues, London:Routledge&Kegan Paul,1979, p30
① Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, The Philosophy of Socrates, Colorado:Westview Press,2000, p.211
① C.D.C.Reeve, Socrates in the Apology, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1989, p.120
② C.D.C.Reeve, Socrates in the Apology, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1989, p.180
① Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, The Philosophy of Socrates, Colorado:Westview Press,2000, p.247
② Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Plato and the Trial of Socrates, New York and London:Routledge, 2004, p.175
① Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Socrates on Trial, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1989, p.266
① 苏格拉底在此处提到的帕拉默德斯、埃阿斯、奥德修斯三人别有意味。在奥德修斯的栽赃诬陷下,帕拉默德斯被控告背叛希腊城邦、经受不正义的审判而被处死；阿基里斯死后,在争夺他的盔甲的竞赛中,所有有死的凡人中勇猛仅次于阿基里斯的埃阿斯输给了以诡计取胜的奥德修斯,并由此悲愤而死。帕拉默德斯和埃阿斯的死都与奥德修斯有直接关系；奥德修斯凭借其言辞诡计(修辞)在竞赛和审判中取胜,“玩弄诡计的大师奥德修斯最能在逆境中生存,(荷马史诗中)他甚至游览地府后仍能够活下来。”因此,《申辩篇》中提到奥德修斯时将他当作以世俗的修辞(诡辩)努力争取胜利、以求生为第一要务之人,与之相对应的是美勒托等控告者以及现身审判庭时哭哭啼啼哀求审判者的诸多被告。荷马史诗中与之形成鲜明对比的是阿基里斯,阿基里斯更关心自身的声誉而非活命,因此宁愿自身死亡也要杀死赫克托尔尔；因此,《申辩篇》中提到阿基里斯时,苏格拉底实际上将自己比作了不惧死亡的阿基里斯。“阿基里斯的优秀体现在战场上,奥德修斯的优秀体现在辩论上；《伊利亚特》和《奥德赛》中的这两位主人公被用来定义优秀的不同领域”。只有奥德修斯能获得成功的世界,苏格拉底乐意将它抛掷脑后。苏格拉底坚守《伊利亚特》中阿基里斯的立场,以死亡换来了不朽的名声；《申辩篇》中的苏格拉底,《奥德赛》中的埃阿斯和帕拉默德斯是反对奥德修斯形象和世俗认可的成功的三个例证。(参见James Barrett,'Plato's Apology:Philosophy, Rhetoric, and the World of Myth',in The Classical World, Vol.95, No.1,2001, pp.3-30:p.18, p.23)
① David Leibowitz, The Ironic Defense of Socrates:Plato's Apology, New York:Cambridge University Press,2010, P.183
② J.F.Humphrey, There is good hope that death is a blessing, in Re-Imaging Death and Dying, (ed.)Dennis R Cooley and Lloyd Steffen, Oxford:Inter-Disciplinary Press,2009,pp.25-32; p.28
① Thomas G. West, Plato's Apology of Socrates, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press,1979, p.164
① C.D.C.Reeve, Socrates in the Apology, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1989, p.182
① G.M.A.Grube, Plato's Thought, London:Methuen Co Ltd,1958, p.120
② G.M.A.Grube, Plato's Thought, London:Methuen Co Ltd,1958, p.121
① Donald R. Morrison, The Cambridge Companion to Socrates, New York:Cambridge University Press,2011, p.294
② Gregory Vlastos, Socrates:Ironist and Moral Philosopher, New York:Cambridge University Press,1991, p203
① C.D.C. Reeve, Socrates in the Apology, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1989, p.142
