Notes on Plato’s Alcibiades I, Part 1
The Greatest Pick-Up Line of All Time  

Jean-Baptiste Regnault, Socrates Tears Alcibiades from the Embrace of Sensual Pleasure, 1791.

2,700 words

Part 1 of 7 (Part 2 here)

Author’s Note: I am typing up and editing my lecture notes on Plato’s Alcibiades I and Gorgias to incorporate them into a new book tentatively entitled Tyranny and Wisdom: An Introduction to Platonic Philosophy. The Phoenician neoplatonist philosopher Iamblichus (c. 245–c. 325) placed the Alcibiades I first and the Gorgias second in his curriculum of Plato’s dialogues, and with good reason, for together they constitute an excellent introduction to Socratic moral and political philosophy.

The Alcibiades of this dialogue lived in Athens in the latter half of the fifth century BCE. When Alcibiades became a teenager, older men started taking a sexual interest in him, as was common in his time and social class.

Alcibiades was highly favored by fortune. He was tall and handsome. He was also rich and well-connected. Alcibiades’s father, Cleinias, was a wealthy and powerful Athenian with ties to Sparta. His mother, Deinomache, was from the prominent Alcmaeonid family. Her first cousin was Pericles, the most powerful man in Athens for more than 30 years, who brought Athens to the peak of its glory and then sent it on its way to decline and utter devastation, which he did not live to see. Cleinias died in the Battle of Coronea in 447 BCE, so Alcibiades was actually raised by Pericles. In short, Alcibiades was a real catch. So naturally he attracted many suitors.

But Alcibiades ran off most of his suitors in short order. In ancient Greece, pederastic relationships between adult men and teenaged boys had a transactional dimension. The ancient Greeks but a very high value on youth and beauty. If you were young and beautiful, everybody wanted you. But if you wanted a younger partner to overlook the ravages of time, you’d better have something else to offer: knowledge, skills, money, social connections. But Alcibiades had it all. He felt that other people had nothing to offer him, and as his suitors learned this, they dropped away, one by one.

By the time Alcibiades was about to turn 20, only one suitor remained, and, to put it bluntly, he didn’t have a chance. He was about 18 years older than Alcibiades. He was ugly. He was poor. And, frankly, he was creepy, more of a stalker than a suitor. He was the first to show interest in Alcibiades. He had been lurking around ever since Alcibiades hit puberty, watching him from a distance, and in all those years, he never once spoke to Alcibiades. His name was Socrates, and he had an evil reputation for investigating the secrets of nature, denying the local gods, swearing oaths by foreign deities, and corrupting the youth. Then, a few days before Alcibiades turned 20, Socrates finally broke his silence. Plato’s Alcibiades I is their conversation.

In ancient and medieval times, the Alcibiades I was used as an introduction to Plato’s writings. It is an excellent introduction for two reasons. First, it offers an overview of the central themes of Platonic moral philosophy. Second, it is not just an introduction to Platonic philosophy, but to philosophy as such. It belongs to a genre known as the “protreptic” speech, the purpose of which is to convert the listener to a new way of life. Alcibiades I is longish, but for me at least, it reads quickly enough. The arguments are mostly straightforward, although it is somewhat padded by a lot of tedious “Yes” and “No” exchanges. It is called Alcibiades I because there is a short and perplexing sequel irresistibly entitled Alcibiades II.

Dramatic Date, Setting, & Characters

Alcibiades I is a play. So let’s begin with the dramatic date, the setting, and the characters.

The dramatic date of Alcibiades I is about 432 BCE. The two main characters are Alcibiades (c. 452–404 BCE) and Socrates (c. 470–399 BCE). Alcibiades’ guardian, Pericles, is mentioned as being alive, so the dialogue cannot be set later than his death in 429 BCE. Alcibiades was at least 20 in 432 BCE when he fought at the Battle of Potidaea, where Socrates saved his life. This conversation takes place before Potidaea because this is their first conversation. The date of around 432 BCE can be inferred from the fact that Alcibiades will very soon be 20, when he can speak in the Athenian Assembly. Socrates was born around 470 BCE, so he was about 38 at the time of this conversation.

The settings of Platonic dialogues are either public or private places. This is important, because people often speak less candidly in public than in private. Of course, even in private conservations, one’s level of candor needs to be adjusted to the character of one’s partner in conversation. This dialogue is in a private setting, for at one point Socrates says “we are alone together.”

As for the characters, Socrates and Alcibiades are an exceedingly odd couple.

Alcibiades was the very paradigm of someone well-favored by fortune. He was tall, handsome, intelligent, charismatic, rich, well-born, and well-connected. In short, he was dealt an amazing hand. But he played his cards badly and turned out to be a very bad and unhappy man.

