Rating: 
Summary: Off The Mark
Review: ... I am a post-graduate working with Platonic moral theory and have read Stones book. The argument taken by Stone is quite frustrating to anyone that has read the dialogues themselves, much less taken the time for comparative inter-dialogue analysis, authorship, or historical approximation. Tangents on embarrassing textual misinterpretations, and a refusal to synthesize topical elements of the dialogues make up the basis of this book. The work makes perfect sense when the whole of Stones journalistic output is considered; it is on par with his usual political zeal. A curiosity though, and I am not happy to say this, that in spite of all the "research" he did before writing the book (he was aware of the basic historical background) he came away without a serviceable grasp of the philosophy and concepts of his subject, though he managed typical laymen sentiment. His philistine claim to an understanding of the attic grants himself an authority which is clearly overestimated. The book is an odd punctuation on such a storied career. It should be clear by now that I'm not recommending this book for advanced students of philosophy, history, or literature. A paradox, in fact! For I would not recommend this book to undergrad students either, lest they are ready for the unnecessary difficulty of misinformation and prejudice before the study begins. In summary: though the book is misdirected from the beginning (and therefore of little intellectual value) it is a rousing pledge to the cockeyed love of political rhetoric... and if this is your forte, then bump the rating up to four stars.
Rating: 
Summary: True Democracy & It's Wrongful Trial
Review: .
What is so amazing about ancient Athens, is it's honest democracy, a true government by the people. This was no counterfeit version of democracy found in modern America with such authoritarian policies of the "war on drugs," and the "patriot act." Unlike the American justice system, revenue motivated decisions did not hold weight and were non-existent in Athens, where education and oratory powers were taught to ALL citizens, who were in turn, truly listened to, as there were no need for high paid lawyers as in today's so called veneer version of democratic society, for in Athens, each citizen was capable of defending himself in court and the court would honor and listen. There was no inside circle of prosecutor-judge-cop-public defender bias. All citizens took part in juries and government decision-making. True free speech existed, something that most people in today's American democratic society have no idea what that really is. For instance, Socrates, attacked such open freedom and democracy for years. The result was never persecution of any sort, but rather, the playwrights writing of various comedies depicting the infantile and foolish nature of the rhetoric Socrates was churning out. The history Stone brings out is well done. He relates the two temporary successful take overs from the Spartan influenced four hundred and later, the thirty, both replacing the democracy with oligarchy and dictatorships, only to fail in the restoration of democracy. Too make matters worse, the political enemies of such coos were former students of Socrates! What makes Stone's book so congruent with ancient Greece is his historical analysis of the Greek democracy and its very foundational working structure that could not endorse the loss of free thinking. The idea of Witch trials, and persecution for free thinking and free speech, however condemnatory of the government did not occur. The comedies, such as Astopheles, "The Clouds," to name just one, was only one of many that used the anti-democratic, anti-Athens attacks of Socrates as dipiction in exposure of tragedy in comical form. Here Socrates was ridiculed and made to look like a fool. Never was there hard feeling, nor subsequent governmental persecution from such plays. Even Socrates is reported to have laughted openly at the plays dipiction of himself and his "thinkery." The problem Stone brings out, and this is the highlight of his book, is that many other historians have literalized such play wrights into literal historical accounts, teaching that true history consisted of the Athenian democracy acting without free speech in punishment and accusations. Here Stone acknowledges such comedies as purely fictional, that is, true characters, places and events fictionally changed, altering either past events, current or future to convey their points. This is reason for their stories that contradict the freedom of the Greek polis, the government of the people, the true democracy. The trial of Socrates was that of paranoia that eventually cropped up in Athens Greece. Two recent governmental take overs occurred with the threat of a third. The previous rebels being Socrates former students. Even here, Socrates could have used a defense that would have surely cleared him, but desired not to. He could have easily reached out to the Athenian ideals of free thinking and speech, the cities gods and goddess of wisdom, persuasion and justice, however his very defense while clearing him, would have both destroyed his anti-democratic, anti-Athens foundational arguments in favor of Spartan-like oligarchy and vindicate the democracy of Athens, the very type of free government that Socrates spent his entire philosophical life attacking. In Athens executed death penalty of Socrates, she went against her very foundation, she sinned against herself. What is so profound about this book and Stone's presentation is the structure of ancient Greece, Athens verses Spartan, and the very make up of Athens democracy. One shudder's when comparing the real deal and element of open Athenian democracy with the modern day American democracy, gaining understanding of both democratic values, vulnerability and today's quasi- democratic counterfeits, that of totalitarian/authoritarian efforts to control.
