Socrates and His Daemon

Socrates and his Daemon

Essay by Charlie Obert, December 2020

In this earlier post on Plato I argued that we need to take the presence of the Gods seriously in the dialogs of Plato, and in the Platonic tradition in general. Our modern approach of discarding the gods as primitive and “mythological” does not do justice to the full context of the material.

In the Platonic model there are chains of intermediate gods, from the highest to the lowest, forming a connecting bridge between the source of all and our physical existence. These can be referred to as different levels of gods. It is also common to see the intermediate levels referred to as daemons.

On a personal level, each person is assigned a guardian daemon at birth, who presides over us throughout our lives, and is there at death to accompany us to our judgment. Here I want to talk about what may be the most famous personal daemon of recorded history:

The daemon of Socrates.

The Apology

I want to start with the Apology of Socrates. The title of the dialog, Apology, is the transliteration of the greek word apologia, meaning a justification or a defense of one’s position. Socrates is most definitely not apologetic in the modern sense.

The argument of the dialog the Apology spells out the main theme. The charge against Socrates is that he did not believe in the traditional Greek gods – and the whole thrust of Socrates‘ argument in the dialog is that he more truly believes in the gods, and acts on that belief more than any of his accusers who are hypocrites and liars.

We are doing more than just quoting specific texts here, we are looking at the heart of the argument of the dialog. The entire argument Socrates makes stands or falls on the existence of the gods, and of daemons as intermediate gods. You would really need to twist the meaning of the dialog to read it mean that that Plato did not believe in the gods, or that the daemon of Socrates can be reduced down an internal psychological voice of conscience.

Here are some specific quotes from the Apology. These are from the translation by Thomas Taylor, and page numbers are from the Prometheus Press edition in Plato’s Collected Works volume III. The emphasis in the following quotes is mine.

[p 188] This first quote is near the beginning of Socrates’ speech, where he references being called the wisest man alive.

O Athenians, be not disturbed if I appear to speak somewhat magnificently of myself. For this which I say is not my own assertion, but I shall refer it to one who is considered by you as worthy of belief. For I shall adduce to you the Delphic Deity himself as a testimony of my wisdom, if I have any, and of the quality it possesses. You certainly then know Chaerepho: he was my associate from a youth, was familiar with most of you, and accompanied you in and returned with you from your exile. You know, therefore, what kind of a man Chaerepho was, and how eager in all his undertakings. He then, coming to Delphi, had the boldness to consult the oracle about this particular. Be not, as I said, O Athenians, disturbed: for he asked if there was any one more wise than I am. The Pythian priestess, therefore, answered that there was not any one more wise. His brother can testify to you the truth of these things; for Chaerepho himself is dead.

Here he is referring to an oracle from a recognized temple in Greece. He takes the word of the oracle to be valid. There is no justification for reading this as Socrates paying lip service to a superstitious custom.

[p 195] In this next passage he addresses the two complaints against him, which contradict each other. One, that he does not believe in gods, and two, that he teaches about new and strange daemons.

Do you not, therefore, say that I believe in and teach things demoniacal, whether they are new or old? But indeed you acknowledge that I believe in things demoniacal, and to this you have sworn in your accusation. If then I believe in daemoniacal affairs, there is an abundant necessity that I should also believe in the existence of daemons. Is it not so? – It is. – For I suppose you to assent, since you do not answer. But with respect to daemons do we not think either that they are Gods, or the sons of Gods? Will you acknowledge this or not? – Entirely so.

– If, therefore, I believe that there demons as you say, if daemons are certain Gods, will it not be as I say, that you speak enigmatically and in jest, since you assert that I do not think there are Gods, and yet again think that there are, since I believe in daemons? But if daemons are certain spurious sons of the Gods, either from Nymphs, or from certain others, of whom they are said to be the offspring, what man can believe that there are sons of the Gods, and yet that there are no Gods? For this would be just as absurd, as if some one should think that there are colts and mules, but should not think that there are horses and asses.

However, O Melitus, it cannot be otherwise but that you have written this accusation, either to try me, or because there was not any crime of which you could truly accuse me. For it is impossible that you should persuade any man who has the smallest degree of intellect, that one and the same person can believe that there are demoniacal and divine affairs, and yet that there are neither demons, nor Gods, nor heroes. That I am not, therefore, impious…

Again, both the charges against Socrates and his answer make sense as referring to the gods and daemons as accepted reality.