Socrates really is the opposite paradigm. Socrates was highly intelligent and had a difficult charisma of his own. But he wasn’t good-looking. He wasn’t rich. He wasn’t from a prominent family. Nevertheless, Socrates generally played his cards well and was a very good and happy man.

You can buy Greg Johnson’s The Trial of Socrates here.

Even though Socrates and Alcibiades were from different social worlds, ancient Athens was a small place, and they were brought together by common intellectual interests. The life of the mind, then and now, has the power to bridge social classes. But it also meant that Socrates made some powerful and influential friends — as well as some powerful and influential enemies. Friends such as Alcibiades, Critias, and Charmides all aspired more or less successfully to become tyrants over Athens. Such associations eventually led to Socrates’ trial and execution for impiety and corrupting the youth.

Socrates’ Goal & Plato’s

But at the time of the Alcibiades I, all that was far in the future. In this dialogue, Alcibiades is all potential — enormous potential for good or evil, depending on how his potential is used. The greater your potential to do good, the greater your potential to do evil as well, thus the greater your need for moral education. Fortune can give us many advantages and disadvantages. But our happiness depends on how well we use them. Wisdom for Plato is the ability to make right use of fortune’s gifts, both good and bad.

Socrates’ aim in approaching Alcibiades is frankly to seduce him. But not in the way you think. Socrates wishes to seduce Alcibiades into pursuing philosophy as a way of life. Plato wrote this dialogue to seduce you as well.

As we will see, Alcibiades was on the path to becoming a tyrant. In this conversation, Socrates’ basic agenda is to convince Alcibiades that, if he wishes to become a tyrant, he must pursue philosophy as a necessary means to tyranny. But, once Alcibiades begins to pursue philosophy, Socrates then argues that tyranny is not a worthy aim and that Alcibiades should instead pursue philosophy as an end in itself.

Plato’s agenda in the Alcibiades I is threefold. I have already mentioned the first two aims. First, Plato is presenting his and Socrates’ philosophy. Plato and Socrates had some philosophical differences, but none of them are present here. Second, Plato is presenting a case for philosophy as such. Third, Plato is defending Socrates from his accusers.

Socrates was eventually tried and executed for impiety and corrupting the youth. By the time of the trial, Alcibiades was dead. His political machinations led Athens to disaster and Alcibiades to exile, treason, and finally assassination.

It was easy for Socrates’ enemies to paint him as the villain who corrupted Alcibiades, but in Alcibiades I, Plato gives us a very different picture. Here Socrates is trying to turn Alcibiades away from politics. But another corrupter was pulling Alcibiades toward politics: the people (demos) of Athens. This seducer ultimately proved stronger than Socrates, probably because it aligned with Alcibiades’ tyrannical ambitions. Thus, according to Plato, Socrates tried to prevent Alcibiades from becoming a menace to Athens, but the Athenians themselves turned him into a monster, then made Socrates the scapegoat for their own folly.

Socrates Breaks the Ice

You can buy Greg Johnson’s From Plato to Postmodernism here

Socrates’ first words are “Son of Cleinias, I suppose you wonder why it is I, who was the first to become a lover of yours, alone persist in it now that the others have left off” (103a). Addressing Alcibiades as the “Son of Cleinias” emphasizes that Socrates is of an older generation, a peer to Alcibiades’ father, and intimates his pederastic intention, which resembled the father-son relationship in terms of age differences and mentoring. The word for “wonder” here is thaumazein, which for Plato and Aristotle is the pathos that gives rise to philosophy, which is the topic of this dialogue.

Socrates apparently was the first to show interest in Alcibiades when he became a teenager. However, as becomes clear later, he didn’t actually speak to him until now, when he is just about 20 and will soon take part in public life. Socrates claims that he was held back by his famous “daimonion,” a guardian spirit. The daimonion is how Socrates personifies his knowledge of human nature and ability to act prudently based on that knowledge.[1] Interestingly enough, the alternative title of Alcibiades I is “On the Nature of Man,” which encompasses knowledge of human nature in general as well as knowledge of human individuals, specifically self-knowledge. As we shall see, this is an important theme throughout the dialogue.

Alcibiades’ response is rather chilly, as one might expect when dealing with a creepy “nuisance” (104 d). But he is willing to listen.

The Greatest Pick-Up Line of All Time

Socrates argues that Alcibiades has run off his other suitors in the belief that he needed nothing from them: that he is complete in himself, wholly self-satisfied, and not in need of others. Alcibiades does not agree or disagree with this analysis.

