Modern Wisdom - #864 - Donald Robertson - The True Story Of History’s Greatest Philosopher

Episode Date: November 14, 2024

Donald Robertson is a cognitive-behavioral psychotherapist, an author and an expert on ancient philosophy. If you were to divide philosophy into two eras, it would be pre-Socratic and post-Socratic. Socrates is history's greatest philosopher, and today we get to discover new lessons about his life and his teachings. Expect to learn the benefits of thinking like Socrates, why he was so influential, what the Socratic method actually is, the hidden gem lessons from Socrates on how to live a good life, the insane story of how he died and much more… Sponsors: See discounts for all the products I use and recommend: https://chriswillx.com/deals Sign up for a one-dollar-per-month trial period from Shopify at https://shopify.com/modernwisdom (automatically applied at checkout) Get a 20% discount on Nomatic’s amazing luggage at https://nomatic.com/modernwisdom (automatically applied at checkout) Get the Whoop 4.0 for free and get your first month for free at https://join.whoop.com/modernwisdom (automatically applied at checkout) Extra Stuff: Get my free reading list of 100 books to read before you die: https://chriswillx.com/books Try my productivity energy drink Neutonic: https://neutonic.com/modernwisdom Episodes You Might Enjoy: #577 - David Goggins - This Is How To Master Your Life: https://tinyurl.com/43hv6y59 #712 - Dr Jordan Peterson - How To Destroy Your Negative Beliefs: https://tinyurl.com/2rtz7avf #700 - Dr Andrew Huberman - The Secret Tools To Hack Your Brain: https://tinyurl.com/3ccn5vkp - Get In Touch: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/chriswillx Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/chriswillx YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/modernwisdompodcast Email: https://chriswillx.com/contact - Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hello friends, welcome back to the show. My guest today is Donald Robertson. He's a cognitive behavioral psychotherapist, an author and an expert on ancient philosophy. If you were to divide philosophy into two eras, it would be pre-socratic and post-socratic. Socrates is history's greatest philosopher and today we get to discover new lessons about his life and his teachings. Expect to learn the benefits of thinking like Socrates, why he was so influential even today, what the Socratic method actually is, the hidden gem lessons from Socrates

on how to live a good life, the insane story of how he died and much more. This episode is brought to you by Shopify. Shopify powers 10% of all e-commerce companies in the United States. They're the driving force behind Newtonic and a few other brands you've probably heard of like Gymshark and Allbirds.

You can think of Shopify as your business sidekick. From setting up shop to scaling your business, they've got you covered. You're not going into business to learn about how to code or build a website or do backend inventory management. Shopify takes all of that off your hands and allows you to focus on the job website or do backend inventory management, Shopify takes all of that off your hands and allows you to focus on the job that you came here to do, which is designing and selling a cool product. So if you've got a killer idea and

a dream to sell Shopify is your go to no coding, no design skills, no problem, just pure entrepreneurial magic. Right now you can sign up for a $1 per month trial period at the link in the description below or by heading to Shopify.com Modern wisdom all lowercase that Shopify.com Modern wisdom now to grow your business no matter what stage you're in. This episode is brought to you by Nomadic. Traveling should be about the journey not the chaos of packing Which is why I'm such a huge fan of Nomadic. Their backpack and carry-on pro have genuinely made the travel process infinitely more enjoyable.

They've got compartments for everything, your laptop, your shoes, your sunglasses. It's so well organized that even your toothbrush will feel important. It's like the Marie Kondo of luggage. Everything has its place. Best of all, their products will last you literally a lifetime with their lifetime guarantee. So this is the final backpack that you will ever need to buy. And you can return or exchange any product within 30 days for any reason. So you can buy your new bag, try it for a month.

And if you do not like it, they'll give you your money back. Right now you can get 20% off everything site-wide by going to the link in the description below or heading to nomadic.com slash modern wisdom. That's N-O-M-A-T-I-C.com slash modern wisdom. I've won Whoop for over four years now. Since way before they were a partner on the show and it is the only wearable I've ever stuck with

because it's the best. It's so innocuous, you don't remember that you've got it on and yet it tracks absolutely everything 24 seven via your wrist. It tracks your heart rate, your sleep, your recovery, all of your workouts, your resting heart rate, heart rate variability, how much you're even breathing throughout the night but all of this into an app and spits out very simple, easy to understand and fantastically usable data.

It's phenomenal. I'm a massive, massive fan of whoop and that is why it's the only wearable that I've ever stuck with. And best of all, you can join for free, pay nothing for the brand new whoop 4.0 strap, plus you get your first month for free and there's a 30 day money back guarantee. So you can buy it for free, try it for free. If you don't like it after 29 days, they'll give you your money back. Right now you can get all of that by heading to join.whoop.com slash modern wisdom.

That's join.whoop.com slash modern wisdom. But now ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Donald Robertson. Dude, I love every time that we get to speak. I adored all of your last books and you've done a new one about Socrates. Why would anyone want to think like Socrates? Why would anyone care about this old dead white guy or whatever? I love Socrates. I love Marcus Aurelius, but Socrates is like the next level. You know, I really am excited to be able to talk and write about him and stuff.

Socrates was, I'll tell you why this is going to seem like an odd answer, right? There's Eric Clapton, right? And guys like that. And then there's Jimi Hendrix, right? Eric Clapton is an amazing guitarist, but Jimi Hendrix to me anyway, he sounds like he's from another planet, right? Jimi Hendrix took his guitar to bed with him. He woke up in the morning, strapped his guitar on and fried eggs wearing his guitar. He went to the lavatory wearing his guitar, right? Psychologists call that time on task, like he was constantly practicing and stuff like he was obsessed with it. Socrates reminds me in that solitary regard of Jimi Hendrix, because the way he's described to us is that he's a guy who abandoned everything else and just spent all day every day discussing what he considered to be the most important questions in life with anybody, the greatest intellectuals that he could find in the known world, prostitutes,

politicians, slaves, you name it, everybody from all walks of life. So he was like the Jimi Hendrix of philosophizing. He never took his guitar off. He was constantly doing. I can't imagine someone in modern society spending that amount of time really analyzing the contradictions in someone else's thinking. Soxies to me is a kind of a unique individual and it comes through. We don't know, there's this thing called the Socratic problem, that we don't know but we should acknowledge at the beginning, that we don't know for sure how close a representation Plato's dialogues or the other sources that we have are of the real Socrates. But I think his character comes through to

some extent. Those dialogues are probably semi-fictional, like they're embellished a bit. But the real guy kind of shines through to some extent and he must have been an extraordinary individual. He's somebody who has a tremendous capacity for thinking outside the box, for spotting logical contradictions. And he said some of the most radical things in the history of Western philosophy. Not only that, I see him as the godfather of modern self-help and self-improvement psychology or the great-great-granddaddy of cognitive behavioral therapy. So as a psychotherapist, a cognitive behavioral therapist, I look to Socrates as somebody who stands at the very origin of our tradition.

But also I think in some ways we've kind of gone astray in ways that he warned us about. So by going back and looking at what he originally said, I think we can figure out maybe and see beyond some of the mistakes that we might have made along the way. You mentioned the maybe historical gap with regards to what we know about him, how we would have learned about him, how do we know anything about him? Sort of what are the scraps of material that you've been using to write this book? Well, the most famous thing is that we have Plato's dialogues. There are like 36 or 37 of Plato's dialogues, most of which feature Socrates prominently.

And it's generally assumed by scholars that Plato changed his approach throughout his career. Early in his career, he wrote a more literal description of Socrates, probably embellished a bit. As time went on, he starts to use Socrates more and more as a mouthpiece, probably for his own views. Like Plato's famous metaphysical theory, the theory of forms, probably wasn't something that Socrates ever actually said. Socrates's way of doing philosophy seems to be more kind of homely, down to earth, more focused on applied ethics and daily life basically. So we have those and you know did Plato's dialogues are just an incredible, you know Plato was also a genius and so we have the writings of a genius about another genius basically. You know,

some of these texts are the most profound and moving pieces of literature in the Western canon and you know I seldom recommend books to people funnily enough unless I know them very well but my one exception to that is that I think everybody should read Plato's Apology because I think it's a masterpiece and it only takes a couple of hours to read as an essay. So we've got all that stuff. And then we have Xenophon, another student of Socrates and his dialogues are less well known, but we have a bunch of like 30 or 40 dialogues, shorter ones, more down to earth from Xenophon as well. Then we have this really weird thing, which is a play by Aristophanes, which

is a satire ridiculing Socrates that was written and performed during his lifetime. And we learn almost nothing from that, or it's hard to tell anything from it because it's a caricature, but it tells us that he must have been pretty famous during his lifetime for people to have ridiculed him, caricatured him like that. And then we have what's called the anecdotal tradition, which is like basically a bunch of little anecdotes and quips about Socrates said this, Socrates did that, that we tend to find in later authors. So they are more dubious reliability, but altogether all this stuff tells us something about what we could frame as the literary character of Socrates. So Marcus Aurelius and

other subsequent thinkers that followed the subsequent to Socrates would have known of him mainly through these writings. So we could say what's influencing them is the character of Socrates that was passed down by other writers. And there's a big question mark about how closely does that correlate to the real guy? We'll never know. Why was he so influential? Well, the ancient answer to that question is that he wasn't the first philosopher. He wasn't even the first philosopher at Athens. But they used to say that he was the first philosopher that brought philosophy really down to earth and applied it to everyday matters, kind of almost making it into a psychotherapy, basically.

He would talk to people about the nature of love. He would talk to generals in the military about the nature of courage. You know, he would talk to priests about the nature of piety. He talked to his friends about the anger. The most kind of homely dialogue that we have is in Xenophon. And in it Socrates has a conversation with his teenage son, Lamprechaise, because Lamprechaise is really upset about his mum nagging him. And Socrates helps his son to kind of reframe this, overcome his anger towards his mother. Right, so that's probably the most kind of down to earth example of a Socratic dialogue that we have. So that's kind of what he was particularly known for doing. But also he took the method of dialectic or philosophical question and answer and turned

it into his own trademark method called the Socratic method and really began to wrap much more radically and thoroughly question the assumptions about morality, mainly that people around him were making. And that made him a controversial figure. You know, he was like dynamite. You know, some people were almost addicted to being questioned by Socrates. They found it an incredibly liberating experience. Other people found it embarrassing, humiliating, and they hated him and they went after him. So it wouldn't be overly simplifying things to say that Socrates asked too many questions, rocked the boat, upset some powerful people, and we all know how that ended for him. He was made to drink hemlock. What was the existing philosophical world that he entered into? If mentioned there that he, he wasn't the first philosopher, probably by broader categories, but he's the first one to bring it down to earth.

What was, what was the state philosophically of the existing world? Well, the two main philosophical traditions that preceded them, and there were others, so it's a lot more complex, but the ones that are most relevant to him is the first philosopher at Athens was a guy called Anaxagoras, who came from the Greek colonies, which would be in Ionia, which would be on the coast of Turkey, basically. So when we talk about Greek philosophers, we're often a bit confused about where they came from. They didn't all come from Athens. Many of them came from Greek colonies that were much further afield. So Anaxagris was

what we call a natural philosopher. The famous thing about Socrates is we refer to everyone that came before him as pre-Socratic. That's how influential he was. Yeah, he's the before Christ. He's the before Christ of philosophy. Yeah. So the natural philosophers are kind of in many ways precursors of modern science. They try to explain things broadly speaking using physical descriptions. You know, they were very interested in astronomy, very interested in physiology, and that was a great thing for Athenian culture and Greek culture. It was also very controversial because they challenged traditional superstitions. So people would think that thunder and lightning

was caused by Zeus, and the natural philosopher said, we reckon it's caused by clouds rubbing together or something like that, earthquakes are just a natural phenomenon and things. And that had a surprisingly big impact on society. Just as an aside, there's a famous anecdote about how Pericles, the most influential, most powerful Athenian statesman at this time, was about to set sail with his fleet on a military campaign and there was an eclipse and his crew were cowering in fear and they refused to do it. Very often the Greeks would abandon, particularly the Spartans were known for this by the way, they would abandon battles because they were concerned about bad omens and so on. And Pericles supposedly explained the natural philosophy

that he'd been taught by Anaxagoras. And he said, look, this is just something passing in front of the sun, as if I put my cloak in front of your eyes, but it's further away and much bigger. And he convinced by giving this down-to-earth naturalistic explanation, he managed to convince his troops to set sail. And so it changed the outcome of battles. That's how dramatic it was.