[p 199] This next quote is probably the most referenced one regarding his daemon, where he defines how it operates in his life.

The cause of this is that which you have often heard me every where asserting, viz. because a certain divine and daemoniacal voice is present with me, which also Melitus in his accusation derided. This voice attended me from a child; and, when it is present, always dissuades me from what I intended to do, but never incites me. This it is which opposed my engaging in political affairs; and to me its opposition appears to be all-beautiful. For be well assured, O Athenians, if I had formerly attempted to transact political affairs, I should have perished long before this, and should neither have benefited you in any respect, nor myself.

That quote has an edge to it. Socrates is explaining why his daemon warns him to stay out of politics, and the reason is that his honesty and integrity would get him killed or exiled very quickly. Politics is no place for an honest man committed to following the voice of his daemon.

[p 203] This final quote is from the climax of his argument.

Do not, therefore, think, O Athenians, that I ought to act in such a manner towards you as I should neither conceive to be beautiful, nor just, nor holy; and especially, by Jupiter, since I am accused of impiety by this Melitus. For it clearly follows, that if I should persuade you, and, though you have taken an oath, force you to be favourable, I might then indeed teach that you do not think there are Gods; and in reality, while making my defence, I should accuse myself as not believing in the Gods. This however is far from being the case: for I believe that there are GODS more than any one of my accusers; and I refer it to you and to Divinity to judge concerning me such things as will be best both for me and you.

Cut out the gods and you cut the heart out of the whole argument of the dialog.

Nature of Socrates Daemon

The daemon spoke to Socrates in an inner voice or command. In his case the daemon did not tell him what to do, but sometimes gave a warning voice when he should not proceed.

Here is a quote from first Alcibiades, where Socrates explains that he had been warned not to approach Alcibiades at previous times. Now the daemon is no longer warning him away, so now it is time.

Son of Clinias! you wonder, I suppose, that I, who was the earliest of your admirers, now, when all the rest have forsaken you, am the only one who still retains unalterably the same sentiments; and yet, that for so many years I have never spoken so much as a word to you, whilst the others were pressing through crowds of people to converse with you. This reserve and distance in my behaviour have been owing to no human regards, but to an impediment thrown in my way by a daemoniacal nature, the power and force of which you shall by and by be made acquainted with. But now, seeing that this power no longer operates to hinder my approach, I am come thus to accost you; and am in good hopes too, that for the future the daemon will give no opposition to my desire of conversing with you. All this while, however, being but a spectator, I have been able tolerably well to observe and consider your behaviour with regard to your admirers.

This final quote is from the Phaedrus, where the theme is the meaning of love. Socrates has just finished relating one speech, and here he gets the sense that he must stop at that side of the river and give another, different kind of speech as an act of atonement to the gods.

When I was about to pass over the river, excellent man, a demoniacal and usual signal was given me; and whenever this takes place, it always prohibits me from accomplishing what I was about to do. And in the present instance I seemed to hear a certain voice, which would not suffer me to depart till I had made an expiation, as if I had offended in some particular a divine nature. I am therefore a prophet, indeed, but not such a one as is perfectly worthy; but just as those who know their letters in a very indifferent manner, alone sufficient for what concerns myself. I clearly, therefore, now understand my offence: for even yet, my friend, there is something prophetic in my soul, which disturbed me during my former discourse. And this caused me to fear lest, perhaps, according to Ibycus, I should offend the Gods, but acquire glory among men, But now I perceive in what I have offended.

Explaining either of those two incidents, from Alcibiades or from Phaedrus, as being simply being the voice of conscience is stretching the meaning of that term beyond its ordinary sense. Socrates would not have been immoral to communicate earlier with Alcibiades, but it might not have been fruitful. That is not a matter of conscience but of timing. In Phaedrus the daemoniacal signal is telling Socrates he must make a speech to correctly honor the daemon which is Love.

In the situation in the Apology, the warning to Socrates, or rather the lack of the warning, is letting know that he is right to be walking into this situation where he is condemned to death. The daemon warns Socrates when he about to do something evil or venture into something that is a real danger to him. Again, I would not call that conscience since there is no question of an immoral act here. The voice of the daemon isn’t conscience, it is more like a protective or prophetic function. By the lack of warning, the daemon is telling Socrates that being condemned to death here is neither an evil nor a danger.

I think it is very clear that the modern reductionist filter, having to discredit a living belief in the gods as being a remnant of a mythological stage of superstition in Greek development, really does violence to both the letter and the clear meaning of the text.

