Augustan Egypt: The Creation of a Roman Province Book

Early on, Strathern dares the reader to be skeptical of Socrates' standing at the foundation of Western philosophy. Strathern writes that Parmenides' view that this world was an illusion "had a negative effect on Socrates and his successor Plato" and that the "unscientific - indeed, antiscientific - attitude that developed wtih Socrates was to cast a blight on philosophy for centuries to come."

Then Strathern switches direction and argues that Socrates' method of analyzing a subject was the first significant use of reason for its own sake in philosophy." His dialectic advanced from particular examples "to those of more general application, finally arriving at the universal truth." Socrates "showed us how to use reason. But at the same time he limited our vision of where to use it." Even with that qualification, the reader is left with the impression that Socrates' reason was the source of universal truth. Strathern does not connect the dots as he also states that Socrates firmly believed that "the soul is immortal and imperishable, and after death our souls continue to exist in another world" and that Socrates' "reason" is all about the truth that lies in the immortal, divine afterworld where souls exist. The reader of Plato's dialogues cannot take Socrates' reason and discard his problematic cosmology. The two are tied to each other. Reason's role is to get souls "healthy" by seeing the truth of the immortal world. This is the knowledge and wisdom and beauty of philosophy. Reason's role is to develop the soul by making it like God.

Elsewhere, Strathern comments on Socrates' negatively aggressive questioning called the "dialectic" and that from "all accounts" Socrates was "slippery, brilliant, and devious." This matches up with Bertrand Russell's view of Socrates. In his History of Philosophy, Russell writes of Socrates that "He is dishonest and sophistical in argument, and in his private thinking he uses intellect to prove conclusions that are to him agreeable, rather than in a distinerested search for knowledge. There is something smug and unctuous about him, which reminds one of a bad type of cleric. His courage in the face of death would have been more remarkable if he had not believed that he was going to enjoy eternal bliss in the company of the gods. Unlike some of his predecessors, he was not scientific in his thinking but was determined to prove the universe agreeable to his ethical standards. This is treachery to truth, and the worst of philosophic sins."