But at the same time, it also upset a lot of people. And so Anaxagoras was also placed on trial for impiety, long before Socrates. So there was Anaxagoras, and Socrates thought this philosophy, though, doesn't teach wisdom. He said Anaxagoras didn't really understand anything about the nature of justice and injustice. So when he was placed on trial, supposedly he was a broken man as a result. And we can contrast how Anaxagoras dealt badly with being exiled and then subsequently sentenced to death for impiety and how Socrates famously exhibited courage in court and stood by his principles because he'd prepared himself to understand justice and injustice from a much more profound

philosophical perspective. So there's Anaxagoras and many other natural philosophers that Socrates had studied. And then a bit later we get these guys called the Sophists. And their name implies that they claim to be wise. They claim to have expertise. And the Sophists taught young men oratory and rhetoric. They were kind of like self-improvement gurus in a sense, but they also taught people how to become successful

politicians and confident public speakers. And they were, the first one was Protagoras, who Socrates knew personally and questioned. And this seems to have been a key moment in his career. But Socrates basically thought the sophists were far too concerned with just winning arguments and they'd sacrifice the truth. So they would teach you how to win a debate in the assembly.

Right? But Socrates' concern, to put it very simply, they'd sacrifice the truth. So they would teach you how to win a debate in the assembly. But Socrates' concern, to put it very simply, was he'd say, how much time have you guys spent trying to figure out what's in the best interests of society, or what's just and what's unjust? Like zero time. But you spend all of your time trying to figure out how you can convince other people what's just are in their interests before the assembly. Now this is a very simple argument, but weirdly, eerily, it kind of applies today. So people get into politics because they want to influence society, but how many politicians seem to have invested that much time and effort in trying to figure out what's genuinely in the

interests of individuals or society. Socrates says it would be like going to see a doctor that never spent any time studying medicine. I don't bother with that. I'm just really good at writing prescriptions, but I don't know what's actually good for your health. So politicians, all they're concerned about is winning debates, influencing legislation. But So us said, could you explain what justice is, or explain to me what's in the interests of society? And when he asked him these questions, the player, I don't know, I haven't really thought about it.

So this was his concern with the Saul Fists. It was all about appearances and the sacrifice truth. But he had a kind of love-hate relationship with them. He liked to kind of hang around them. He thought they said some interesting things, but they didn't really think deeply enough about what they were saying. I guess another part of it that I think is very relevant today is that Socrates found that the sophists would

give speeches and they would teach people maxims, a bit like watching a YouTube video or getting kind of rules for life from modern self-improvement experts, right? And Socrates thought that was basically too passive. He thought there are no rules that are gonna apply across every situation in life, basically. What's much more in your interests is learning how to think for yourself and to be able to question things

and spot exceptions to general rules and principles. So that's a harder, it's a more kind of a less tangible concept for people. But so that's where the Socratic method comes in. So that's a harder, it's a more kind of less tangible concept for people. But that's where the Socratic method comes in. Socrates thought we need to learn how to think for ourselves, question things more deeply, not just kind of memorize these phrases that we're getting from the sophists. Do you think it's kind of ironic that one of Socrates' fundamental principles is that you must think for yourself and your book is called How to Think Like Socrates? How to Think Like Socrates, which is how to think for yourself. It's nice

and nice and circular there. I love it. It's a bit of a circle. It's a bit circular, but if you learn to think like Socrates, you'll learn to think for yourself. So do we know how Socrates got into philosophy? Have we got any idea about his upbringing or history or introduction? If he's this sort of, you know, game changing world renowned, everything before him was now and after him was just a replicant of what he said before, like what was his, what was his come up story? We kind of have several bits of evidence there. So sometimes the evidence is a little bit contradictory or it's a little bit

vague, so, you know, in telling his story, we have to make some assumptions. We have to iron out some contradictions and stuff because the ancient texts are a little bit messy in that regard. So the most famous explanation he gives is in Plato's Apology, where he says his friend Chirithon went to Delphi, which is a few days walk outside Athens in the mountains. This incredible place is like something out of Lord of the Rings. And there's a great famous temple to the god Apollo there. And you could ask questions of the Pythia, the priestess of Apollo. She sat on a bronze tripod, supposedly inhaling these fumes and she'd go into a trance. And the god Apollo possessed her and spoke through her, right? And Chirophon, who was another philosopher, a weird dude who people compare to a bat or a specter.

He was, I imagine, almost like a kind of goth or something. Like he was a bit of a misfit, but he was Socrates' best friend. He went to the, he was known for doing kind of eccentric things. So he went to the Delphic Oracle and asked it, is any man wiser than Socrates? And it replied, no man is wiser than Socrates. Apollo, the god Apollo, replied, no man is wiser than Socrates. And so the weird story in the Apology is that Socrates found this difficult to accept and say he went around grilling the wisest people that he could find to try and find evidence that there was indeed somebody that was wiser than him because he didn't believe that no one was wiser than him. But

he found that when he asked great philosophers and statesmen, often they contradicted themselves. So he thought they can't be wise. They believe that they are. And the sophists literally called themselves wise men. But often when they were questioned, the things they were saying were full of contradictions and fell apart. And so Socrates thought, well, look, I come to the conclusion that paradoxically, I don't know much either, but I'm neither do these guys and I am wiser than them by a hair's breadth because at least I know that I'm not wise, whereas they falsely believe that they are wise.

And so the central thrust of his method becomes puncturing this kind of intellectual arrogance or conceit. Sometimes it's called double ignorance. So Socrates thought ignorance isn't a problem because I might be ignorant about medicine, but if I know I'm ignorant about medicine, I might be motivated to go and consult an expert, right? I might not know how to fix the engine in my car, but if I go and see a mechanic, I can find somebody that maybe knows better than me. But if I believe that I'm an expert on engines or I believe I'm an expert on medicines and I'm not really, then I'm in trouble because I'll be guided by my ignorance to make lots of mistakes. So Socrates thought this is one of our biggest

problems in life, a bit like the Dunning-Kruger phenomenon, like that we believe that we know things that we do not in fact know. So he found that his method was almost like a therapy for curing people of this intellectual conceit. So that found that his method was almost like a therapy for curing people of this intellectual conceit. So that's the story that Plato tells, but he also says that he did study philosophy prior to that. Maybe for decades he'd been studying natural philosophy and learning a bit from other philosophers, but his trademark method developed at some point in his life as a result of this weird incident where the Oracle proclaims that no man is wiser than him.

How much do you think he would have spent his time playing this game of poking holes in other people's hypocrisy, ignorance, like shallow rhetoric that isn't sort of foundation philosophically if he hadn't stepped into a world where the sophists were kind of the number one band available at the time. That's really hard to say. I mean, I always feel like we almost need the sophists to have Socrates. You know, he's very much reacting to them. I mean, maybe he would have developed his method in response to the other, the natural

philosophers, but it really seems to be the sophists that inspire him in a way because he's so concerned. And one reason for that is that the sophists have a lot of influence over Athenian politics and Socrates was friends with some powerful political figures. And so although he wasn't really directly involved in politics himself, I think he was very concerned about Athens. And what's missing from the Platonic dialogues and from Xenophon, although they refer to historical events and they refer to important figures, I think people still when they read Plato get the feeling that Socrates is just walking around in

pleasant groves and sandals kind of pontificating about things and they don't visualize him as a heavy infantryman who fought in at least three major battles of the Peloponnesian War. They don't imagine him as someone who survives a terrible plague. They don't see him at the heart of Athenian politics surrounded by these key figures, like the senior statesmen. And living through one of the most epic wars in European history, the Peloponnesian war lasted 27 years, you know, and under a dictatorship, the 30 tyrants that took over Athens. So his life was incredibly dramatic, basically. And his philosophy is shaped by, I think, all of these things. His experience as a soldier, living under different political regimes, including a kind of dictatorship that was really brutal, and political purges where people were rounded up and executed. All of these things.

But definitely the sophists loom large in Socrates' influences and his partly because he's concerned about them having so much sway over the Athenian assembly and the political decisions that are being made. How would you describe the main principles of his philosophical worldview? Well, as we've said, I mean, the Socratic method, the core of what he's doing in a sense is more about the process. So some people in the ancient world would have seen wisdom or the goal of life as being the acquisition of knowledge, like, you know, having a bunch of opinions that are true basically.

And Socrates thought that's not real wisdom though, that's just kind of learning stuff passively. Real wisdom is more like a cognitive skill, right? So the goal of philosophy, I think for Socrates, is more of a process that we engage in every day of our lives, learning to think and question things more profoundly. He said the unexamined life is not worth living. He thought the goal of life was to examine your life continually, every day. It was like an ongoing process of personal development that in a sense never really ended. So the core of his philosophy I think is the actual method of his philosophy. And he does have doctrines in a sense. Often he doesn't state them, but he seems to be kind of arriving at them.

So for example, a famous one is in Plato's Republic in the first book, Socrates asks for a definition of justice. And his friends say, well, justice is helping your friends and harming your enemies. Right? This was a cliche in Athenian culture. It comes from the military world where you'd be helping your military allies and punishing or attacking your enemies in warfare. But it was also applied to civilian life as well. And Socrates questions this from a number of different angles. But as far as I recall in the Republic, he doesn't specifically state what the alternative conclusion would be. He just kind of implies it. Whereas later philosophers, Plutarch, for example, explicitly

says, Socrates believed that justice consists in helping your friends, but also helping your enemies by turning them into your friends. So the goal is basically to convert enemies into friends, not just to kind of punish or harm your enemies. Socrates was concerned that if we try to harm our enemies, first of all we're missing out on the opportunity to convert them into allies or friends. And secondly, we might kind of end up making them worse enemies by punishing them or harming them in a particular way. And actually that's kind of what happened to Athens. There were certain more kind of aggressive hawkish political leaders that took control

of the Athenian assembly and they committed genocide. And this really led to Athens downfall because Athens potential allies no longer trusted them and turned against them. So their regime collapsed, they had a catastrophic military defeat in Sicily that can be seen as the consequence of this kind of more short-sighted, more aggressive attitude towards other states. So Socrates does have these doctrines and there are many, many other ones that people derive from what he's saying, but we should be a little bit careful about making them into roles that are too rigid. One of his nicest ones, you know, that's a little bit different for instance, is Socrates, according to Xenophon, Socrates reputedly said that we should

eat to live rather than live to eat. You know, he thought people, in general, he thought people were too much duped by appearances. So they were too much swayed by short-term pleasure and pain. And he thought we should think more carefully about whether something is actually good for our health or not, rather than just whether it tastes nice or doesn't taste nice. We should be thinking about the reality of stuff beyond the appearances. Another one of his little sayings that's quite well known is that we should be as we wish to appear.

Like he thought, again, we're misled into focusing too much on appearances. We want to appear confident. Socrates said it would be better to actually become confident if you want to appear confident. If you focus too much on faking it, like all the appearances, that can kind of lead to a more superficial approach.