① Alexander Nehamas, The Art of Living:Socratic Reflections from Plato to Foucault, Berkeley:University of California Press,1998, p.97
② (ed.)Jiyuan Yu and Jorge J.E.Gracia, Rationality and Happiness:From the Ancient to the Medievals, Rochester: University of Rochester Press, p.54
① Susan Wolf, Moral Saints, in The Journal of Philosophy, Vol.79, No.8(Aug.,1982), pp.419-420
② 李晨阳：《道与西方的相遇》,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005,第7页
1.[丹]克尔凯郭尔：《论反讽概念：以苏格拉底为主线》,汤晨溪译,北京：中国社会科学出版社,2005
2.[英]A.E.Taylor:《柏拉图：生平及其著作》,谢随知等译,山东人民出版社,1996
3. Terence Irwin, Plato's Ethics, New York:Oxford University Press,1995)
4. George Grote, Plato and the other Companions of Sokrates, London,1865
5. Paul Shorey, The Unity of Plato's Thought, Archon Books,1903
6. Anton-Hermann Chroust, Socrates:Man and Myth, London:South Bend Press,1957
7. I.F. Stone, The Trial of Socrates, Anchor Bools,1988
8. Gregory Vlastos,'On 'The Socrates Story", in Political Theory, Vol.7, No.4,1979, pp.533-536
9. W.K.C. Guthrie, Socrates, London:Cambridge University Press,1971
10. Karl R.Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, London:Routledge,1945
11.[古希腊]柏拉图：《游叙弗伦,苏格拉底的申辩,克力同》,严群译,北京：商务印书馆,1983
12.[古希腊]柏拉图：《柏拉图全集》第一、二卷,王晓朝译,北京：人民出版社,2002
13.[古希腊]柏拉图：《柏拉图对话集》,王太庆译,北京：商务印书馆,2004
14.汪子嵩等：《希腊哲学史》第二卷,北京：人民出版社,1993
15.叶秀山：《苏格拉底及其哲学思想》,北京：人民出版社,1986
16.包利民：《生命与逻各斯：希腊伦理思想史论》,北京：东方出版社,1996
17. Charles H Kahn, Plato and the Socratic dialogue, New York:Cambridge University Press,1996
18. Mark L. McPherran, The Religion of Socrates, Pennsylvania:The Pennsylvania State University Press,1996
19. C.D.C. Reeve, Socrates in the Apology, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company, 1989
20. Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Plato's Socrates, New York:Oxford University Press,1994
21. (ed)Nicholas D. Smith and Paul B. Woodruff, Reason and Religion in Socratic Phlosophy, New York:Oxford University Press,2000
22. Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Socrates on Trial, New Jersey: Princeton University Press,1989
23. Richard Kraut, Socrates and the State, New Jersey:Princeton University Press, 1984
24.胡孝根博士论文：《柏拉图对话文体与思想创制之关系》(浙江大学,2009)
25.张志伟(主编)：《形而上学的演变史》,中国人民大学出版社,2010
26. Charles H. Kahn, Review:Vlastos's Socrates, in Phronesis, Vol.37, No.2(1992)
27. Gregory Vlastos, Socrates:Ironist and Moral Philosopher, New York:Cambridge University Press,1991
28. A.E.Tayloyr,'Parmenides, Zeno, and Socrates', in Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, vol.16 (1915-1916), pp.234-289.
