ZBORNIK - Matica srpska

to, which would probably perfect the Socratic persona in the history
of philosophy. What is missing? And is it so crucial that it would
promote the personality of Socrates — both the historical and Plato's
depiction — to such an extent that moral perfection would be
almost feasible?
The accusation the Greek philosopher of the 20 th century levels
at (both the historical and the Platonic) Socrates consists of two
parts. The first one's subject deals with the disastrous outcome of a
disastrous vote of the Athenian Assembly in March 415 B.C., when
the resolution was Athens' giving aid to Segestans, a petty ally in
far-off Sicily. The outcome of such an adventure in Syracuse was
total disaster for Athens. The vast majority of her around 50.000
soldiers was killed; the captives of war were humiliated and finally
died in horrible conditions. The second part of this accusation is
being derived from another occasion, where a moral outrage was
about to take place, when the Athenian Assembly was trying to
reach a resolution regarding Mytilene's exemplary punishment for
its defection to Sparta, after leaving the Athenian League — Cleon
had proposed the execution of all adult citizens of Mytilene, as well
as women and children to be sold into slavery. 2 The underlying core
of these accusations towards Socrates is his political absence, his
sinful silence. For such a philosopher, who “would rather lose his
life than connive in an injustice to a single person", 3 it seems incomprehensible
to keep his mouth shut and not raise the voice of
reason. The stain in Socrates' moral behaviour Vlastos notices is the
Socratic incomprehensible distance from politics in his beloved city,
where resolutions were about to be taken, based upon misjudgements
which were stemming from imperial greed and pride (the
case of Syracuse); or from the supposed justice of the lex talionis
— which for Socrates had proved to be an abhorrent stance, a rejection
of “the notion, unquestioned in his time and a fundamental part
of Greek morality since Homer, that one should retaliate against
one's personal enemies, claiming that an injury done to oneself
never justified doing an injury to another, or returning wrong for
wrong" 4 — (the case of Mytilene).
2 For these accusations see ibid., pp. 128—130.
3 Ibid., p. 130.
4 R. A. McNeal, “Socrates, Ironist and Moral Philosopher by Gregory Vlastos",
History and Theory, 33, 3 (1994), p. 384. As far as Socrates' moral revolution
is concerned due to his rejection of retaliation, see. R. Kraut, “Socrates, Ironist and
Moral Philosopher by Gregory Vlastos", The Philosophical Review, 101, 2 (1992),
p. 354: “‘Socrates' rejection of retaliation' also portrays Socrates as a moral revolutionary:
contrary to the assumption, widely accepted among the ancient Greeks,
96