The characteristics of through which he influenced the whole subsequent course. of human thought, may be stated under three heads: 1. Subject, 2. Method, and :3. Doctrine.
1. As to subject.—Here lie effected a signal revolution, metsnhorically expressed by the saying of Cicero, that "Socrates brought down philosophy' from the heavens to tie earth." The previous philosophies consisted of vast and vague speculations on nature as a whole, blending together cosmogony, astronomy, geometry, physics, metaphysics, etc. Socrates had studied these systems, and they left on his mind a feeling of empti ness and unsuitability for any human purpose. It seemed to hint that men's endeavors after knowledge would be better directed to the human relationships. as involving men's practical concerns. Ile could not go to any public assemblage without hearing ques tions agitated respecting the just and unjust, the honorable and base, the expedient and hurtful ; moreover, he found that the opposing disputants were, without knowing it, very confused in their ideas as to the meanings of those large words in which the weightiest interests centered. Accordingly, he was the first to proclaim that " the proper study of mankind is man;" human nature, human duties, and human happiness made up a field of really urgent and profitable inquiry. In astronomy he saw a certain utility for navigation, and for the reckoning of time, to which extent he would have it known by pilots and watchmen; geometry was useful in sense of land-measuring; arithmetic he allowed in like manner so far as practically useful; but general physics, or the speculations of philosophers, from Thales downward, as to the origin of all things out of water, fire, air, etc., he wholly repudiated. "Do these inquirers," he asked, think that they already know affairs well enough, that they thus begin to meddle with divine? Do they think that they shall be able to excite or calm the winds at pleasure, or have they no other view than to gratify all idle curiosity?" He considered it not only unprofitable but impious to attempt to comprehend that department. The gods, he thought, managed all those things after their own fashion, and refused to sub mit them to invariable laws of sequence, such as men might discover by dint of study; the only means of knowledge permitted was religious sacrifice and prayer, and the con sultation of the oracles. While this was the appointed way in reference to divine things, it was equally appointed that human things should be learned by diligence in study and investigation.
2 In regard to method, Socrates was the author of still greater innovations. It was to little purpose that men applied themselves to human affairs, if they conceived them loosely, and with no regard to evidence. Socrates introduced at least one element of
logical precision into the handling of questions, by insisting on accuracy in definition and classification. His mode will be seen in the statement, of Xenophon. "Socrates continued incessantly discussing human affairs, investigating—What is piety? What is impiety? What is the honorable and the base? What is the just and the unjust? Men that knew these matters, he accounted good and honorable; men that were ignorant of them, he assimilated to slaves." His investigation thus took the form of ascertaining the exact meaning—that is, the definition—of the leading terms in ethics and in politics, the settling of what J. S. Mill cans the connotation of a general word, which determines how to apply it rightly to each individual case. The very idea of defining a general term, now so obvious, never seems to have suggested itself to any cnc previous to Socrates. And his manner of seeking out those detrnitions is also characteristic, and links itself to his conversational method, and his convicting men in general of ignorance in things that they thought they knew. Profess ing himself to be able to furnish no exact definition (this professed ignorance was called the Socratic iron?') of justice, temperance, courage, etc., and finding every one else quite confident in their ability to supply the want, lie asked some one to state his definition; and on its being given, he put a few further interrogations (as he said) by way of making sure that he understood the meaning, but with the speedy effect of driving the respond ent into a humiliating self-contradiction. His method is most fully exemplified in certain of the Platonic dialogues, as the first Alcibiades, LacUs, Chanias, Euhyphron, etc. According to Xenophon, he could pass from his severe cross-examining method, with its humiliating shock of convicted ignorance, and address to his hearers plain and homely precepts, inculcating self-control, temperance, piety, duty to parents, brotherly love, fidelity in friendship, diligence, etc.—such direct admonitory influence being common to him with the so-called sophists. He probably went beyond the ordinary teaching of the sophists in exhorting men "to limit their external wants, to be sparing in indul gence. and to cultivate, even in preference to honors and advancement, the pleasures arising from a performance ofIduty, as well as from self-examination and the conscious ness of internal improvement." This strain of exhortation, his manner of life in har mony therewith, and the virtual self-immolation of his death, may Le considered as the conjoint root of the cynic and the stoic philosopherA.