It could be misleading it. You could get sucked into deception of other people. It would be better for you to actually become confident. People came to him saying, Socrates, how can I make myself seem like a good friend? And Socrates said it would be better to become a good friend in reality. He said it would be better to become a good friend in reality. I'm feeling a lot of this sort of tension between practical and abstract, especially stepping into a world where it's this sort of rhetorical device. People are getting toast masters or improv or comedy speech coaching in this way, but they're not actually assessing the underlying motivations of why they're

doing this particular thing. And he's got that, we are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then is not an act, but a habit. So even in the highlighting of the importance of action, he's even taking it one step further and talking about the repetition of action. Yeah. I mean, Socrates felt like we were constant, we're constantly confusing appearance and reality.

That's, I guess, a recurring theme of his philosophy. And he felt the sophists were all about appearances and completely neglected reality. Right. So, you know, he's always challenging us to look beyond appearances by using reason. He, in a sense, Socrates thinks we're kind of lazy, you know, and he's always kind of encouraging us to question appearances and use reason to think a little bit more

deeply about things. I'll give you a really cool example of that that relates to something I mentioned earlier. I mentioned Lamprechaun getting annoyed with his mother. Socrates, at the beginning in of the conversation asks his son whether his mother really cares for him and whether she's made many sacrifices to help him. And L'Anne Perclés actually admits quite easily, he says, yeah, my mum's dedicated her life to helping me when I'm sick. My mother nurses me. She spent all of her time raising me. She's done everything for me. But Socrates, she just really time raising me, she's done everything for me,

but Socrates she just really annoys me when she's nagging me, like I don't know how I could possibly put up with it. And Socrates uses this amazing analogy that just out there, it's one of my favorite things that he says, he says in the theater when you're going to see a tragedy being performed for example, do the actors not really say things that are much more vicious and insulting and hostile than anything your mother ever says? And Lambert Cleese says, well, yeah, of course they do. But you don't understand Socrates. They're just acting.

It's not real. Right? That's the difference. And Socrates says, but you just told me a few moments ago that you believe that your mother doesn't really mean you harm, but fundamentally she cares for you, right? So sometimes she might seem really annoying, but in general, she actually cares for you a lot. And what he's encouraging Lamprequies to do is to kind of look beyond the impression that

he has of his mother in those moments and think more about her personality as a whole and a more rounded and complete way by using reason to think about who is your mother really? You know, what is the nature of your relationship with her really? It's more than just a nagging. Like that may be part of it, it may be something you don't like, but by focusing only on that and putting it under a magnifying glass you exaggerate your anger. But if you think about her personality as a whole, then it becomes just one small part, and it becomes less upsetting. Maybe you become more able to tolerate it. You mentioned it a couple of times. Assume that somebody hasn't heard about the Socratic method before. What is it? How does it work?

So in some ways, it's tricky to define and in some ways it's easy. Like there's a lot of nuance to it. And Socrates doesn't sit down at any point and say, hey, let me just explain my methods to you briefly. Instead what we see is an example after example of him using his method in various different ways. So we have to kind of infer how he's doing it. But basically what he tends to do is to ask people to define a concept and it's

usually a virtue. So he'll say define piety, define courage, define justice. And typically it's something that's very relevant to them. So he's not just like we would in academic philosophy now, analyzing concepts, you know, for the sake of it. He talks to military commanders about the nature of courage, for example, because it's something that they're already taking for granted, in a sense, in the conversations that they're having. So you could also say he's digging deeper beneath the conversation and questioning the underlying premise or assumption. So your guys are talking a lot about courage, but what is courage? How do you actually define it? The whole conversation is based on that and then he'll normally think of exceptions to the role that they've given. So the most famous

example is when he's talking to Lackeys and Nacias to Athenian generals, they define courage as standing your ground and remaining in formation in the face of the enemy. And that's because the Athenians depended to a large extent on their hoplites, their heavy infantry, which Socrates was one. And they had to fight in the phalanx formation. And so each soldier's shield would protect him, but also the guy

standing to his left. And if you broke formation, not only would you place yourself at risk, but you place the soldiers that are fighting alongside you in greater danger as well by doing that. So they had to really drum it into these guys that they had to remain very rigidly in formation for this phalanx strategy to work. And Socrates says, okay, that's a good definition of courage, but it's too narrow, right? Because what about during a tactical retreat? Like you break from the phalanx formation, but you can still exhibit courage. You're no longer standing your ground in the same way,

though. What if you fight in the cavalry and then you have to charge into the middle of the enemy rather than standing your ground? But the cavalry exhibit courage. You just have to define it differently though. He says, what about the Spartans? They fight in phalanx formation, but they also sometimes charge into the enemy, like cavalry do, but they're renowned for their courage. So you wouldn't say that they lack courage. You'd have to tweak your definition a little bit. So he starts this conversation going usually by creative thinking and being able to come thinking outside the box and coming up with... so he you know again like he's not following a formula here as much as using a skill like he's thinking right and he's coming up he's brainstorming

examples what about this what about this what about this right it's like he's saying yeah but okay courage could be standing your ground but what about this what about this scenario what about in? Right. It's like he's saying, yeah, but okay, courage could be standing your ground, but what about this? What about this scenario? What about in civilian life? You'd have to define it differently. And so he constantly challenges the interlocutor, the person he's speaking about to revise their definition and think about it at a deeper and deeper level. And he doesn't always arrive at a clear conclusion.

Often he doesn't. His dialogues often end in aporia in Greek, which is the term that we use to mean a sort of confusion or bewilderment. So people walk away, and some people hated that, but other people would walk away from it thinking, I kind of feel like I know less now than I did at the beginning of the conversation, but in a good way because maybe I was too rigid in my thinking and I was assuming that I knew things that I didn't really understand. At least now I realize that there's more to justice than helping your friends and harming your enemies, or there's more to courage than just standing your ground and remaining in

the phalanx formation. And maybe I've kind of spiraled closer and closer to the center of the meaning of these concepts. So in the process of doing that he'd often point out contradictions in people's thinking. He said that what you're saying now seems to clash with something you said a few minutes ago. So he was very sharp at noticing this. And you know I think one of the ways that that can help us today actually is there's a particular type

of contradiction that Socrates would sometimes point out, a moral contradiction. I'll give you another example where he's talking to a teenage boy, an adolescent boy. There's a guy called Crotobulus that comes to him who's the son of one of his best friends, Crito. And Crotobulus says, Socrates, could you introduce me to some people that would be really good friends to have in Athenian society? He's asking him for help networking, weirdly, right? And Socrates says, sure, like, how would you define a good friend? And Krotopoulos says, well, they come and visit you when you're sick. Maybe they'd lend you money if you're broke.

Maybe if you were being a bit out of order, they'd take you to one side and gently kind of explain to you that you should change your behavior and stuff like that. So quite easily, he's able to kind of define what a good friend does. But then Socrates says, well, how many of these qualities do you exhibit yourself? And Cretobolus is like, well, not many, like, you know, zero. I don't know. So Socrates says, again, haven't you got this back to front? You're kind of asking me to present you to these people as if you would be a good match, as if you would be a good friend to them. But they're bound to figure out

if you don't have any of these qualities, and then they won't trust me as a matchmaker of friends, you know, and they're gonna lose faith in you as a friend as well. You should have come to me and asked me how you could become a good friend yourself, like how you could improve yourself. So you're exhibiting a double standard. You're applying one standard to other people in terms of friendship, but a different standard or no standard to yourself.

This is a kind of moral hypocrisy, if you like. So often Socrates is drawing people's attention to the fact that they're exhibiting moral double standards. And we do similar things in modern cognitive therapy as well. Sometimes people think philosophical ethics can be quite subtle and quite nuanced and it often is. But you know, in many cases we can make moral progress, I think, just by not being hypocrites. You know, the one thing that the majority of people agree on is that you shouldn't contradict yourself morally, you know. And if you're saying one thing and doing another, like if you're applying a double standard, most people agree there's something wrong there. And it's reason that helps us

to spot those contradictions and attempt to resolve them. So there's a simple way, I think, that many people can make in progress in terms of morality and self-improvement, just by questioning their own standards in the way that Socrates teaches these young men to. It seems like that's the consistent trend or theme or perhaps outcome of this Socratic method, which is discontinuity, inconsistency, hypocrisy, poorly clarified underpinnings and foundations and definitions of what's going on. Uh, but yeah, I can also imagine that simply by asking questions and continuing to refine, you may avoid untruths and perhaps by avoiding

untruths move yourself closer to truth, but it's very much a sort of do it yourself paint by numbers. Socrates isn't coming in and saying, well, this would be a better approach. He's saying, I think there may be a problem with this. So I can quite imagine why people could find him annoying because he's basically just permanently poking holes in everything. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. But I think there are a number of, let me kind of explain what he's doing. I think from a different perspective, from a more psychological perspective, right. And in doing that, I'll maybe make it relevant. It's a bit more apparent to modern self-improvement. So there's a body of research in modern psychotherapy and psychology and in the field of coping and stress that there we can analyze different coping strategies that people use to deal with

stress right and these are the strategies that you find in self-help books and self-improvement books right so maybe breathing exercises, relaxation technique, cognitive therapy, positive affirmations, positive visualization, even things like avoidance, just running away from the situation, or accessing other social support, getting someone else to help you in a situation or things like that. There's like lots of different ways that you could potentially cope with anxiety, depression, stressful situations, right? But no one of those coping strategies works every time. And the people that exhibit the most emotional resilience and are most able to recover from anxiety and depression are generally found to be the ones that have something we call coping flexibility.

So they're able to choose intelligently between whether to confront a situation assertively or whether to back away from it and resign themselves to it with emotional acceptance. It's a little bit like saying knowing when to pick your battles and things like that, you know, or knowing when it's better to distract yourself from pain or discomfort and when it would be better to address the cause or when it would be better to confront it and adapt to the experience and learn to accept it. And by questioning, I mean, what we do in modern cognitive therapy,

like often we'll find almost with every client, you'll find that they have coping strategies they've just made up themselves or coping strategies they've got from the internet or from self-help books, right? And in many cases, they'll be using these maladaptively in a way that's contributing to the problem and making it worse, usually because they're doing them too rigidly or they're using them as a kind of subtle form of avoidance

that's actually contributing to the problem. And so one of the first things we might do is what's sometimes called a functional analysis. So we'll get people to very carefully weigh up the pros and cons of the strategies they're using. And this kind of thinking things through, it's a cognitive therapy technique, is similar in some ways, I think, to using the Socratic method to question your definition of justice, for instance. Or Socrates would also... I'll give you an example of a specific technique that kind of blew my mind when I read it. In Xenophon, and scholars like classicists never mention this because like you know as a psychotherapist looking at the

