苏格拉底被判死刑的罪名是荼毒青少年的思想。他的粉丝们想尽办法营救他，其中一位粉丝加朋友Crito在他被执行死刑前夕偷偷溜进监狱去游说他逃走——船准备好了，怎么从监狱出去也设计好了，只要你同意，你马上可以远走他乡，继续抚养儿子们长大，多好啊！
然而苏格拉底却铁定了心要赴死。他说，我70岁了，活够了，可以为我所追求的东西去死了。这是柏拉图的两本书《Apology》（译者Benjamin Jowett）和《Crito》（译者Benjamin Jowett）中讲述的故事。《Apology》讲的是苏格拉底在公开审判中为自己进行辩护，《Crito》记录了Crito探监时，二人之间的对话。
苏格拉底是一个非常理想化的人。这是一个追求理想的人慷慨就死的故事。
说到这里，不得不佩服《理想国》首位中文译者吴献书。《理想国》（英译名《The Republic》）的中文名翻译成理想国太绝了！（吴献书的全译本可以在网上找到）因为里面描述的那种美好的体制就是苏格拉底的理想，在当时不是现实，在人类历史上也从未实现过，不叫理想国还能叫什么呢？目前我只看了《理想国》英文版（译者Benjamin Jowett）第一册。但从这里就可以看出，苏格拉底毕生的追求，就是坚持公道（just，“公道”是吴献书的译法），他相信真正的公道可以构建一种完美的体制。他认为真正的公道者会成为统治者，因为公道者不愿屈居人下，不愿被不如自己的人统治；一旦被不如自己的人统治，公道者不光会失去名利，还会受到莫须有的迫害。然而苏格拉底自己却没有成为统治者的一员。最后他正是被一帮所谓的“公道”之士判了死刑，受到了莫须有的迫害。
这个理想化的人到了古稀之年，没有惧怕死刑，也没有越狱。也许他寄希望于用自己的鲜血来推动理想更进一步？
《理想国》第一册里，Thrasymachus的反驳反而比苏格拉底的证明显得喧宾夺主。他毫不留情地反驳了苏格拉底的观点，总结起来是不公道才是赢家，所谓窃钩者诛、窃国者诸侯。我想大多数人都会情不自禁赞同其观点。吴献书翻译中有一句是“所谓最高度之不公道，即层累罪恶比丘山者”，而这样的人往往却在世俗的社会无往而不利。 Thrasymachus屡次感叹，苏格拉底，你太傻了！看着文字我都能感觉到他对苏格拉底翻够了白眼。这是其中一段Thrasymachus的反驳，是基于英文版的翻译：
“因为你……进一步想象统治者们，如果他们是真正的统治者，就绝不会把被统治者当成一群羊，也不会日以继夜为自己谋利。不对！你太误入歧途了！你都没看到公道和公道一派在现实中是一群被利用的人……而不公道正好相反，因为不公道者主宰了了那些头脑简单的和坚持公道的人。不公道者是强者，他统治的人实现他的私利，实现他的幸福，而不是实现被统治者自己的幸福。还有，最傻的苏格拉底，和不公道者比起来，公道者永远是输惨的那一方。首先，在商业方面，当不公道者和公道者进行合作时，你会发现一旦合作结束，不公道的一方往往获利更多。其次，在国家层面，交税时，在同样收入的前提下，公道者比不公道者付出更多……在政府官员层面呢？公道者因为是公道的，因此忽视自己的需求、牺牲自己的权益并且不会搜刮民脂民膏。他还会受到亲朋好友的憎恨，因为他不愿不择手段来为这些人谋利。不公道者则正好相反……最大的不公道在于那些罪犯变成了最幸福的人，而那些不愿做不公道之事的人反而成了最惨的人——比如暴君，利用欺骗和暴力抢夺了他人的财产，不是一点一点搜刮，而是整个夺走。可怕的和神圣的，私有的和公有的，全部占为己有。这些错误的行径，如果他只做了其中一件，他会被惩罚并颜面尽丢——这样的人我们称之为强盗、小偷和骗子。但是当一个人搜刮了所有公民的钱财并奴役所有公民时，他不会被称作强盗小偷和骗子。不光是在所有被统治者眼中，就连在那些知晓他到达了不公道的顶峰的人眼中，他也成了被庇佑的幸福的人。人类之所以谴责不公道，是因为害怕成为不公道的牺牲品（害怕变成受害者），而不是因为害怕自己会去做不公道的事（而不是害怕变成施害者）。”
英文版原文：
”Because …… you further imagine that the rulers of states, if they are true rulers, never think of their subjects as sheep, and that they are not studying their own advantage day and night. Oh, no; and so entirely astray are you in your ideas about the just and unjust as not even to know that justice and the just are in reality another’s good; that is to say, the interest of the ruler and stronger, and the loss of the subject and servant; and injustice the opposite; for the unjust is lord over the truly simple and just: he is the stronger, and his subjects do what is for his interest, and minister to his happiness, which is very far from being their own. Consider further, most foolish Socrates, that the just is always a loser in comparison with the unjust. First of all, in private contracts: wherever the unjust is the partner of the just you will find that, when the partnership is dissolved, the unjust man has always more and the just less. Secondly, in their dealings with the State: when there is an income tax, the just man will pay more and the unjust less on the same amount of income; and when there is anything to be received the one gains nothing and the other much. Observe also what happens when they take an office; there is the just man neglecting his affairs and perhaps suffering other losses, and getting nothing out of the public, because he is just; moreover he is hated by his friends and acquaintance for refusing to serve them in unlawful ways. But all this is reversed in the case