But then Socrates launches into a speech arguing that Alcibiades was either completely wrong about himself or he has changed dramatically. According to Socrates, Alcibiades is deeply dissatisfied with his life and will always want more, and because Alcibiades is so needy, he needs Socrates, for only Socrates can satisfy him:

It seems to me that if one of the gods were to say to you —  “Alcibiades, would you wish rather to live having what you now have or to die at once if it were not permitted you to acquire more?” — you would choose, it seems to me, to die. But as to what hope it is you now live on, I shall tell you. You believe that if you come shortly before the people of Athens — and you believe this will occur within a very few days — upon coming forward you would prove to the Athenians that you are deserving of being honored more than Pericles or anyone else who has ever existed and, having proved this, that you will have very great power in the city, and that if you are very great here that you will be so among the other Greeks and not only among the Greeks but also among the barbarians who share the mainland with us. [The Macedonians, among others.] And if the same god were again to say to you that you must hold sway here in Europe but will not be permitted to cross into Asia or to interest yourself in affairs there, it seems to me that you would again be unwilling to live on these terms alone without being able to fill with your name and your power all mankind, so to speak. And I suppose you believe that apart from Cyrus and Xerxes, no one deserving of mention has ever existed. That this is the hope you have, then, I know very well — I am not guessing.

Alcibiades thinks very highly of himself, and he wants his fame to spread throughout the entire world. He has the character of the great conquerors, such as Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar. For the ancients the pre-eminent route to glory was politics and conquest. He wanted to create an empire. The greatest empire that existed at that time, and that had ever existed, was the Persian Empire.  Cyrus was its founder. Xerxes brought the empire to its greatest expanse. He also tried to conquer Greece. He was noted for his insane hubris. When the waves were too choppy for him to cross into Greece, he sent men down to the sea to beat it into submission. Even nature itself would have to submit to Persia’s emperor. He was somewhat mad, but modest people don’t try to conquer the world. Alcibiades, of course, failed, but it wasn’t a very long time before Alexander the Great succeeded.

Alcibiades wants to conquer the world, and Socrates uses this enormous ambition to try to sell him on philosophy. He continues:

Perhaps then, since you know I speak the truth, you will say, “What has this to do then, Socrates, with the account you said you would give of why you don’t abandon me?” I will tell you, dear son of Cleinias and Deinomache, it is not possible for all these things you have in mind to be brought to a completion without me. So great is the power I suppose myself to have regarding your affairs and you, and I suppose this is why the god [the daimonion] did not allow me to converse with you for so long, and I waited for him to permit it. . . . I too hope to have the greatest power with you after having proved that I am invaluable to you and that no guardian or relative or anyone else is capable of bestowing the power you desire apart from me, though with the help of the god.

Socrates is saying, “You want to conquer the world, my boy? You can’t do it without me. Not only will you rule the world, but I will do it right along with you.” These are extraordinary claims. For one thing, this is precisely how the great Sophists hocked their wares to ambitious young men: “Attend my lectures, learn rhetoric and political science, and you can attain political power.” When you pair these sorts of arguments with Socrates’ frequent public demonstrations of clever argumentation and speech-making, it is easy to understand why Socrates was often mistaken for a Sophist. But Socratic philosophy is different from Sophistry. In fact, the Sophists are Socrates’ greatest rivals.

Socrates then goes on to explain why his daimonion, which he refers to here simply as “the god,” has now allowed him to speak to Alcibiades: “When you were younger and not yet teeming with so much hope, the god, it seems to me, would not permit our conversing, in order that I not converse to no point.”[2] Socrates was watching Alcibiades for a long time. But Socrates only thought it necessary to speak to Alcibiades when he showed signs of tyrannical hubris.

In the Theages, the daimonion tells Socrates that the lad Theages is not a good candidate for philosophical education. Does this mean that the daimonion thinks that Alcibiades has the potential to be a good student? Not necessarily. Alcibiades’ ambitions may simply constitute an emergency, and Socrates must do his best to curb them, whether Alcibiades is receptive or not. If this is the case, one can’t even say that Socrates was wrong about Alcibiades. He may have had entirely realistic expectations. He may have done his best in a bad or even impossible situation. But the city defeated him in the end.

Alcibiades has never heard a come-on like this and is clearly intrigued. He says, “You now appear even more outlandish [atopóteros] to me, Socrates, since you have begun to speak than when you followed in silence” (106a). His sense of wonder is awakening. Alcibiades will not admit to tyrannical ambitions, but neither will he deny them, saying that Socrates would not believe him anyway. But “if” he does have such aspirations, he wants to know why he needs Socrates to help fulfill them.

Notes

[1] See my discussion of Socrates’ daimonion in the Theages chapter of my The Trial of Socrates (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2023).

[2] Plato, Alcibiades I, trans. Carnes Lord, in The Roots of Political Philosophy: Ten Forgotten Platonic Dialogues, ed. Thomas L. Pangle (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987).