Socrates argues he believes in the gods, that he hears the voice of Divinity, and that he does all he can to always trust and act on that voice. It is at the heart of his belief, of his values and of his motivation. I think the dialogs make most sense if we take him at his word.

—

Now that we have clearly established that a belief in the gods, and in daemons which communicate with people, I want to examine how the daemon of Socrates fits within the larger chain of the gods.

Chain of the Gods

The most fully developed theory of the levels of gods and daemons is found in the late Platonists, especially Proclus and Iamblichus. I think you can argue that the overall shape of their work is fully consonant with what Plato wrote and what we have examined here.

There are multiple levels of gods, and they are referred to by different names. At the top level are the highest gods, then the daemons, then heroes, then ordinary humans. To complete the link from gods to humans, daemons are one level down from gods, and heroes are one level up from humans. The daemons are intermediate level gods and their function is just that, inter-mediate, mediators, connectors between the gods at the highest level and ordinary humanity down here on earth at the lowest.

The daemon of Socrates was recognized as a high level daemon, a pure reflection of the highest gods. This is because of the kind of man Socrates was and the life he lived, totally dedicated to his ideals and values, where philosophy, truth and justice ruled his life. The daemon of Socrates did not need to prod him into action in a positive way since his values already drove him in that direction. Instead, the daemon was actually more about affective timing and action, warning him not to proceed when his work with a person would be worthless because the person was not ready and could not receive it.

This is not a voice of conscience in our usual sense of the term since Socrates was not moved to do anything evil. His daemon intervened when he was moved to do something positive for a person that the daemon warned would be fruitless, as we saw that in the quote from Alcibiades.

The Greeks believed that every person has a guardian daemon assigned to him, appropriate to their level of personal development. The daemon accompanies us throughout our life, and at death guides us to our judgment and appropriate after life condition.

The daemon is our connection to the divine chain. We are always linked to the highest Divinity through the gods, and our task is to live in consonance with the guidance of our daemon.

Astrology and the Daemons

Astrology needs this scheme of the different levels of gods and daemons to fully come alive.

The planetary gods of astrology are themselves daemons in the sense of being intermediate gods, and the physical planet we see is just the outermost garment or layer of a higher level of intelligence. Each of the planetary gods also have levels of intelligence reaching up to the highest realms, so each planet is not so much a god as a heirarchical family of gods.

We each have our own particular daemon as our own particular link to the divine, and I think the planetary emphasis of the birth chart can point to that. I think we each have planets in our charts that we resonate to the most strongly.

This system of the chains of related gods also helps to make sense of the time lord systems in traditional astrology, where particular planets become active at different periods in our lives. These periods makes most sense if we think of them as times where particular planetary intelligences, daemons, become active in specific areas of our lives. Here astrology teaches us that there are living intelligences are at work in our lives, and not just blind or impersonal forces.

Astrology helps to give more of an overall context to understand the working of the daemons in our lives, including our guardian daemon. This has important implications for how we live our lives.

The Daemon and The Individual

At the heart of us, guiding us, is a daemon who connects us to the gods. The daemon is there to help guide us to our destiny. This means that we are most individual, we are most ourselves, precisely where we are most connected to the gods.

It is also very important be clear that this is not self worship or self-glorification. We are most ourselves when we are worshipping and following a being higher than ourselves, and other than ourselves. Again, we see the paradox that we are most uniquely ourselves precisely where we are most obedient to and aligned with our personal daemon.

It is also very important to note that there is an emphasis on the importance of the individual here rather than the collective. We each have our own personal daemon, and my job is to listen to and embody mine and not yours. This is not an arbitrary self-worship, or a subjective sense my truth or your truth, since our individual daemon links us to the gods and hence to the whole. By fulfilling our own personal destiny, living up to the highest in ourselves, we contribute most to our place and calling in the larger whole. The good of the individual and of the collective merge. It places a high value on each individual, and yet places that value within a larger context so there is no room for self-glorification or elevating oneself above others. There is also no room here for greedy self-indulgence or selfish action. We are each held to a high standard – the highest possible standard, the standard of the gods.

If we eliminate the intermediate gods and daemons we have severed our personal link to the highest. The net result can be to have a collective conformity to a high-level impersonal god, which can happen in monotheistic religions that enforce conformity. At the other extreme, removing the intermediate gods just cuts off the divine level altogether and leaves each person abandoned to rely on themselves alone – or, most likely, to lose themselves in the collective mob pressure. Either way, there is a loss of individuality and an emphasis on the collective.