Socratic dialogues I notice him doing psychological stuff that a philosopher or a classicist might not even you know like register. So there's a bit in Xenophon where Socrates speaks to another young guy in a shop in the Agora and this dude is a self-help junkie as we would call it today. He literally has a collection, he's got the finest collection in Athens of self-improvement books. He says he collects the maxims of wise men and he's trying to improve his character so that one day he can become a great statesman and he wants to understand the nature of morality or justice. And Socrates' questions about the definition of justice and quickly shows that he doesn't really understand it, he's contradicting

himself. And this guy thinks, well I've been reading all these books and tried to memorize what they say but when someone tries to get me to explain the meaning of these concepts I just kind of fall apart because he's never really thought things through very deeply. He's just parroting stuff. He's learning passively. Socrates draws a diagram which I immediately recognized because we do all the time in cognitive therapy. He draws two columns, right? Probably on a wax tablet or something, right? And at the heading, at the top of one column he writes injustice and at the top of one column, he writes injustice. And at the top of the other column, he writes justice. And he says, I want you to kind of brainstorm definitions of what's justice, that you want to be a just individual, right? And brainstorm

examples of injustice. So for injustice, he comes up with things like lying, or stealing, stuff like that, right, obvious examples of injustice. And then Socrates does exactly the same thing that we mentioned earlier. He brainstorms exceptions. He said, okay, lying. What if you're an elected general and you're lying to the enemy in order to deceive them in a military campaign? Is that unjust or would you consider that to be just under the circumstances? And so this young guy, Euthydemus is his name. He says, well, that's different. That's an exception, right? Socrates says, what if you're

a parent and you're trying to give your kid medicine, but they won't take it unless you hide it in their food? Is that injustice or would that seem like it's just? He says, well, that's different as well. And then Socrates uses another example that's really well known in philosophy. He says, what if your friend was suicidal and they come to you and say, where did you hide my dagger? Would you lie to them and pretend that you don't know? Or would you say, oh, I guess I have this over here, take it. And he says, well, that's different as well. These are kind of unusual circumstances. So he says, well, maybe then there's more nuance to this idea that justice consists in always telling the truth and never lying. You seem to think that there's more to it than that. There's other perspectives. This technique of drawing two columns, we can literally do it on coping strategies

to get people to think, when would you practice mindfulness? What might be the pros and cons of doing that? When might you try to fake it to make it? And when might that be a bad idea? Right? When might it be a good idea to always speak your mind to other people and be assertive? And when might it be a better idea just to keep your mouth shut? Why in some situations and know when to fight your battles and so on. And it's cognitive flexibility and coping flexibility, the ability to view situations from different perspectives and the ability to choose intelligently between different types of coping strategies that really constitute, and the same way that I

said before, that wisdom is more like a skill rather than just a bunch of ideas or opinions that you could hold. I think that to some extent that's missing from a lot of modern self-improvement literature. And the risk is then that people get techniques that work in some situations, but then they carry on using them rigidly in situations where they're no longer working, they're backfiring. I'll give you an example, right? Any any self-help technique is going to backfire in some situations. Mindfulness.

Is some techniques are more robust than others. Mindfulness is a really useful strategy. It works really well, right? But for instance, clients who have health anxiety and are constantly scanning their body for symptoms, like, oh, I've just noticed, I think I noticed a weird sensation in my chest, right? Practicing mindfulness in some cases

could actually just exacerbate or heighten their focus, threat monitoring for symptoms basically, and paying too much attention to every slight twinge in their body. Social anxiety, we know that one of the main correlates of social anxiety is heightened self-focused attention. So in fact many self-help techniques that people try to use in social situations actually increase their self-focused attention that people try to use in social situations actually increase their self-focused attention.

So people with social anxiety will typically do things like trying to stand up tall and straighten their back and look people in the eye, because they feel like that makes sense and it should make them more confident. But what they don't realize is often it heightens their self-focused attention and naturally that contributes to social anxiety. And it also increases their cognitive load so they're more likely to kind of feel awkward because they're trying to walk in true government at the same time, right? But getting people to think about the pros and cons of these different strategies, when might it be a good idea? When it might potentially

backfire? Is there a good way of doing mindfulness? And maybe there's a bad way of doing mindfulness in some situations. That's the wisdom that allows people... The ancient philosophers used to also say if you could give somebody... The problem with teaching moral precepts or like coping strategies, you know, would be that if you give a piece of advice, a maxim to someone who's wise, they'll use it wisely. But if you give it to someone who's foolish, they're probably going to use it foolishly. If you give coping strategies to somebody who's got severe anxiety, they're more likely just to turn it into a form of avoidance if you're not careful.

The people who have the most severe problems are the ones that are most likely to misuse the type of strategies that we get in self-help books basically. So what's often missing I think is this meta skill if you like, of being able to choose between strategies and figure out their pros and cons, which is actually one of the first things we'd normally do in cognitive therapy.

Yeah, very prophetic by Socrates to be able to see that out front. What was the organon? That's one of Aristotle's books, isn't it? Yes. Yeah. I remember lately. Yes. I saw that and this sort of interesting pivot towards,

well, you see with these two different people that one is focused very much on what seems to be practical, but then there's this begin of a trajectory toward philosophy being involved in politics, philosophy being involved in sort of statesmanship with logic, silicism, deduction, ethics, stuff like that. Why did Socrates not get involved in politics during his time? Or did he? How much did he? Yes and no. Generally speaking, he didn't get directly involved in politics. There was one incident where he was elected to a

kind of committee overseeing a trial and Socrates took a principled stand supposedly in a situation where the mob were kind of baying for the blood of a bunch of Athenian generals that were on trial. And he almost was executed as a result of doing that. But after that, I think he said that, look, if I was to get involved in politics, I'd just end up being killed, you know, because, you know, the stand that I would take, we'd just, you know, and I, and I, and Athens at that time, like I, he's, I, one of our sources suggested his thinking was he just wouldn't last very long. And it would be more constructive of him to kind of critique politics from the sidelines as it were, rather than trying to get directly involved.

Do you not say something about Roger Stone? Was there not some similarities between him and Roger Stone? I think there's some similarities and differences between him and Roger Stone. Well, it's funny I know Roger Stone is one of these people that have published books on rules. It's called Stone's rules, like his book. And some of them are the opposite of what Socrates would say. Like Roger Stone, I think it's fair to say is a man who would probably characterize himself as being quite fixated on the idea of revenge. That comes through pretty clearly from his book. He, at no point in his book, again, does he ever really discuss what he thinks is in

the interest of society. He spends a lot more time discussing how much he hates his political opponents and how he uses politics as a means to get back at them, interestingly. I guess he has what you would call with a small C, a very cynical attitude towards politics. It's very different from the way that someone like Socrates would have seen it. And Socrates, I think, would be a critic of this idea that revenge is a rational motive for us to have. So there are some things. I try to have an even-handed approach to have. So there are something there, you know, I try to have an even-handed approach to understand again, like weighing up the pros and cons. I looked at Brett Justone's

book and I thought are the bits of this that kind of makes sense in relation to ancient philosophy and are the bits of it that seem like they might be the opposite. He says one or two things about resilience. I think his phrase is turning chicken shit into chicken soup or something like that is the way he puts it. Very artsy. Yeah. He has this idea that we should adapt to adversity and develop emotional resilience, which kind of sounds a little bit like the stoics, but what's missing from it, I guess he has some ideas about emotional resilience, but he doesn't have, he doesn't

seem to see any connection between that and social virtue, for example, or justice. He sees politics, I think, through a much more Machiavellian lens, as far as I can tell. Hmm. Well, how would you summarize, uh, what Socrates believed about what a good life consisted of or how to achieve a good life? Did he talk about that? Yeah. I mean, again, the first thing he would do is apply, like, for example, when he's talking to that guy, Euthydemus, he asks him that very question, but he encourages him to think it through for himself.

Right. So Euthydemus is this young dude that's been reading loads of self-improvement books and he says, okay, like, so what is a good life? Actually, Uthodemus says, where is the first place that I should begin applying philosophy, incidentally? And Socrates says, here. Like, the first thing you should do is start by asking yourself what the goal of life is and what constitutes flourishing or eudaimonia. So basically what's good for us and what's bad for us in life. And Euthydema says, well, okay, so stuff like noble birth, well status, having a nice house, being healthy, having lots of friends are all good. Like generally people think that constitutes good fortune and flourishing in life. And then Socrates basically goes through the list and says, but each one of these things could potentially be bad. There's another dialogue by Plato

where he provides a much clearer counter argument where he says, okay, like, so let's start with wealth is the easiest example. Wealth in the hands of somebody who's wise and virtuous would allow them to do more wise and virtuous things. But if you give a big pile of money to somebody who's foolish and vicious, it's just going to allow them to do more foolish and vicious stuff, right? And the same would apply to status. And actually most of these external goods as they're known in a sense are more like practical advantages or opportunities that you have in life. What really matters is how you make use of them, whether you use them wisely or whether

you use them foolishly. So then doesn't that suggest that the only thing that's intrinsically good would be practical wisdom or moral wisdom? Because how you use other things, even the disadvantages you have, even poverty and sickness might be used well by somebody who's profoundly wise. Right. They might develop more resilience as a result. They might learn from the experience, for instance.

But somebody who's foolish and vicious will use even every advantage in life badly. Yeah. So it's by this kind of questioning method Socrates gets his interlocutors, the usually young adult, young men, just embarking on adult life basically, to realize that the things that most people assume to be the goal of life, like reputation and material success and stuff like that, aren't really intrinsically the most important thing in life, but reputation and material success and stuff like that, aren't really intrinsically the most important thing in life. But what matters more is your ability to use these things well, which is something that they tend to have neglected and not really discussed.

And so Socrates says, that's what we should be talking about. How do you use these things well? And so the goal of life, of flourishing, would consist in a kind of practical wisdom or moral wisdom. And also in the realization that the prevailing values of our society are kind of back to front and the things that everybody is led to value, like consumerism and celebrity culture and all that kind of stuff, those are misplaced values, basically. Isn't it interesting that it's the values of our society talking about this thousands of years ago and them being the same values that everybody is still being swayed by now?

I wonder about that. You know, I think there's gotta be a reason for that and I don't pretend to know exactly what it is, but the ancient philosophers had some answers. I believe that part of it is if you imagine when you're born as a child, you're kind of a blank slate to some extent and you know you you start interacting with adults before you can even speak let alone reason and so you just emulate what you see other people doing as a small child and I think it partly comes from the fact that we model our values on other people's behavior so as a child growing growing up, you think you take a look around you and you think,

what's all this meant to be about? You think, well, everyone else seems obsessed with money and property and status. Like, so you just kind of naturally fall into that if you're not careful. Are you saying that we are the progeny of a Socratic society's culture eventually, just a few thousand years down the line? We're, we're, yeah, like we're, I think we're just a product of the, the fact that we can't really understand each other deeply, I think is the problem that we're basing our values and just observing other people's superficial behavior.

So for example, we might see you, there's a little kid, you might see your dad working really long hours and earning money, you know, to kind of pay off the mortgage and stuff like that. And if you're not careful, you might think, I guess working hard and earning money is what life is all about. But your dad might think, well, I'm doing that to care for my family, for example, because I consider being a good father what I want my life to be about. So we don't necessarily observe the values that are driving other people's behavior internally. I think so we fall into this trap. This is my belief over and over again because we are not able to see

inside people's hearts. Like we end up with a superficial understanding of their values, right? And it's only over the course of life as we develop the ability to reflect on our values and question them more deeply, we start to think, why are we doing all this stuff? Why am I buying a house? Why am I working long hours? Why, it's for something deeper.

