Plato's Sophrosune – It's Not Moderation

By Kilaya ("K.") Ciriello

___________________________________________________________________________________

There are two famous inscriptions at the Delphi Oracle (the third is not famous). One is KNOW THYSELF and the other is ALL THINGS IN MODERATION or NOTHING IN EXCESS. Although Plato and Socrates highly regarded the first of these Delphic Maxims, know thyself,  they did not praise the second aphorism.

Many translators of the more popular editions of Plato's Republic (and other dialogues) have used the word moderation to translate the Greek sophrosune, although I will argue here that it is not a good fit. Neither Plato nor Socrates can be said to have praised moderation in the way we understand that word today. Moderation is not one of the virtues as they described them. Sophrosune is more accurately translated as self-control or self-restraint, as the following citations will show.

The translation of the Republic by G.M.A. GRUBE and C.D.C. REEVE, included in the PLATO: COMPLETE WORKS edition, is typical in the use of the English word moderation to translate sophrosune. A discussion of this aspect of virtue is introduced at 390d and expounded on through 392 and then again at 430c through 432b, among many other sections.

At 390d Grube translates the initial explanation of sophrosune thus: “ and aren't these the most important aspects of moderation for the majority of people, namely to obey the rulers and to rule the pleasures of drink, sex and food for themselves?”

In order to make sense of this it is important to realize the underlying mechanics described herein. Socrates explained that the majority of people in this Republic will control their appetites first and foremost because their rulers, who they respect and trust, are telling them that it is good to do so. Their self control does not depend on them individually respecting the idea of moderation in all things. As we shall see, sophrosune actually includes instances when the rulers/educators have insisted that abstinence of some particular appetite is good, and we know logically that abstinence is never a part of moderation.

Christopher Rowe translates the same passage in a way that helps us to understand this better. “ The chief elements of moderation as it occurs in the generality of people will be these, won't they: being obedient to their rulers and being rulers of their own desires in relation to things like drink and sex and food.” Here, being rulers of their own desires clearly includes the possibility for abstinence and does not support the idea of moderation in the way that the second Delphic Oracle aphorism does.

To make this point more clear Socrates discussed the idea of starvation at 390b, stating, in effect, that sophrosune is absent in one who says “ death by starvation is the most pitiful fate.” But for one who believes that moderation is the virtue being discussed here (that sophrosune is accurately translated as moderation), starvation can legitimately be said to be a terrible fate. Being okay with starvation certainly requires tremendous self-control and is not helped at all by a respect in moderation. Socrates reiterates this point at 416a by saying that either hunger or lust can turn an untrained (that is, without sophrosune) guard dog into a wolf that eats the sheep.

Continuing in his discussion of sophrosune, Socrates states at 390d, “if there are words or deeds of famous men who are exhibiting endurance in the face of everything, surely they must be seen or heard.” This helps to further understand sophrosune, as described in Plato’s dialogues, as a form of endurance over conditions of lack rather than a respect for moderation in everything.

Socrates’ explanation of sophrosune does not stop there however, but goes on to expound on the implications of self-control and not moderation. And this, possibly, explains why it is often not accurately translated for an English speaking audience. At 390e he explains what sophrosune is not. Anyone who is a lover of money and can thereby be bribed with gifts lacks sophrosune because money allows such a person to serve appetites–which are the very thing that the rulers/educators have told us to be prepared to go without (as in the instance of starvation). If we love money we cannot love endurance of abstinence in regard to what money can buy. A love of money is, by necessity, a hatred of conditions in which food, drink, shelter or sex are unavailable or severely restricted. But one who has the virtue of sophrosune is able to endure these deprivations because they have a self-control that revolves around a trust in the commandments of their teachers and superiors. They will not resent a lack of food because they have been taught that it is unbeneficial to themselves to do so. This is far from the mechanics of moderation.

Socrates used the example of Achilles to drive this point home. He said that Achilles possessed sophrosune, and so he would never have taken bribes OR have showed disrespect to his rulers, the gods, both of which Homer described him as doing:

“We won't allow our people to believe that Achilles of all people, not only the son of a goddess and of Peleus, who was supremely moderate and grandson of Zeus, but also brought under [educated by] the supreme wisdom of Chiron, was so completely disturbed an individual as to have two opposing sicknesses in him: illiberality [apeirokalia] combined with the love of money, on the one hand, [and] a sense of superiority over Gods and men on the other” (from the Rowe translation).

So Achilles could not possibly have been influenced in his decision-making by the offer of money or gifts because he definitely had sophrosune, which would have given him an appreciation of not having money and not having the things it can buy. Through sophrosune he would have been able to control or restrain the bodily appetites that money supplies. And so, one with sophrosune won't take a bribe even if that bribe provides him with the means to live a moderate life with a moderate amount of pleasures of food, drink, sex, etc..

Other passages in the dialogues that also support this argument include Charmides 164d, where sophrosune is connected directly with KNOW THYSELF. NOTHING IN EXCESS is not at all mentioned. We should not think that because Protarchus mentions NOTHING IN EXCESS at Philebus 45e that this is Plato recommending it. There, in that dialogue, sophrosune is similarly explained as a type of self-control in which one can endure abstinence over certain types of pleasures that are called intense, and so are not beneficial.

In summary, within Plato’s dialogues, sophrosune is the self-restraint that people exhibit when they respect teachers/rulers who have told them that endurance of conditions in which the objects of our appetites are scarce or absent is very important to maintain. And this has very little connection to the English word moderation. So, we can safely say that when moderation is used to translate sophrosune within one of Plato's dialogues, a misunderstanding has occurred. Even though Socrates and his student Plato greatly respected the Delphic aphorism, KNOW THYSELF, they did not do so for the other famous aphorism engraved there: ALL THINGS IN MODERATION/ NOTHING IN EXCESS.

Kilaya Ciriello is an author of books on Plato and Eastern philosophy having studied under the great British philosopher Stuart Hampshire at Stanford in the early 90's. He maintains a blog called The Fundamentalist Plato's Substack.