Rating: 
Summary: The Hemlock Drinker
Review: Did Socrates have a death wish? I. F. Stone succeeds in making two basic points about the grand old man. First, that from the (very) limited Socratic sources, we know precious little about what he actually stood FOR. Most of his pronouncements stand AGAINST something: he is, after all, virtually the inventor of deconstruction. A Great Asker, Stone seems to say, but not necessarily a Great Thinker. Second, the evidence is fairly supportive of Stone's theory that, once convicted of treason, Socrates ratcheted up the stakes, inflaming the passions of the jury rather than throwing himself on his fellow Athenians' mercy. Aside from this I'm not convinced that Socrates was AS unattractive as Stone would have it. Stone is doggedly determined to portray classical Athens in a sympathetic light, but for myself I've read enough Thucydides to know what sort of murderous antics they were often capable of perpetrating. That they killed off one of their leading philosophic lights is hardly out of character.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting argument--not sure if I agree with it.
Review: I think a person would have to dig into many primary and secondary sources to validate or refute I.F. Stone's interpretation of the trial of Socrates. Stone argues that among other things, Socrates was anti-democratic and that he deliberately martyred himself. Stone justifies the Athenian condemnation of Socrates on the basis that Socrates undermined Athens' democratic foundation. Even if we were to scrutinize this argument with research material, we may never learn more about the trial than what Plato--a biased source--tells us. It is also difficult to judge percisely how democratic Athens really was. One historian has convincingly argued that Athens was democratic in name, but like the U.S., it persued the interests of its elite more than the spirit of its ideology. So was Socrates attacking Athenian democracy or a hypocritical exploitation of democracy by the Athenian elite? It doesn't really matter whether or not Stone provides the right answer because he asks the right question,and that is what makes his book interesting. Stone also argues that Socrates was a dead beat who refused to work and who placed a heavy burden of responsibility on his wife while he hung out with the boys and dispensed philosophy. I can almost picture a Monty Python skit, but it is an interesting personal examination of an otherwise idealized figure. I recommend that people read this book for its interesting new interepretation of a hallowed Western thinker. Don't be so quick to condemn it--being right is not always the most important thing.
Rating:
Summary: Stone, like his glorious Athens, unfairly condemns Socrates.
Review: In The Trial of Socrates, I.F. Stone does his best to grant democratic fifth century Athens immunity from its unjust condemnation of Socrates. Stone, although he does reluctantly admit that the verdict leaves an unpleasant stain on Athenian democracy, attempts to excuse the Athenians for their egregious behavior by blaming Socrates for intentionally provoking their verdict. Stone, despite his incessant cheerleading for democratic sentiments, does a great job setting up the historical scene during and preceeding the trial. Likewise, his assessment of the reasons for the jury's decision, i.e., Socrates's association with enemies of democracy such as Alcibiades and Critias, is lucid and highlt plausable. But Stone's contention that the guilty verdict is as much Socrates' fault as it is his jurous leaves the reader feeling like a fatigued parent listening to one more excuse from his or her recalcitrant child. And despite the many pleasures that The Trial of Socrates affords, Stone's defense and explan- ation of the jury's verdict is highly reminiscent of the verbal manipulating Sophists that Socrates sought to discredit. Stone's book, a national bestseller, has been justly lauded by the general reader as well as the professional philosopher. The main appeal of the Trial of Socrates lies in its informative staging of fifth century Athens in which the trial takes place. Stone dileniates the history of Athens from the time of Homer to the setting in which the trial takes place without complicating the lay reader with unexplaned events and figures or boring the academician with a pedestrian attempt at scholarship. Furthermore, Stone's account is an incisive history of the birth and evolution of democracy and the democratic sentiments such as need to protect free speach. After reading this entertaing and informative book one can sympathetically see the reasons why Athens felt the need to try and condemn the seventy-year-old philosopher. Yet Stone's book also gives us the opportunity to reexamine the verdict and democratic Athens as well as our own democracy. The Trial of Socrates also provides staunch proponents of Socrates the opportunity to debate the merits and worth of Popper-like critiques of Socrates and Plato. And while the book does a great job explaining the reasons for the verdict, Stone certainly tries to lessen the sting of the unjust verdict. Likewise, Stone runs into some difficulty reconciling the verdict and the fact that people living in a democracy are supposed to be safe from such undemocratic witch-hunts. The Trial of Socrates thus proves to be a worthwhile read for proponents or opponents of Socrates and his fate.
Rating:
Summary: It should really be the trial of Plato...