Why, it's in order to be a good person and a good parent and a good husband and stuff like that. And I think one of the things that can help us achieve that realization and question the prevailing values of our society is death. Like, you know, because many people, I think, for whatever reason on their death bed, when they look back over the course of their life, think, was it real? Is it really worth spending your life just trying to earn as much money as possible? Was that what, in retrospect, my life should have been about? Was writing a best-selling

book or something really the most important thing? Or does that seem trivial in retrospect when you've only got a few days left to live or something like that? If you're lucky, maybe you have a brush with death early on and survive and that changes your perspective and that liberates you from these assumptions that we all have. Or sometimes when you're bereaved, like, you know, I lost my father when I was quite young and I thought, to be honest, that really shook me and made me kind of question what's the point of all of that? Because I saw him really shook me and made me kind of question what's the point of all of that? Because I saw him, he died of lung cancer, he was bedridden for about a year. And so I had about a year just to observe my father dying slowly and think he seemed

to be going through this process of questioning what his life had stood for. So when I was like 13, 14 years old, that kind of made me think, gee, I don't want to end up like that. At the end of my life thinking maybe I've spent my time and energy in the wrong way. So these things, and also sometimes I think having children and looking at your kids and thinking what you want for them and what values you want them to have, if we approach it in the right way,

it can help us to gain some insight and start to question what our values are. But if we don't do that, we just look around and just think everybody's obsessed with money and fame. You know we end up entering into the rat race chasing around after that. Then one day you end up in your deathbed and the doctors tell you you've only got you know a few weeks left and you think you look back on you think what a huge waste of time a lot of that was like you know maybe I've got like you know millions of dollars in my bank account but

it's not you know you can't take it with you like you know does it really do anything that worthwhile in retrospect so that's why ancient philosophy is kind of obsessed with this question I definitely the other thing that could help us would be reading about philosophers who contemplate the problem of our own mortality like that's's why Plato's apology is so influential because it depicts Socrates standing in court knowing he's about to be executed. Can you tell us the story of the end of Socrates life? What happened? What was the buildup?

Why did it occur? That is slightly long and convoluted story. Um, for some reason, like he was brought to trial, charges were brought against him. So in Athenian law other citizens could sue you and he was brought to court under charges of impiety and corrupting the youth. What's impiety? Like that he didn't believe in the traditional gods basically and these are standard charges that were used against intellectuals, basically. You know, there was nothing new about it. If you were too clever, other people in Athens would say you're corrupting the youth, right?

And if you question things too much... An excuse for politically incorrect blasphemy. Yeah, you're engaged in blasphemy as well if you're starting to question some traditional religious ideas and stuff like that. So it was kind of like stock charge in a way. There are many reasons why some people think Socrates had certain political views. He also had friends that became controversial in Athenian society. And so his association with certain influential figures might have been part of it and it may also be that he went around humiliating powerful people like he went out to politicians and said can you define the nature of

justice and they'd be like I don't know why and that made them embarrassed and it made them look stupid in front of their fans and followers and stuff and so they wanted for all of these reasons. I mean Socrates' execution was over determined. Like there were multiple reasons why people wanted him dead and some of it was propaganda like there were there was like I mentioned earlier there was a play about him that caricatured him. So Socrates in the trial says a lot of you guys there were 500 people in the jury, and he says most of you will know me mainly through this play. Like it would be like you

trial by media, right? So I've never met most of you, but you've probably seen this play that makes me out to be this horrible corrupt pseudo intellectual, right? Like a charlatan and stuff. So that's what you'll be judging me based on. And he stands up, he was meant to beg for mercy in court. He stands up in, one of the first things he says is he refers to his military service. And to paraphrase, he basically says, I went out and fought in these battles and faced death on behalf of Athens to defend the walls of the city. And you guys told me that was honorable. Now I'm standing in court facing death because I believe in the practice of philosophy as a way of improving the people that live in the city.

What's the point in defending the walls of the city if the people that live in it are corrupt? So some of you think this is ridiculous that I'm willing to risk my life in court, but you praised me for risking my life in the military. And this is actually much more important to me." It's how he kind of starts off his defense in a way. And then he goes on to talk about how he's not afraid of dying and all this kind of stuff

and he kind of reasons that through. But he doesn't beg for mercy. He's very unapologetic in Plato's apology. And so the jury condemn him to death because of what Xenophon called his big talk in court. Like he was, they thought he would bring his family in and he would have weeping in front of him because that was what was normal. But right from the very beginning of the trial his family weren't even present. So he made it clear that he wasn't gonna to beg for mercy before he even

began speaking. And he basically gives him a lecture on philosophy. He carries on in court doing the very thing that he's on trial for. Right. Like everything about Socrates was paradoxical. But the other argument, again, there's many different aspects. He's like peeling the layers of an onion back. The other thing Xenophon says, Socrates was like 71, 72. He was pretty old for Athenian society. And the kind of implication in some of the dialogues is he thought, well, I'm starting to lose my faculties maybe. I'm getting older, becoming more of a burden to my family. He'd reach a point where he thought rather than trying to kind of just keep extending my life indefinitely while I'm in decline, I'd rather go out with a bang

and make this huge statement. And he became a martyr for philosophy. But say what you will about Socrates, it worked. And even today, we're still talking about him. And he became an icon to generations of young philosophers that followed him. Do you think he'd be less impactful if he hadn't died in that way? 100%. He would still have had some impact. But I mean, the most famous thing about Socrates in ancient world is Plato's apology and his noble death. When Epictetus, the famous Stoic philosopher who was teaching like 400 years later, right? So, you know, like that's Socrates's ancient history to Epictetus. He's the most famous quote from Epictetus, the most famous quote

in all of Stoicism, is people are not upset by events but by their opinions about them. But no one ever quotes what he says next in the following sentence. He says, for example, death is not intrinsically terrible because if it were, Socrates would have been afraid of dying and he wasn't. Right? So this is an important argument that you find in Socrates, but it's really highlighted in the Stoics, which is, you know, we use a similar kind of strategy in cognitive therapy. If somebody is depressed or angry or frightened by something, one of the first questions you'd normally ask is does everyone else feel the same way about it? I mentioned Lamperclay is getting angry

with his mum. Socrates says, do other people all find your mum unbearable? Or do certain people view her differently? Socrates himself, for example, viewed it very differently. He got nagged by his anthropologist, but it didn't really bother him. So one of the first questions we ask in cognitive therapy are, are other perspectives available? Is this the only way of looking at things? or might you potentially see it differently? Epictetus' main example of that, he goes straight for the jugular. He says, we're not upset by things, but by our opinions about them. Even when it comes to death, some people aren't scared of dying. Actually, loads of people aren't scared of dying.

There are many people I've found, it's one of the weird things, particularly younger people, often find it inconceivable that someone wouldn't be afraid of dying. But a lot of elderly people are resigned to their own death because they've been bereaved many times and maybe they've had many health scales. And so over the space of decades, in some cases, if not all, you speak to elderly people and they say, I've got over it. Like, you know, I've had years and years to get used to the idea of dying. So you know, it doesn't really frighten me anymore. Some elderly people are terrified of dying, but others are surprisingly resigned to it. Socrates again, 71, 72, facing his trial.

He's an older guy living in a society where there's not a lot of medicine. You know, I think he's the sort of dude who was perfectly resigned and he'd lived through many dangerous... It's hard to imagine how many brushes with death Socrates had had. They tried to execute him, I think, about three or four times altogether under different political regimes. He was involved in battles where thousands of people were killed around him and he lived through a plague, you know, that killed tens of thousands of people in Athens. So he was a guy who was well accustomed to the fragility of his own existence, right? I mean, we live a very, very, very sheltered existence

by comparison to that. But it's interesting that Epictetus goes straight for that example. Look at his, he has Plato's apology in mind. He's like, you want to know what it means to realize that it's your opinions that shape your fear. Look at the example of Socrates and how he was unafraid even of being executed in court. That's your primate. And that was, that's, that was the cardinal example, um, to young philosophers in the ancient world. It's wild to think of somebody so steadfast in their beliefs, especially

given the fact that almost all of their career was spent highlighting hypocrisy. So it would have been a odd curtain call had he have at the final, I imagine how much more tarnished his entire philosophical career would have been had he have done the pliable begging for mercy on the floor doing, you know, it would have, it would have changed an awful lot, I think about how people perceived his work. And the cry tour, which is one of the dialogues that takes place when he's in prison, he's in prison for about a month, a waiting execution execution and his friends say, listen, we could just bribe the guards really easy and get you out of here and stuff. He talks about this fact that it would be, and it would

make him ridiculous in his own eyes. Like if he now behaved inconsistently with his values, you know, and that seems more, I mean, allegedly in the phido, which is the last dialogue chronologically when Socrates drinks the actual hemlock, they bring the poison to him and his friend Crito, like his childhood friend who grew up in the same suburb of Athens, Crito says to him, some people don't drink the poison straight away. I mean, I think you're actually allowed to have a final meal. He had lots of friends around him when he was being executed. If you can imagine that. That was the norm in a Phineas society. Yeah, it was like a party. They were like, I suppose they were about 10 or 20 people. So they come and visit him every day in the prison. Weird kind of scenario, but they all gathered round and his family came. His wife brought his kids.

He had a baby. Like his, we were told all we know is that Zanthope was carrying one of the children. So scholars think that kind of implies that it was a baby or a toddler. Socrates still got it at 72, 71, 72 years old. Yeah. So they say you don't have to drink it right away. And he says, it would seem ridiculous of me. I feel ridiculous in my eyes. It's kind of trying to eat cow and a

lot, you know, half an hour is like, I've been here for a month waiting to drink. He goes, what am I going to do with another half? You know, like, so that was his supposedly his thinking was I'm ready. Like I've prepared myself for this. I'd, I'd just, I'd feel like a coward and it would seem inconsistent of me and ridiculous if I was like, yeah, yeah, you're right. Maybe I could leak out another hour or so before I have to drink it. So I'm ready to drink it. I've been sitting here for a month getting ready to drink it. The thing, uh, you've mentioned the stoics a couple of times I'd like to talk about is

sort of enduring influence on them and, and, and links between the two. But the first person that comes to mind for me is Seneca, somebody for whom, uh, proclamations and fantastic contributions to thought and philosophy and stuff were replete. But in his private life, when the rubber met the road, so to speak, he was much more malleable. He was playing these sorts of games, political games and backbiting and sucking up to people and so on and so forth. This is controversially. Yeah.

Xenic has always been a divisive and controversial figure. In some ways he's ways he could be compared to Socrates. Socrates had a friend and possibly a lover called Alcibiades who was one of the most influential statesmen. He was appointed the commander in chief of the Athenian military at one point, the most senior statesman in Athens, almost like an emperor over what was evolving and what had evolved into an Athenian empire. And he was like one of Socrates's best friends and closest associates. So his relationship with Alcibiades, like trying to get him to be a better ruler and stuff is a bit like Seneca and his relationship with Nero. But Seneca, I mean, it wouldn't be... some people will find this controversial, but although we think

of Seneca as a stoic philosopher, he was famous primarily as an author, not as a philosophy teacher. He probably didn't teach that much philosophy to Nero. He mainly trained him in rhetoric. So in some regards, Seneca was more like a Latin sophist than a philosopher. The sophists often quoted philosophy, like they made speeches out of it and things, but they didn't attempt to live in accord with it in the way that the Stoics or Socrates did. So Seneca is somewhere in between. It may be that towards the end of his life,

he embraced philosophy more fully. I think earlier in his life, philosophy was more something he used to become a famous author. He became famous by writing consolation letters, using stoicism to people that had been bereaved that were wealthy, influential figures. He was like a self-help guru to the rich and famous and Roman society. And that's how he ended up becoming an advisor to Nero. So he was a figure that really was compromised by that in a number of ways. He was Nero's right-hand man.