of the unjust man. I am speaking, as before, of injustice on a large scale in which the advantage of the unjust is more apparent; and my meaning will be most clearly seen if we turn to that highest form of injustice in which the criminal is the happiest of men, and the sufferers or those who refuse to do injustice are the most miserable –that is to say tyranny, which by fraud and force takes away the property of others, not little by little but wholesale; comprehending in one, things sacred as well as profane, private and public; for which acts of wrong, if he were detected perpetrating any one of them singly, he would be punished and incur great disgrace –they who do such wrong in particular cases are called robbers of temples, and man-stealers and burglars and swindlers and thieves. But when a man besides taking away the money of the citizens has made slaves of them, then, instead of these names of reproach, he is termed happy and blessed, not only by the citizens but by all who hear of his having achieved the consummation of injustice. For mankind censure injustice, fearing that they may be the victims of it and not because they shrink from committing it. “
Thrasymachus说的难道不是事实吗？苏格拉底在其后的辩论中有狡辩的嫌疑。明明是在讲治理城邦到底是公道好还是不公道好，他老是用其他风马牛不相及的行业来对比，比如牧羊人的公道、驯马师的公道等等。辩论的题目被平移了好几次概念，从什么是公道，公道是善还是恶，变成了为什么要公道，公道到底为谁服务，最后草草落脚在公道能带来幸福，因此公道比不公道要好。也许后面的几册会让我打脸。
那苏格拉底是不是真的太傻太天真了呢？也许我们大多数人如Thrasymachus，眼中所见就只是现世，而苏格拉底看到的是更高的可能性，虽然那还是一个存在于他脑中的概念，细节都待落笔。
苏格拉底在《Apology》里面说过，为了坚持公道，虽千万人，吾往矣。基于英文版的翻译：“我认为，就这一点而言，我是比很多人都高等，在这一点上，我也许真的觉得我比其他人更有智慧——这一点就是虽然我对地下的世界（死亡）无知，我不认为我知道多少，但我的确知道不论对更好的人还是对更好的神来说，不公道和不服从是罪恶和有损名誉的。我会害怕和回避确定的恶，但我绝不会害怕或回避可能的善。”
英文版原文：
And this is the point in which, as I think, I am superior to men in general, and in which I might perhaps fancy myself wiser than other men, - that whereas I know but little of the world below, I do not suppose that I know: but I do know that injustice and disobedience to a better, whether God or man, is evil and dishonorable, and I will never fear or avoid a possible good rather than a certain evil.
为了实现这种公道，他把自己投身于热烈的辩论和谈话之中，希望每个人都不断改进自己的心智。基于英文的翻译：
“……因为我不干别的，我做的事情就是说服你们所有人，不论长幼，不要考虑你们自身和你们的财产，而是要考虑心智上最大程度的进步，这才是第一要义。我告诉你们不论是在公共领域还是私人领域，美德不会是由财富带来的，但是从美德可以带来财富和作为一个人的各种美好。这是我的教学，如果这个算是荼毒了青年，那么我的影响力确实很具破坏性。”
英文原文：
……For I do nothing but go about persuading you all, old and young alike, not to take thought for your persons and your properties, but first and chiefly to care about the greatest improvement of the soul. I tell you that virtue is not given by money, but that from virtue come money and every other good of man, public as well as private. This is my teaching, and if this is the doctrine which corrupts the youth, my influence is ruinous indeed.
苏格拉底很谦虚，说自己对死亡无知。但其实他在得知自己被判死刑之后，就谈到了死亡为什么是一只纸老虎。基于英文版的翻译：
“让我们从另一个角度来审视这个问题，我们就会看到有很好的理由相信死亡是件好事，原因有二——要么死亡就是一种空灵的状态，完全丧失自我意识，要么死亡就是如其他人所言，一种对灵魂的改变和摆渡，从这个世界摆渡到另一个世界。”
英文版原文：
Let us reflect in another way, and we shall see that there is great reason to hope that death is a good, for one of two things: - either death is a state of nothingness and utter unconsciousness, or, as men say, there is a change and migration of the soul from this world to another.