Review: Read the editorial reviews for books on or by Plato and you will find the fawning hagiolatry that too many professional philosophers have bestowed upon one of their own (comparable only to the scorn heaped upon the Sophists, who demonstrated by example how philosophical methods can lead to absurd conclusions, and are thus suspect). Anyone reading "The Republic" in earnest cannot fail to be horrified by prescriptions that are eerily reminiscent of the Cultural Revolution in China or Pol Pot's reign of terror in Cambodia. I.F. Stone's book demonstrates how Plato's views were those of a disgruntled aristocrat railing against the (relative) democracy of classical Athens who stripped his class of many of its privileges. Some of his associates went beyond railing and actually committed treason in an attempt at restoring the said privileges. Unfortunately, Stone misses his target, and actually believes Plato when the latter fraudulently ascribed his own opinions to Socrates. Most of Stone's scathing criticism and debunking of Socrates should really be understood as applying to Plato. There is very little we can know about Socrates himself and his views, as he did not write, and any speculations on the man are likely to be fruitless or unsupported by hard evidence. A much more rigorous (and devastating) critique of Plato is Karl Popper's "The Open Society and its Enemies", but it is certainly less accessible to the layman. For all its flaws, Stone's book is a good read and a first step in reversing centuries of undeserved praise granted to Plato.
Rating:
Summary: Plato and Socrates on Trial
Review: Stone's book is a well-laid out, prosecution view of the trial of Socrates. Certainly, Stone brings up some very interesting points about whether Socrates "got what he deserved," but some of his evidence is far from compelling. For instance, even those who study Plato for a living have a hard time agreeing on what the "historical" aspects of Socrates are, and which are just Plato's own idealized "fictional" Socrates. In my opinion, Stone uses Plato to support his points when it is convenient for his argument, and draws on other sources when it is not. I encourage people to read this book, if only to hear the prosecution's possible case against Socrates. Those who love philosophy, especially Plato's works, will find Stone's case interesting, if not necessarily convincing
Rating: 
Summary: Cotton Candy for the Mind
Review: The author spent his entire life in journalism and not academia and it shows in the book. The book is written at the 8th grade reading and intellectual level, which accounts for its popularity. The book is a collection of interesting tidbits about the ancient Greek world that the author collected in his hobby reading. An analogy would be describing a religious belief system by the sequence of body postures used by the worshippers and ignoring their intellectual beliefs about the spiritual world. There is a total lack of academic rigor. The author tells you what to think instead of presenting the evidence and making you think for yourself. What is worse is the absent material. The author totally ignores the usually understood reason for the trial being revenge from a high level public official that Socrates frequently publicly ridiculed for being incompetent. Another journalist aspect is the occasional political propaganda presented. Watch out for irrelevant and false references to the current world and notice how they are presented as proof by blatant assertion.
Rating:
Summary: Who thought Issy could have written this
Review: This is a book by that old Stalinist Issy Stone. Stone wrote it in old age teaching himself Greek to do it. The end result is fascinating. Even nowadays philosophy teachers will bore anyone silly if given the chance to tell people how Socrates was a champion of individual liberty. How he is a model that can be looked up to today and he was brought down by the mob. Stone shows that Socrates in fact was a political conservative. Athens at the time when he lived was a democracy. It had an "empire" which in fact was a series of allied states that had a democratic form of government. Sparta it opponent was the head of a series of states which had aristocratic governments. As the battle between Athens and Sparta went on they would battle over cities and territories of Greece. If Athens was successful in taking over a city, democracy would be introduced. If Sparta did an oligarchic form of government would be put in place. In the end Athens lost and Sparta imposed on it an aristocratic government called the thirty. This government summarily executed a large number of the democrats and many more had to flee in exile. Eventually this government was thrown out and democracy was restored. It was after the restoration of democracy that Socrates was put on trial and executed. Stone goes through the record and shows that the reason for his execution was that he had taught the young aristocrats. That is the group who had collaborated with Sparta and who had betrayed their fellow citizens. In fact if one reads the works of Plato, Socrates disciple one can see that he was profoundly anti-democratic and favored government by an un-elected elite. Socrates rather than being a champion of liberty was just an ideologue for the rich and should be a role model for an autocratic state such as Czarist Russia rather than being relevant to modern society. The book is short well written and reads like a detective story. A must read for anyone with an interest in philosophy.
Rating:
Summary: I.F. Stone's Weekly reaches the Greeks
Review: This is a compelling account of a confusing question our histories often manage poorly, in the conflict of democratic and philosophic traditions. In a manner not dissimilar to Popper's Open Society and Its Enemies, although an entirely different book and perspective, Stone looks at the context of Socrates' trial in a way often filtered out of introductions to Platonic perspectives. The ambiguity of Socrates, to modern minds, suddenly stands out, although that should not be troubling to anyone iterested in either the birth of grand philosophy or the evolution of democracy. Getting it straight in the who's who of who's for and against what is important. This is a complex scholarly field, and Stone is good at it, but, as some of the other reviews suggest, the final right interpretation of the evidence is not so easily obtained. Superb work from any view, and well worth reading.
| 