Nero was like a despot, a dictator. And he also wrote speeches defending Nero in the Senate and trying to, I mean, ridiculous like saying that he was virtually a philosopher king and that his hands were unstained by blood and all this kind of stuff. So he couldn't really imagine Socrates saying. No, Socrates never sullied himself in that way. There's a guy, Marcus Aurelius' rhetoric teacher. We have his private letters and Marcus is talking to him about Seneca. We don't see what Marcus wrote, unfortunately. We only see Fronto's replies. Fronto can't stand

Seneca and he died a you know, a few generations earlier, but I think it's probably he doesn't like his writing style, but he says looking for perils of wisdom in Seneca's writings would be like someone rubbing around in the bottom of a sewer, trying to dig a few silver coins out of the filth, right? Which is kind of what the kids today call a sick burn. Right, that's only something that an Ullis-Offist could have come up with, right, as an insult. But I think what he means is that Seneca in Rome would have been known more than today for his political speeches defending Nero. And we have a couple of examples of those. Like we have on clemency for example which is this letter to Nero that was probably made

public that kind of puts Nero on something of a pedestal. Also tries to improve his character and teach him more clemency or mercy but at the same time it praises him as a great ruler which is ridiculous. He was a tyrant. And at the same time that Seneca was defending Nero and propping up his regime, there were other Stoics that were fighting against Nero and opposing him in the Senate. They're called the Stoic Opposition, and several of them died or were exiled, defying Nero. Epictetus, who was kind of on the periphery of this, because Epictetus kind of came from the next generation, but he was a slave owned by Nero's Greek secretary, a guy called Epiphrodotus, who was perhaps also Nero's bodyguard, according to one source, who's certainly very, very close to Nero.

Epictetus idolizes the Stoic opposition and never mentioned Seneca once. So he clearly felt those were the Stoics from that generation that he looked up to. And Seneca was seen even by other Stoics at the time as a guy that had maybe compromised himself morally. What is the truth that we know about whether Socrates was really ugly or not? That's actually a contested point. There's a really cool book that came out recently by Armand Danguer, a classicist who wrote a book called Socrates in Love that I really like that's kind of speculative biography of Socrates and he claims that Socrates was probably not as ugly as he's made out to be

and that particularly younger in life he may have been quite a virile and attractive guy. But I mean Socrates's friends describe him as walking like a pelican, having eyes like a crab, is walking like a pelican, having eyes like a crab, having a face like a torpedo fish and being balding and pot-bellied. So and he looks like a satyr as well we're told, like one of those kind of goat, like a pan or whatever. So those are his friends. So I guess it's partly the Athenian culture. They were kind of ribbing him a bit and stuff. If you go to Athens today, there's a famous statue of Socrates, a modern statue of him

outside the university where he's incredibly buff. He definitely looks like he's been lifting weights, but that's a modern representation of him. The ancient sculptures we have of him are this little pot-bellied old man, you know, that's more of a kind of was seen as a bit of a presented as more of a comedy character almost. So yeah, he makes fun of it and Zenithon Symposium Socrates jokes and he says, I think if we had a beauty contest, I would win it. And everyone kind of rolls about laughing at this. It seems ridiculous to them. But he then it leads into him having a conversation about how they define beauty. And then, you know, he starts to question whether, you know, beauty is actually something that comes from a person's character, you know, and he thinks

he sees, he says he's confident that he would win on those terms. But his friends still think it's a bit ridiculous of him. They thought, Xenophon, Xenophon to his credit says, you know, you learn more about wise men by seeing them at their leisure. I believe that's how he begins the symposium. It's a drinking party and he presents Socrates as this guy who's quite witty and humorous, right? So he says things where he, he So to his, was the type of guy that would say something to you and you think, is he joking?

Is he serious? And the answer is yes and no. Why he's kind of joking and serious at this. He's kind of both joking and serious at the same time. Often I feel. Was the, I can't remember who it was from that era of philosophers. I seem to remember a story of one of those philosophers complaining that every time they went to dinner or had a party, uh, the people got too drunk.

And one of the solutions to people getting too drunk would be to reduce the size of the cups. But who could make the size of the cup smaller? Was that Socrates? Yeah, I think that's a Xenophon Symposium. If, or it might be in Plato's Symposium. My, in one of the symposiums, like he says he reckoned and they do it. He says that he asked him to bring out smaller cups and he says, if we use

smaller cups, we could moderate our drinking. If it's getting too drunk, it's ruining the quality of the conversation. He says alcohol. I think this is a Xenophithon symposium. He says alcohol is like watering a plant. He goes, if you don't give it enough, then it kind of shrivels up and dies. Like, but if you give it too much, then it wilts. And he goes, this is the effect that I think wine has on conversation at a dinner party. You've got to find just the right level so that people loosen up and you have a, so he wasn't completely in favor of abstinence. He thought if the right amount of wine was conducive to a good philosophical conversation and a dinner party.

Didn't he stand in one place for a day at one point? Well, don't we all? No, not normally. No, I know I do. But no, he stood for 24 hours. We're told from sunrise one day to sunrise the next day and put a day out in the middle of a battle. No, we're not in the battle. While they were besieging the city way in the north of Greece, we're told that he just froze. And some of the other soldiers camped beside him overnight because they were kind of like, is he really going to stand here all night barefoot in the cold? Like they were having bets on him or something. And they watched him in the morning. I believe Plato says that he said a prayer to the rising sun, which may have

been associated with the god Apollo. One of the themes that runs through the dialogues is Socrates' association with the god Apollo. There's a debate about whether Apollo was associated with the sun that early. I think he was. So it might be Socrates saw the sun as an embodiment of the god Apollo, who's the kind of the patron god of philosophy. And it was the priestess of Apollo who said, no man is wiser than Socrates. And it was outside the temple of Apollo that says, garnof aise outon or know thyself, which is, you know, this statement maxim that became a kind of theme for the Socratic method in a way. It was pursuing self-knowledge. But he was in a habit of, Plato tells us he used to regularly just freeze and meditate

going out of trance. Can you dig into the know thyself thing? Yeah. I mean, it comes up again and again in different dialogues. I'll tell you something really cool about it. There's a dialogue that I think is authentically attributed to Plato, but some scholars have questioned. It doesn't matter in a way. Somebody wrote it like thousands of years ago. So there's a dialogue called the first Alcibiades that's about Socrates having a dialogue with this great statesman.

I mean, Alcibiades, someone said recently on Twitter, they should make a movie about Alcibiades. He has one of the most dramatic and colorful and exciting, you know, lives and he was Socrates' you know, companion. Socrates saved his life in battle, you know, I mean, honestly, you could, his life is so cinematic. It's like this huge epic adventure story. Now in this dialogue, Socrates questions whether Al-Sabaydi is competent to become a political leader, a statesman. He proves to him by questioning that he doesn't really understand anything about the nature of justice, but he should. And then this leads into a conversation about, g'no f'ai se'a ota, or know thyself.

And Socrates says to Ars Abides, you know, what do you think it means? And he's like, well, I mean, I would think that I know myself, but you know, so he says, well, it's not just like knowing the name of something. It's about really understanding it because this is how I understand that. And then he says, often you get these remarkable metaphors or images in ancient literature. And this is one of my favorites. Socrates says that self-knowledge is like an eye that sees itself, right? It's the eye that sees itself. He said, it's like the God said that you're instructed your eye to see itself when he says that the mind should know itself.

And he says to also by his how can the eye see itself? And also by just like, I guess like in a mirror, why in some cases he says, well done. So how would the mind know itself by analogy? And they'll tell Socrates, I guess you'd need some kind of mirror for your mind. I don't know how that would work though. And Socrates basically implies, because he's often a bit vague about things, he's engaged in this question and answer, methodological and just giving a lecture.

So he basically implies to Alcibiades that engaging in philosophical dialogue or conversation with other people is a mirror for our own soul. And he understands that we are biased. I mean, he was again way ahead of his time in this regard. So, and by the way, this is another problem for modern self-help, right? So there are many problems with self-help. One of the problems with self-help is the self part, right? The person, in a sense, the person least qualified to help you. Because I don't know if you've noticed that there's actually research that shows this,

right? I'm going all over the place, sorry, but I interviewed recently a guy called Igor Grossman, who you should speak to, right? He's a professor at the University of Waterloo who does research on the nature of wisdom, right? And he has research that shows, that confirms the suspicion that we all have, that we're much better at giving other people advice than we are at giving ourselves advice, right? This is a sensitive subject for psychotherapists, right?

Because all we do is give other people advice and stuff. But if you go to a psychotherapy conference and walk in the door, you would notice immediately that it's full of some of the craziest people you ever meet in your life. Why- You're saying that being able to give advice to other people is not reliable evidence

that you can give advice to yourself. Yeah, but over time, I think if you approach it in the right way, and I think it has something to do with empathy, right? If you identify with your clients in a sense that you put yourself in their shoes and you empathize with them, you might, to put it very simply, start to think maybe I do some of the things that they do too, right? Maybe by helping them to see through their own mistakes and to troubleshoot them, I could kind of indirectly learn something about myself, right? But we're better at giving other people advice. It has been proven by Professor Grossman's research than we are at giving ourselves

advice. And Socrates seems to realize this is partly why he thinks engaging in philosophical dialogue about the most important questions in life, as he puts it, is so important. This provides the best mirror he can imagine for learning about our own soul, our own mind, and coming to know ourselves, knowing our strengths and weaknesses, our limitations and so on. There's another technique that he kind of uses I think that Professor Grossman has done research on, it might be worth mentioning because I know people are interested in this. Igor Grossman based on his observations, based on his research, did a study and there are several studies like this where they ask people to keep a journal,

where they describe, they have two groups, and one group describes their relationship problems and so on, and attempting to resolve them in the first person. And the other group do the same thing but in the third person. So rather than saying, you know, oh, I forgot my wife's birthday,

and she got really upset with me, and I don't know how to make it up to her. Well, I would say Donald forgot my wife's birthday and she got really upset with me and I don't know how to make it up to her. But I would say Donald forgot his wife's birthday and she became really upset with him. So in the third person, right? As if I'm giving advice to another person, right? And they found, so they said, well, how about if you make yourself do this? And by, they call it distant self-reflection. So by keeping a journal in the third person,

they found that people exhibited measurably more wisdom in the advice and the solutions that they came up with for themselves. Now Socrates does something a bit like that. He doesn't talk to himself that much in the third person, but usually in the second person. He engages in imaginary or hypothetical dialogues quite a lot. So, for example, he imagines arguing with the laws of Athens at one point in the Critias and the laws of Athens say, you know, start criticizing him and questioning him. So they say he imagines that the laws are saying to him, Socrates, you're contradicting yourself in this way and that way and so on. And you're mistaken about this, right? But that's just an opportunity for him to critique himself in the second person

and by name, so with greater objectivity, basically, and actually recycling some of the skills that he's honed by critiquing other people and applying the Socratic method to them in real way in the flesh dialogues. It sounds to me like this guy is infallible. He lived the philosophy. Everything that he said was done with virtue. Very, very accurate. Where are Socrates' biggest weaknesses philosophically in your opinion?

Oh, there are many. I mean, I told you he's like Jimi Hendrix, right? So some people might look at Jimi Hendrix and they might think, well, he's not, you know, maybe he's not like the technically the best guitarist that's ever lived. But there's no, there's still something kind of really unique about him, right? There's only ever one Jimi Hendrix, like there's nobody else really that kind of sounds exactly like him. And so Socrates is, I mean, the odd thing is that many academic philosophers will disagree with most of what Socrates says, right?

And they'll often think that his arguments are incomplete, that there are gaps in them, that they're not very convincing. And I think even Socrates realized this, but those dialogues weren't written necessarily to persuade people that they should agree with him. They're more like teaching aids that are designed like an assault course for the mind. So they're meant to train us to be able to think through puzzles from different perspectives, right? That's why I I said, what we learn from Socrates more is the method.