在《Crito》中，当Crito劝他逃走的时候，苏格拉底非常详细的陈述了为什么他不会回避死刑。基于英文版的翻译：
“如果你在这么关键的事上违法了或者犯错了，你会给自己和朋友们带来什么呢？你的朋友会被放逐，被剥夺公民身份，或被没收财产，这些都是确定的；对你自己而言，如果你到了周边城邦，比如Thebes或Megara，都是治理良好的地方，而你给他们带去了一个敌人苏格拉底，他们的管理层会反对你，当地市民会把你看作法律的破坏者，你会让他们坚信有非难你的理由。因为一个违法的人也更可能会荼毒年轻人的思想。那么你会从这些秩序良好的城市和善良的人们身边逃跑吗？为了活命这样做值得吗？还是你会不顾廉耻去和他们说话，苏格拉底？你又能和他们说什么呢？难道复述你在这里说过的那些东西，即美德、公道、体系和法律是人类最美好的东西吗？那样体面吗？当然不体面。但是如果你离开这些治理良好的城邦，而去到Crito的朋友们所在的Thessaly，那里有更多动乱，那里的人会非常喜欢听你的越狱故事，从最抓眼球的细节开始，你披着羊皮或者别的什么乔装打扮，反正是一种偷天换日的逃跑手法。但是难道听众中不会有人提醒你，年长的你居然为了一点可怜的想多活几年的欲望而违反了最可怕的法律？也许不会，如果你把他们的情绪控制好的话。但是如果他们的情绪上来了，你还会听到更羞辱的话：你能活下去了，但是打算怎么个活法？作为所有人的马屁精？作为所有人的奴仆？然后你干什么呢？在Thessaly吃吃喝喝，逃到另一个城邦就为了吃口饭？你还有什么颜面去面对自己所提倡的公道和美德呢？假设你活下去是为了孩子，为了抚养他们长大，为了教育他们。你会把他们带到Thessaly而让他们被剥夺雅典公民的身份吗？那是你可以为他们决定的事情吗？还是你认为只要你活着，虽然你不在他们身边，他们可以在雅典受到更好的照顾和教育？因为你的朋友会照顾他们？是什么让你觉得如果你在Thessaly他们就会照顾你的孩子，如果你到了另外一个世界，他们就不会照顾了？没这回事。如果他们是真正的朋友，当然他们会照顾的。”
英文版原文：
“For just consider, if you transgress and err in this sort of way, what good will you do, either to yourself or to your friends? That your friends will be driven into exile and deprived of citizenship, or will lose their property, is tolerably certain; and you yourself, if you fly to one of the neighboring cities, as, for example, Thebes or Megara, both of which are well-governed cities, will come to them as an enemy, Socrates, and their government will be against you, and all patriotic citizens will cast an evil eye upon you as a subverter of the laws, and you will confirm in the minds of the judges the justice of their own condemnation of you. For he who is a corrupter of the laws is more than likely to be corrupter of the young and foolish portion of mankind. Will you then flee from well-ordered cities and virtuous men? and is existence worth having on these terms? Or will you go to them without shame, and talk to them, Socrates? And what will you say to them? What you say here about virtue and justice and institutions and laws being the best things among men? Would that be decent of you? Surely not. But if you go away from well-governed States to Crito’s friends in Thessaly, where there is great disorder and license, they will be charmed to have the tale of your escape from prison, set off with ludicrous particulars of the manner in which you were wrapped in a goatskin or some other disguise, and metamorphosed as the fashion of runaways is- that is very likely; but will there be no one to remind you that in your old age you violated the most sacred laws from a miserable desire of a little more life? Perhaps not, if you keep them in a good temper; but if they are out of temper you will hear many degrading things; you will live, but how?- as the flatterer of all men, and the servant of all men; and doing what?- eating and drinking in Thessaly, having gone abroad in order that you may get a dinner. And where will be your fine sentiments about justice and virtue then? Say that you wish to live for the sake of your children, that you may bring them up and educate them- will you take them into Thessaly and deprive them of Athenian citizenship? Is that the benefit which you would confer upon them? Or are you under the impression that they will be better cared for and educated here if you are still alive, although absent from them; for that your friends will take care of them? Do you fancy that if you are an inhabitant of Thessaly they will take care of them, and if you are an inhabitant of the other world they will not take care of them? Nay; but if they who call themselves friends are truly friends, they surely will.
苏格拉底之死，是一个理想主义者之死，一个与时代格格不入者之死。千百年来读了柏拉图著作的人，谁也没有办法从苏格拉底的逻辑中找出一个能让他不直面死亡的理由。我们只能赞叹一个真实的公道的灵魂从纸上一遍遍不耐其烦地复活，而他每一次复活都失望于其理想仍然是一个理想，甚至是一个被遗忘、被世俗嘲笑的理想。