29. Neal Wood,'Socrates as Political Partisan', in Canadian Journal of Political Science, vol.7, No.1,1974, pp.3-31
30. John Burnet, Greek Phlosophy:Thales to Plato, Macmillan and Co., London,1928
31. (Ed)C.D.C Reeve and Patrick Lee Miller, Introductory readings in ancient Greek and Roman phlosophy, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,2006
32. Eric Alfred Havetock,"The Evidence for the Teaching of Socrates', in Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol.65,1934, pp.282-295
33. Gregory Vlastos,'The Socratic Elenchus', in The Journal of Philosophy, Vol.79, No.11,1983, pp.27-58
34. J.O.Lofberg, The Trial of Socrates', in The Classical Journal Vol.23, NO.8,1928, pp.601-609
35. (ed)Hugh H.Benson, A company to Plato, Blackwell Publishing Ltd,2006
36. Richard Robinson, Plato's Earlier Dialectic, Oxford University Press,1951
37. Donald R. Morrison, The Cambridge Companion to Socrates, New York: Cambridge University Press,2011
38. E.R.Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational, Berkeley and Los Angeles:University of California Press,1959
39. Richard Kraut,'Comments on Gregory Vlastos' The Socratic Elenchus', in Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Vol.1,1983, pp.59-70
40. (ed.)Gary Alan Scott, Does Socrates Have a Method? The Pennsylvania State University Press,2002
41. Julius Stenzel, Plato's Method of Dialectic, (Translated.) D.J.Allan, New York: Russell and Russe11,1964
42. Mary M.McCabe, Plato and His Predecessors, New York:Cambridge University Press,2000
43. Ronald M.Polansky, 'Professor Vlastos's Analysis of Socratic Elenchus', in Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Vol.3,1985, pp.247-260
44. (ed)Sora Ahbel-Rappe and Rachana Kantekar, A Companion to Socrates, Blackwell Publishing Ltd,2006
45. Thomas C.Brickhouse and Nicholas D.Smith, 'Vlastos on the Elenchus', in Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Vol.2,1984, pp.185-195
46.[英]F.M.康福德：《苏格拉底前后》,孙艳萍译,上海：上海人民出版社,2009
47.[德]黑格尔：《逻辑学》(上卷)杨一之译,北京：商务印书馆,2010
48. Harvey S. Goldman,'Reexamining the 'Examined life' in Plato's Apology of Socrates', in The Philosophical Forum, Vol.35., No.1, Spring 2004, pp.1-33
49. Werner Jaeger, Paideia:The Ideals of Greel Culture, vol.2:In Search of the Divine Centre, trans. Gilbert Highet, New York:Oxford University Pres,1943
50. J. Burnet: Plato's Euthyphro, Apology of Socrates, and Crito. Oxford:Clarendon, 1924
51. R.E.Allen, Socrates and legal Obligation. Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1980
52. (ed)Julia Annas, New Perspectives on Plato:Modern and Ancient, Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press,2002
53. Alfonso Gomez-Lobo, The Foundations of Socratic Ethics, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1994
54. Spiro Panagiotou,'Socrates' defiance in the Apology', in Apeirion,1987, pp.39-61
55. Thomas F. Morris,'Why Socrates does not request exile in the Apology?' in The Heythrop Journal,2011, pp.1-13
56. Thomas F. Morris,'The way in which Socrates is religious:The epilogue of the first speech of the Apology", in The Heythrop Journal,2011, pp.2-13
57. Plato, Complete Works, (ed) John M. Cooper, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company,1997
58. David Wolfsdorf,'The Irony of Socrates', in The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism,2007(65:2),pp.175-187
59. (ed)Dennis R Cooley and Lloyd Steffen, Re-Imaging Death and Dying, Oxford: Inter-Disciplinary Press,2009
60. Christopher W.Tindaale,'Textual Allusion as Rhetorical Argumentation', in Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Argumentation, Frans. Van Eemeren, et. al.,(eds,) Amsterdam:Sic Sat,2007:1359-1363
61. Kenneth Seeskin,'Is the Apology of Socrates a parody?' In Philosophy and Literature,1982, pp.94-105
62. James A. Colaiaco, Socrates Against Athens:Philosophy on Trial, New York: Routledge,2001
63. Michael J.O'Brien, The Socratic Paradoxes and the Greek Mind, Chapel Hill:The University of North Carolina Press,1967
64. Jacob Howland, The Paradox of Political Philosophy:Socrates' Philosophic Trial, Oxford:Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,1998