And he kind of implies certain really interesting conclusions. But they're often very radical conclusions. It might be worth mentioning some of them. So people usually, most philosophers disagree with them, but there's one of the ancient dialogues has Socrates saying, when you talk to a wise person it's like being bitten by a small insect like a mosquito or something right and you might not even notice when it happens but then hours later or the next day you suddenly start to itch in the spot where you were bitten

and so people would say that's what it's like when you talk to Socrates like he'll say stuff and you think that's a stupid argument Socrates, it's not really convincing, it doesn't make any sense. And then 10 years later you're still thinking about it and it's kind of bothering you, right? But for instance, one of the other things I wrote about in my book, because again it's very interesting in relation to modern psychology, Socrates had this radical position that injustice harms the perpetrator more than it does the victim and he repeats this quite a lot. So people who read that think that's a hard view to accept but no one ever

forgets it. Anyone that reads the Platonic dialogues decades later will think, remember Socrates kept going on about this idea that acts of injustice harm the perpetrator more than they do the victim. In court he said, you guys that are putting me on trial and convincing the jury to sentence me to death unjustly are harming yourselves more than you're harming me. Epictetus quotes him at the last sentence of the Enchiridion. He says, Annetas and Meletus, the two guys that brought him to trial, can kill me, but they cannot harm me. Which is like crazy. That's hard. First of all, the guy that believes that, hats off to him. No wonder he was resilient. Do we agree with him? There may be a case for it, but it's

an extreme version of stoicism, basically. Nevertheless, in relation to modern psychology, I think there's a lot we can take from it. So there's a body of research that shows that people who suffer from clinical depression tend to have high levels of perceived injustice, right? And we also know that anger is linked to depression and anger is also directly linked to the perception of injustice. So how could our philosophy of justice affect emotions like anger and depression? Well, if we agreed with Socrates that our own injustice does us more harm than the injustice of others, then maybe we wouldn't

become as depressed when we perceive injustice in the world around us. We might still object to it. We might still defy it, but we might respond to it differently emotionally. Socrates was fearless in court because he believed that the acts of injustice being inflicted on him couldn't really harm him. Because they they could take away his property, his reputation and even his life, but they couldn't harm his moral character and that was the most important thing to him on his deathbed. He'd think did I maintain my integrity throughout life? You guys can't take that away from me. Only I can do that to myself, right? Now, what's true in anyone's eyes,

whether even if they don't go as far as that, time and time again, what you'll find in therapy when you're working with people who are very angry, for instance, is that their anger usually just at a practical level does them more harm than the things that they're angry about. Maybe not in every single case, but I struggle to think of a case where that's not true. In virtually every client I work with, when we sit down and go, well, what are the consequences of your anger? One reason for that is that anger by its very nature impairs our ability to think about the consequences. That's why angry people act impulsively. It's well known.

There's a large body of psychological research that shows, surprise, surprise, angry people behave impulsively, but they do that because they're not thinking straight and they're not able to really think through and weigh up the consequences of their action. They tend to think very short term. We all do when we get really angry. We don't become really good at nuanced social problem solving when we're angry. Generally, it's like we become a kind of blunt instrument. And that's highlighted by the fact that very often angry people a day later or weeks later regret what they did when they're angry because now they're not angry and they're thinking about the longer-term consequences and the wider impact of what they did. So

maybe some guy gets really angry he tells his wife to shut up and he gets what he wants maybe she does shut up right in the moment so it seems successful makes them seem powerful and then she divorces him, right. So destroys the relationship, right. I mean, the Tarkarika could chew it a little bit, but often what we struggle to do is kind of think about the wider impact, right. I think about the longer term consequences of anger. And particularly in terms of relationships where it's complex. Anger impairs our ability to empathize with other people. And when we get angry, we tend to engage in what's known as hostile attribution bias.

So we usually think of people as acting just out of hostility towards us, whereas normally if I say, oh, why did that guy not send me a Christmas card this year right I might go well that's probably a bunch of possible explanations for that right maybe there's several reasons depending how you look at it you know whereas if I'm angry I think just because he's a jerk that's why he did it right just pure hostility right so we tend to have a very monolithic and simplistic understanding of other people's motives when we're angry, but that makes us

rubbish at social problem-solving. You know, anger is really bad for, you know, maintaining any kind of healthy relationship. So by its very nature, it means that we tend to underestimate the negative consequences of it. So in therapy, it's easy to go. You just sit with people and you draw a little list and you go, you know, what are all the ways in which anger is harming your physical health, your mental health, your relationship with other people. The other weird thing about it, anger tends to spread. So if I get angry, I could be watching TV and get really angry with some

politician that I don't like, you know, and then I turn round, you know, and I snap angrily at my cat. Right. Now my cat has done nothing. Right. It's not even involved in American politics in any shape or form. Right. But because I'm annoyed with some politician that's on the news or whatever, I'm now also by associating, I'm just annoyed with my cat as well because I'm in an angry frame of mind. And maybe I'm going to be a bit short, my wife might say, what do you want for dinner? And I'll ask me later because I'm annoyed with some so-called politician, right? So anger harms our relationships, even with the people that we're not initially angry with. You know, we get angry with our perceived

enemies, but we end up taking it out on our friends as well, if we're not careful. So people massively underestimate the negative consequences of anger. Why and so usually in therapy what people find is yes anger your own anger is doing you more harm than the thing the politician said on TV or Somebody not sending you a Christmas card or the thing No, maybe in every case but and really for practical purposes in the majority of cases that we end up dealing with so he was dead Socrates took it way further, but nevertheless, there's something really interesting about the point that he's making. I speaking of anger and frustration, I seem to remember you saying that you

thought it would be impossible to write this book. I did think it was impossible. Why? Um, I really did. I thought it was impossible to write it because I thought Socrates was too complex a character. The Peloponnesian War is really annoying. There's like something like 300 Greek states were involved in it. It went on for 27 years. So the politics of it and the history of it are so complex. I thought, how can I summarize that and condense it into a book and have the life of

Socrates as a philosopher, have some discussion of philosophy and philosophical dialogues, and have some modern psychology and fit it all into 50,000 words. It just seemed like it would take three different books. But then I don't know how exactly I changed my mind, but what I realized was that I could maybe... I think what I did was I gave up trying to attempt a more academic history and I said from the outset, I'm going to approach this like I'm writing a movie screenplay. And so it'll be a kind of dramatized version. I'm going to make it as close to historical sources as I possibly can, but I'm going to have to take two characters and points and combine them together for simplicity. I'm going to

have to massively abbreviate some of his arguments and just give like key selections out of them. And I'm going to have to figure out ways to, you know, to kind of simplify the history of the Peloponnesian war. So, you know, I, I'm kind of surprised that I managed to compress all of that into one book, but I, you know, I thought very long and hard about how to do it. Why? And you know, there was a lot of planning that went into it. I think I put four times as much work into this book as I put into the proceeding, like how to think like a Roman emperor. Is it, I mean, you're looking at secondhand sources, uh, very little

direct, I mean, even with that, I learned this from, uh, from you as well. secondhand sources, very little direct. I mean, even with that, I learned this from you as well, that even when we think about Marcus Aurelius and how much information we have about him, because we've got his direct writings and he was an emperor and prestigious and stuff like that. But even with him, because he didn't really do that much wrong,

there wasn't that much writing about him. He didn't just simply attract insufficient drama. So then you think, okay, we have this guy of whom there are significantly better recorded people from history and he is the well recorded version compared with the new book I'm about to write, which is this bloke who I've got like basically wiretaps of like ancient wiretaps. And that's the best that I can go on. Yeah. There's really frustrating things about the life of Socrates.

So this thing about going to Delphi and the pronouncement is, is presented as a key moment in his life. We've really got no, I, we don't know for certain when it happened. Right. So for instance, we don't know if it happened before or after other key events in his life, and then it would change the whole narrative. So with things like that, you just have to go, we could write an academic history where we argue about the possible dates, but in order to write a movie, you have to go, we

have to pick a date, go pick one. It could be like one of like maybe three different, you've just got to choose one and go with it in order to be able to tell the story. And that's, I guess that's what liberated me is I just thought it needs to just be approached like we're writing a graphic novel or a movie. Which you did, you did that as well. You're a man of many literary pathways now. I take some satisfaction in that, like you know, there's some authors just write the same book over and over again. And I didn't really, I don't know that I did this deliberately. It'd be like an actor that just plays the same kind of characters over and over. And then you've got other people that did lots of different things. But I look back at the books that I've written, that,

you know, although I did actually write three books in a row about Marcus Aurelius, they're all different genres. Like one is a more of an academic history, one's a self-help book, one's a graphic novel. So if I look at the books I've ever written about eight books they're all they're all quite different from each other like I feel like I kind of stretched myself. I mean the pros and cons of that are sometimes when you stretch yourself and do something you haven't done before you can kind of fall flat in your face and maybe you figure out it's not your forte or whatever. You know, but the positive side is that that's how you grow. Like, you know, by taking a chance and doing something that's, you know, something you

never even imagined that you'd be doing. I think that was part of it as well. I kind of thought it's too difficult to write a book like this about Socrates. And I thought, well, you know, as I get older, I'm less afraid of making mistakes. You know, and I thought, what's the worst that can happen? Maybe I'll just mess it up and the book will be rubbish or something like, you know, I thought, yeah, I think I'd rather just try have a go at doing it. I think the other thing that swings it for me is I really always approach it with this question in mind, I imagine that if I could

go back in time and kind of give the book that I'm writing to my 17 year old self or when I was 15 or something, like I think what would I want to write in a book that I'm giving to my younger self? And you know, would I be kind of ashamed to write a book and then maybe we go, okay, we pick one of these dates for when the pronouncement is made at Delphi. Oh damn, we got it wrong. You know, like, so maybe the chronology is a little bit off or something like that. Or there's some other debatable historical point with my 17 year old self care about

that. Or we just think, I don't really care. Why if there's one or two details that are debatable. The story is really awesome. And it kind of gave me a... It's interestingly very Socratic to go about things like that. Okay, how can we apply this practically? How useful is this? And it's also very Aureliusian too, debating about what a good man is versus being one.

Well, sometimes people ask you, you know, how'd you go about writing a good man is versus being one? Well, sometimes people ask you, how'd you go about writing a book? And I don't think I've ever said this on a podcast before, but funnily enough, the answer to this is kind of weird. There's a bunch of things I do that are quite specific. One is that I write the audio book first. So when I'm writing a book, I'm not writing a print book, I think I'm writing an audiobook and as part of that I'll read it aloud a

lot and I'll pay somebody like a local barmaid or something like to come or one of my friends friends or whatever like to come over and I'll give them a case of beer like you know and I'll pay them whatever per hour and I'll give them a big print out of the manuscript and I'll pay them whatever per hour and I'll give them a big printout of the manuscript and I'll say, read the entire thing to me. Right. It takes, I think last time we did it, it took 12 hours. Like I've got a video of the aftermath, we're like sliding out of our chair, you know, like

we've got like some snacks piled up. We, I think it was 12 hours. Maddie, I think it was the name of the, my friend's friend that came over and read through the whole of how to think like was 12 hours. Maddie, I think it was the name of my friend's friend that came over and read through the whole of how to think like a Socrates. I think I did it several times because I wanted to know what it sounded like as well as reading it on the page. But the other thing I would do is I normally work in the library and I would sit with a timer and I'd practice a meditation technique for 10 minutes called the Benson method where it's well known in psychotherapy. So I just repeat a word over and over and I try and

notice that I'm doing this voluntarily but there's also intrusive automatic thoughts that pop into my mind. So I try to become clearer about the differentiation between what I'm thinking voluntarily. I'd normally just say the number one or I count down from 10 to 0 over and over again on each out breath, like one number like 10, 9, 8 and then start again. Because then if you're counting in your mind what the attention wonders you're more likely to notice it because you've broken the sequence right and I'll observe I think I'm doing this voluntarily I'm counting voluntarily but if I suddenly think about paying my taxes or something I've got that's

an automatic thought and I choose to think that I just popped into my mind so I kind of train myself to become more aware of that distinction then for 10 minutes I would imagine that I'm in academia platanos in Greece like I wrote about in the beginning of the book and imagine I'm talking to Socrates right right? And the first thing I'd always do, Chris, is shake his hand, right? And it took quite surprisingly long time for him to get used to that. I think it seems kind of, I always remember like, you know, my imaginary Socrates, like in my mind, I insisted on shaking his hand, but he thought it was a bit weird at first, right? And I would say to him, like I'd ask him lots of questions, right, about anything that was struggling with in the

book. And what I generally found any of the history stuff, his opinion, well, you know, I'd be like trying to think we need to get an eye on this and get it accurate and stuff. And he would always, my imaginary Socrates anyway, would always be like, who cares? You know, it's like, I don't even know why. He seemed to place surprisingly little importance on getting it historically accurate. And he said, no, just focus on telling the story of the literary character of Socrates in a way that gets people interested in the philosophy. That's what actually matters.