This helps to explain to me the source of strength within people who have the special sort of integrity to stand up individually against collective pressure. In this framework it is indeed a source of strength beyond the individual. We each have personalized support from the gods. The concept of the individual daemon gives a way of making sense of the paradox of individuality. The people who are the most fully themselves are the least egotistical in the usual sense of the term. They are caught up in doing their work rather than thinking about themselves.

Reason and Responsibility

If you accept this framework of the chain of gods and daemons, and of the daemons working in our lives, it is clear that this takes a high level of self-awareness and moral responsibility to do it right. This is not a license for self-indulgence, nor is it a call to answer the whim of any voice that floats through your mind.

It is very important to have a heavy emphasis on reason, rationality, judgment – evaluating and balancing, testing – and,to have a high level of moral integrity, self-knowledge and self-honesty. Without that, the potential for self-delusion and self-grandeur, ego inflation, is very high. The context of reverence for the gods helps us with the realization that the daemon I am living up to is NOT me personally. That is an important safeguard. Those who are the most truly following their daemon are the least caught up in their own self-importance. Their focus is on the their ideals and their work, and not on themselves. It is a combination of high self-fulfillment with a high self-forgetting.

It is VERY important this not be collapsed down into the modern psychogical subjectivism of my truth and your truth, with no sense of how to judge the relative worth. Taking the example of Socrates, it was recognized that he had a very high level daemon, precisely because Socrates was an extremely distinguished man who lived up to very high ideals. There is a very strong emphasis on personal character and integrity.

Without the chain of daemons, and the concept of relative levels, following your own self collapses down to subjectivism where there is no longer excellence, there is no longer heirarchy. That would be like saying that there is no difference in relative worth between Beethoven and Grand Funk Railroad, it’s just that each person chooses their own groove and who’s to say one is better than the other. There is a striving for excellence, for something higher here, precisely because it is not self-worship, it is worship of something higher that connects us all to the source. We do not all achieve equally, and we are judged by our character. There is a difference in the worth of what we each become and what we each create and contribute.

And finally, it is very important for each person to embody their own daemon and not follow someone else’s. I suspect that only a very small percentage of people are aware that such a thing is even possible, let alone make any real effort at embodying it. And again since it is not psychological self-worship it does not collapse down to a do-your-own-thing style of self-indulgence, which is a kind of hideous low-level caricature of following your daemon and living up to who you are called to be.

This is a complex concept, and it takes a mature and complex approach to deal with it responsibly.

Personal Note

I want to close this essay by talking about my own experience. I am not claiming a high level of spiritual development, but I think I do have some idea of how a guiding daemon operates in my life. I am much more aware of this as I get older.

I have a truth-telling daemon. When there is something the daemon wishes me to say or to write, I get a sense of inner compulsion, a voice nagging at me, that won’t let me rest unless I act on it. When I ignore that voice I feel divided against myself and powerless. When I listen to it, and go ahead and say what I need to, I get a sense of self-alignment and of personal freedom.

The writing that I do feels like it is driven from the daemon. People who aren’t writers think that a writer can go ahead and write about whatever he pleases, and I do not find that to be the case at all. When I don’t have that inner compulsion it is very hard for me to write even a couple of sentences. When that compulsion is there, and a book wants to be written, then I have the need to keep working on it. This is not a simple matter of taking an effortless dictation; there is an element of inspiration, but most of the work of writing really is hard conscious work. I still need to schedule time, and I still need to push myself to go do the work. When I am done with a book and release it into the world I feel like I have given birth to a living being.

This ties in with my earlier comments about learning to speak honestly and not cave to group pressure. The strength to do that does come from within me, but it does not come from me personally; it comes from something larger than me, greater than me, something that can draw on resources that I personally do not have.

I do not write to please people, I do not write this to make money. I write this because I have to write. I write this because if I ignore the inner imperative I can’t live with myself. I get the sense that the living gods are wanting to make their presence known in the world, and they are tapping me on the shoulder to help out.

Why me? Because when they call I am willing to listen.

When writing like this piece shows up, there is a kind of Your Mission If You Choose To Accept It sort of a moment. From my side, my job is to create this, to write it to the best of my ability – and then get it out there into the world. At that point I trust that it will find its appropriate place, that those who need this message will find it.

—

Image of Socrates by Raimund Feher from Pixabay