65. Ricky K.Green, Democratic Virtue in the Trial and Death of Socrates, New York: Peter Lang,2001
66. Hugh H. Benson, Socratic Wisdom:The Model of Knowledge in Plato's Early Dialogues, New York:Oxford University Press,2000
67. Norman Gulley, The Philosophy of Socrates, London:MacMillan and Co.Ltd,1968
68. Gregory Vlastos, Socratic Studies, (ed)Myles Burnyeat, New York:Cambridge University Press,1994
69. (ed.) Hugh H. Benson, Essays on the Philosophy of Socrates, New York:Oxford University Press,1992
70. Terence Irwin, Plato's Moral Theory:The Early and Middle Dialogues, Oxford: Clarendon Press,1977
71. Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, The Philosophy of Socrates, Colorado:Westview Press,2000
72. Alexander Nehamas, Virtues of Authenticity:Essays on Plato and Socrates, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1999
73.[古希腊]阿里斯托芬：《阿里斯托芬喜剧六种》,罗念生译,上海：上海人民出版社,2004
74.[英]A.E.Taylor,[奥]Th.龚珀茨：《苏格拉底传》,赵继铨李真译,北京：商务印书馆,1999
75. Kenneth Seeskin,'Poverty and Sincerity in the Apology", in Philosophy and Literature,1992(16:1), pp.128-133
76. G.M.A.Grube, Plato's Thought, London:Methuen Co Ltd,1958
77. Thomas West, Plato's Apology of Socrates, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press,1979
78. Christopher Bruell, On The Socratic Education, Maryland:Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.,1999
79. Arthur Lap An,'The Function of Socrates' Educational Method', in Educational Theory, vol.7,issue 2,1957,pp.135-139
80.[古希腊]柏拉图：《苏格拉底的申辩》,吴飞译,华夏出版社,2007
81.[古希腊]修昔底德：《伯罗奔尼撒战争史》(上),谢德风译,北京：商务印书馆,1985
82. J. W. Roberts, City of Sokrates, London and New York:Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984
83. Marina McCoy, Phto on the Rhetoric of Philosophers and Sophist, New York: Cambridge University Press,2008
84. (ed)Lindsay Judson and Vassilis Karasmanis, Remembering Socrates: Philosophical Essays, New York:Oxford University Press,2006
85. Gregory Vlastos,'The Historical Socrates and Athenian Democracy', in Political Theory, vol.11.No.4,1983, pp.495-516
86. R.E.Allen, Plato's Euthyphro and the Early Theory of Forms, New York:Humanity Press,1970
87. R.Hackforth, The Composition of Plato's Apology, London:Cambridge University Press,1933
88. R. Nicol Cross, Socrates:The Man and His Mission, New York:Books For Libraries Press,1970
89. B.Darrell Jackson,'The Prayers of Socrates', in Phronesis, vol.16, No.1,1971, pp.14-37
90. Richard Holway,'Achilles, Socrates, and Democracy', in Political Theory, vol.22, No.4,1994, pp.561-590
91. A.D.Woozley, Law and Obedience, Chapel Hill:The University of North Carolina Press,1979
92. Nathan Hanna,'Socrates and Superiority', in The Southern Journal of Philosophy, vol.45,2007, pp.252-268
93. G.X.Santas, Socrates:Philosophy in Plato's Early Dialogues, London:Routledge and Kegan Paul,1979
94. Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Plato and the Trial of Socrates, New York and London:Routledge,2004
95. K.J.Dover, Greek Popolar Morality:In the Time of Plato and Aristotle, Oxford: Basil Blackwell,1974
96. James Barrett,'Plato's Apology:Philosophy, Rhetoric, and the World of Myth', in The Classical World, Vol.95, No.1,2001, pp.3-30
97. David Leibowitz, The Ironic Defense of Socrates:Plato's Apology, New York: Cambridge University Press,2010
98. Terence Irwin, Plato's Moral Theory, Oxford:Clarendon Press,1977
99. Julia Annas, Platonic Ethics:Old and New, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press,1999
100. M.F.Burnyeat,'Apology 30b2-4:Socrates, Money, and the Grammer of ', in The Journal of Hellenic Studies, vol.123,2003, pp.1-25
101. (ed)Jiyuan Yu and Jorge J.E.Gracia, Rationality and Happiness:From the Ancient to the Medievals, Rochester:University of Rochester Press
102. Susan Wolf,'Moral Saints', in The Journal of Philosophy, Vol.79, No.8,1982, pp.419-439
103. Alexander Nehamas, The Art of Living:Socratic Reflections from Plato to Foucault, Berkeley:University of California Press,1998
104. 李晨阳：《道与西方的相遇》,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005