There are other books that you can go and read where people try and argue through the evidence and try to get to truth. I've been thinking about something not too dissimilar, a little bit more generalized, but I think what you're getting at as well, which is this odd split on the internet that we have at the moment. One is extreme credentialism, which I call experts only. Uh, if you don't have the requisite, uh, background, a lot of the time you're criticized for what, you know, what do you know?

You're not a dot, dot, dot, uh, psychotherapist psychedelics, experts, sports and physio person, whatever, whatever you're pontificating about. And, um, the reason I don't like it is that it's gotten rid of, I think, what Oscar Wilde called the Oxford manner, which is the ability to play gracefully with ideas. And it seems that very much the Socratic method is that. And then on the other side, you have this sort of over romanticization of the renegade untrained sort of orthogonal thinker. So we have these two worlds and you can kind of deploy them to whichever you need in order to make the other side seem stupid. So they don't have the credentials or this person is a flame wielding truth warrior.

Yeah. They did it outside of the establishment. That's how they actually really know what's going on. But it's very, there's a large number of ways where, unless you have a completely stellar academic career, it's unfettered by any kind of controversy or falling short at any time. It seems to me that that bar is unreasonably high for most, pretty much everybody to get over. And on top of all of that, it makes for a much less interesting world because nobody's

allowed to play with ideas outside of their domain of credentialized competence. See you are thinking about it in a more Socratic way because you're the very fact you're going well can I see it from more than one perspective and those pros and so the rule that you always have to be qualified well maybe there's some exceptions to that right and you can easily think of examples of great thinkers in the past that weren't qualified, they were outsiders or talented amateurs or whatever. But on the other hand, having zero qualifications in certain subjects clearly in some cases just leads to the Dunning-Kruger effect and people

making schoolboy errors that are just almost cringe-worthy if you know about the subject. The most obvious example of that, I think, is the internet is absolutely awash with people that can't tell a difference between causation and correlation and medical research. Like newspapers and magazines have exploited that confusion for generations, but now it's become like a much bigger thing on the internet. So understanding kind of like basic medical research methods, getting confused about that does lead a lot of people to make basic mistakes, basically, to misinterpret. If you don't know, like during the pandemic, every five

minutes people were waving around research studies and stuff that had never, that didn't have any medical research, right? So they, they had no idea what the stuff they were reading actually meant. And over and over again, they're kind of like just making the kind of mistakes that you would get taught not to make. Right. So there's, there are problems that happen. Um, and there are people when they discuss ancient philosophy that make errors that an academic philosopher maybe wouldn't make. But yeah, I don't think there's a conclusive answer to this. But yeah, I think we just need to be aware. I think the best thing is just to kind of be aware of what are the pros and

cons. In the same way that for any self-help technique, just at least sit down and make a list of what the strengths and weaknesses of this, what's a good way and a bad way of doing it. So you've got slightly more nuanced understanding of it, not like just a kind of rigid understanding. But I think in general, you know, this thing about amateurs versus experts is similar. Like there's pros and cons to it. Just knowing what those are is perhaps the main thing. I mean, I can tell you over the years I've I've no I'm friends with and know many well respected academics historians classicist philosophers you know and I guess my attitude has changed a little bit from my experience over time. Sometimes there are

people that are incredibly highly qualified in the subject and say stuff that's bonkers, like the other experts in the field just think they've lost their mind. Again, they're making mistakes that a first-year student would fail an assignment for doing. I, it's weird when you see that, but it happens a lot. You get books by people that are professors of philosophy or psychology or whatever, and you think a first year undergraduate student would get lambasted for saying this stuff. It's crazy. The most highly credentialed people are often not experts. And there's also a well-known problem with expertise. There's actually statistical research that shows that narrative reviews

of medical research that are done by experts in a particular field tend to be unreliable. So normally you'd think this guy's like one of the most experienced heart surgeons in the world. Like, so he's written an article reviewing all the research. It should be authoritative because he really knows what he's talking about. But experts are often biased and they're particularly prone to committing the cherry picking fallacy. So they just pick out studies that support their pet theory. Whereas professional statisticians that don't have any skin in the game will just look at what all of the

research says and be really kind of cast a cold eye over it. You know, I, and they'll say, no, this is what the research actually shows. This guy is just telling you what half of the research says, you know, cause it supports his pet theory and experts in a field or if you want to put it another way, people that are really invested in certain theories that have been doing it for a long time can be biased. Right. And so their, their version of things can be quite distorted. But I think the, the other difficulty I wanted to mention to you in terms of this idea of getting information from experts and becoming kind of passive rather than depending on our own reason, there's

another piece of research that's very influential in state of the art like modern behavioral psychology which shows there's a problem with something called role-governed behavior. So if you get two groups of participants in a study and you teach them how to solve some, you give them a puzzle they have to solve like pressing three buttons in a particular order or whatever and if they get it right they get reward, if they get it wrong like maybe you know they get some punishment a buzzer goes off or something it right, they get reward. If they get it wrong, like maybe, you know, they get some punishment, a buzzer goes off or something like that, they lose points or whatever, right? And in one group, you just give them oral

or written instructions. Let's say this is how you solve the puzzle. The other group, they have to figure it out through trial and error, right? This is phase one of the experiment. And phase two, so they do it repeatedly. And phase two, the roles that govern success change without telling them, right? So they have to adapt, basically.

You create a circumstance where they have to adapt. One group had been verbally given the role or solution. The other group had to figure it out through trial and error. The group that have learned the rule verbally will keep trying it even though it's not working, whereas the group that had to figure it out themselves will adapt much more quickly. So we call this insensitivity to environmental change, right? And the reason it's really important is that's exactly what people who come for psychotherapy are doing. They're usually

using some strategy that's not working. And so the puzzle is why do they keep doing it when it's clearly not? Like why do they keep yelling at their partners when they keep their relationships keep breaking up as a result? Surely like after a while they'd kind of figure out this isn't working out for me and they'd start to adapt and change. So what is causing the rigidity in their behavior? And one of the explanations is that when we learn a rule from other people passively, why, or sometimes even if we get it from a book or something like

that, it we tend, there's a tendency and established tendency to overextend it and apply it to rigidly. And that, that can cause problems. Donald Robertson, ladies and gentlemen, dude, I love you. I love all of the work that you do every time that you bring in your book out. I'm super excited. Have you got any idea what you're working on next? I know you've got your sub stack and stuff like that going. Well, I've written about like famous philosophers and stuff, Chris, but I mean,

all honesty, the thing that's, I sat down and I kind of thought what if I could only write one more book? You know, what do I really, really, really, really want to write a book about? And I thought, oh, why write something that I really feel is going to benefit the maximum number of people? So it's one of the biggest problems that I think people have. And it's something we've talked a lot about today, you know, for that reason, because it's kind of on my mind. I want to write a book about the philosophy and psychology of anger. It's one of those areas where there's a huge gulf between stuff that we actually know from psychological research.

We know loads about anger, but most people aren't told about any of the research. And anger plays a huge role in politics. And on the internet, we've got like satchel and cyber bullying and so much kind of aggression on social media, and so much kind of hostility and aggression in politics. But none of us are looking at it and thinking, oh, when people get angry, like their thinking becomes skewed. Like, for example, when people get angry, it's well known that they underestimate risk. So when you're really angry, you tend to expose yourself and other people around you to more danger than normal. We know loads of things like that about anger, but most the majority of

people aren't aware that the research tells us all this kind of stuff. So to them anger is just a feeling. It's not something that changes their thinking. And if that's what anger does, how does it affect the electorate? How does it affect the behavior of politicians? There are measurable problems that it would cause. So I think there's a lot to be said. We've got some great, like Seneca has an entire book called On Anger. And we can easily compare all of that ancient philosophical literature to what some of the psychological research says today. So I think people can benefit a lot from working.

I call anger management the royal road to self-improvement because most people that seek self-improvement like anxiety and depression are self-blaming emotions right so people that are anxious or depressed tend to seek self-help or therapy but angry people don't seek therapy typically because if I'm really angry Chris I think you need therapy buddy not me right so angry people avoid self-help. So, you know, that's why you could go online and you see kind of self-improvement communities like the Manusphere, for example, in some cases. And there seems to be a lot of really angry people, yet they're talking about self-improvement. I don't know if you noticed that?

Yeah. I mean, I certainly know that anybody that's ruminative in the depression or anxiety world, they've considered every six ways to Sunday different solution they come up with. I don't know that many angry people. I think I tend to try and avoid them or maybe they hide themselves from me. I'm not sure. Well, you know, if you read the comments and YouTube videos and things like that, angry, angry people, don't, where should people go? They want to keep up to date with all of the things you're doing. Well, they can find me on sub stack.

Like that's probably where I mainly put stuff on. My website is just donaldrobertson.name. Um, and then yeah, like if they look me up online, I'm involved with a nonprofit, two nonprofits, one is a modern stoicism organization which is running stoic week at the moment and then the other one is a charity or non-profit that we founded in Greece called the Plato's Academy Center where we're trying to raise funds to create a conference center adjacent to the original location of Plato's Academy. So those are the two things I'm interested in, People want to check those out as well. I need to give them a bit of

a plug Chris. But it's always you know absolute pleasure because you're exactly you know when I'm writing books it's kind of guys like you that I kind of imagine reading them you know like I can see how passionate you are about these subjects and you know like I hope that I hope that I it's, it's reassuring to me that you find this stuff interesting. You keep coming back on, you write, you write something and we'll sit down for two hours and talk about it every time it happens. I want to do, um, I want to do an episode with you, a primer on CBT.

So maybe in the next sort of six months or so, we'll find a time slot that works. And I really want to try and just do a 30,000 foot view, the biggest principles, the biggest learnings and lessons. My specialism was always, I used to train therapists and I would always say that I was a techniques guy. So I was really interested in classifying different psychological techniques and comparing them and training. We used to train people and gather data and all of these scripted exercises that we had. So I love teaching people.

And I feel like when we do, when I do interviews and things like that, the one thing I'd love to do more of is just say to people, this is how you'd actually do this visualization technique. This is technique. This is how you do this meditation technique. Let's go through a bunch of them and show you how to actually do this visualization tech, this is technique. That's how you do this meditation technique. Like let's go through a bunch of them and show you how to do it. I would absolutely love to do that. And I think, uh, you know, the more I haven't really been exposed properly

to that much CBT, which is, I feel increasingly embarrassed about it's like this sort of elephant in the room, uh, that I get the impression. Much of the stuff that I consider as being sort of self-discovered wisdom that I'm all proud and sort of follow myself for. I'm like, if I'd just read enough CBT, I would have probably come across this already. All of the biggest realizations seem to have been arrived at by CBT in one form or another. So I'm looking forward to maybe having the egotistical veils ripped from my eyes about my own beautiful ideas instead. And yeah, we'll do that one next done. I appreciate the hell out of you.

Uh, thank you very much for today. Thanks, man. It's been a pleasure. I really enjoyed that. It's good to see you again. And you.