Abstract

Brandt addresses what has been called an “embarrassment” in Socratic studies: in the Crito, Socrates claims that he is only persuaded to act on the basis of propositions that appear to him to be best upon rational examination (45b). However, in several other dialogues, Socrates appears to contradict himself: He obeys the commands of his supernatural daimonion, thereby suggesting that divine command - something that is not the product of human reasoning - can also persuade Socrates to act. Herein lies the apparent conflict: If Socrates is the paragon of rationality, why would he unreflectively obey the commands of his daimonion, an extra rational source? After exposing the weaknesses in arguments from the recent scholarship on this issue, Brandt undertakes the formidable task of proposing an alternative way of understanding Socrates as the “ideal rational agent.” While Brandt’s project is admirable and creative, I argue that parts of it are inconsistent with essential theses of Socratic philosophy. I address four issues that concern me.