The Journal of Ethics 16 (3):305-324 (2012)

Christopher Rowe
Durham University
Section 1 of this essay distinguishes between four interpretations of Socratic intellectualism, which are, very roughly: a version in which on any given occasion desire, and then action, is determined by what we think will turn out best for us, that being what we all, always, really desire; a version in which on any given occasion action is determined by what we think will best satisfy our permanent desire for what is really best for us; a version formed by the assimilation of to, labelled the ‘standard’ version’ by Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, and treated by them as a single alternative to their own interpretation; and Brickhouse and Smith’s own version. Section 2 considers, in particular, Brickhouse and Smith’s handling of the ‘appetites and passions’, which is the most distinctive feature of interpretation. Section 3 discusses Brickhouse and Smith’s defence of ‘Socratic studies’ in its historical context, and assesses the contribution made by their distinctive interpretation of ‘the philosophy of Socrates’. One question raised in this section, and one that is clearly fundamental to the existence of ‘Socratic studies’, is how different Brickhouse and Smith’s Socrates turns out to be from Plato himself, i.e., the Plato of the post-‘Socratic’ dialogues; to which the answer offered is that on Brickhouse and Smith’s interpretation Socratic moral psychology becomes rather less distinguishable from its ‘Platonic’ counterpart—as that is currently understood—than it is on the interpretation they oppose
Keywords Appetite  Thomas C. Brickhouse  Desire  Intellectualism  Irrationality  Moral psychology  Passion  Plato  Reason  Nicholas D. Smith  Socrates
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s10892-012-9130-x
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 64,132
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

View all 19 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Reply to Rowe.Thomas C. Brickhouse & Nicholas D. Smith - 2012 - The Journal of Ethics 16 (3):325-338.
The Role of Practice and Habituation in Socrates’ Theory of Ethical Development.Mark E. Jonas - 2018 - British Journal for the History of Philosophy 26 (6):987-1005.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
223 ( #45,901 of 2,454,731 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #449,768 of 2,454,731 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes