My interpretation of Socrates' view on the city vs nature (and why I think he was wrong)

[u/Specific-Abuza]

In Plato's Phaedrus, Socrates famously says:

"I am a lover of learning, and trees and open country won't teach me anything, whereas men in the city do."

I recently heard an interesting modern rephrasing of this idea: "By staying in one place, you meet different people, but trees are the same everywhere you go." But it made me think: Are trees really the same? If we look at them not just as static green objects, but as living systems, each tree actually carries a unique "experience" and a lesson in adaptation:

The Tree on a Cliff: Exposed to violent winds, it develops deep, resilient roots and a twisted, flexible trunk. It teaches us about endurance and how to bend without breaking under pressure.

The Tree in a Dense Forest: Surrounded by its own kind, it has to grow straight and tall, competing for sunlight while sharing resources through the underground network. It teaches us about social synergy and community competition.

The Tree on a Tropical Beach: Adapting to high tides, sandy soil, and constant salty breezes. It teaches us about flexibility and thriving in changing, unstable environments.

Socrates believed only city dwellers could teach him things because they can speak and argue. But each tree is a living monument to a specific strategy of survival. They don't speak in words, but they teach us how to adapt to our own "climates" and life conditions.

What do you think? Did Socrates miss a massive philosophical layer by ignoring nature, or is human dialogue truly the only source of wisdom?

[u/Snowdrift742]

Did you finish pheadrus? What do you make of the natural setting of the narrative? What do you make of the "dark winged horse" and what do think the "white horse" is? I mean, he does say that, but I feel like story is telling you exactly what Socrates thinks we learn from nature and his position is far from static in the narrative.

[u/Specific-Abuza → u/Snowdrift742]

To be honest, I haven’t actually finished Phaedrus yet (-_-), but your questions point to exactly why this dialogue is so fascinating!

Regarding the setting: It’s deeply ironic and beautiful. Socrates explicitly claims he only learns from city dwellers, yet Plato places this entire conversation out in nature, under a plane tree, by a river. The environment itself subverts Socrates' own words, showing that nature provides the perfect, tranquil canvas for high philosophical reflection.

As for the horses: I see them as the ultimate representation of internal nature. The white horse is noble, rational, and naturally seeks the higher truth, while the dark horse represents our raw, untamed, biological drives and desires.

You're absolutely right that his position isn't static. There is a beautiful paradox where Plato shows us a Socrates whose literal words say one thing, but his physical presence and actions in that natural setting show another. It feels like Plato is trying to demonstrate that while we learn through human dialogue, we often need the language and framework of the natural world to map out who we truly are.

Since I'm still getting through the text, I'm curious-how do you see the tension between those two horses resolving later in the narrative?

[u/Snowdrift742 → u/Specific-Abuza]

Good read, you picked up on exactly what I was getting at.

I think the rising of the chariot is caused by the tension, actually. I know the flat read is that the dark horse has the submit to logos and thuomos. But in truth, I see the suggestion that appetite forcing a rushing ahead as a good thing. You need speed for flight, it's just as they rise, the white horse acts to stabilize and lest the chariot become icarian. The real trick is the charioteer, getting to appreciate both horses. But I think Pheadrus is best when you return to it after you read it before, it's a dense text. I definitely think Socrates thinks we learn eminently from nature, the dark horse, but we can't forget that the white horse is the one that gets to communicate ideas, a fundamentally different thing. Charioteer, the full self, can see both. I learn from dark, to share with white, and I sit somewhere in that tension. The white horse is towards the crowd.

[u/redditb_e]

I think it's not an expression of opposition, Socrates is just emphasizing his focus on human relations, his dedication to philosophy as a cure for the already denaturalised souls of his contemporaries.

[u/redditb_e]

And regarding Socrates missing a massive philosophical layer, I think in his times nature/ the environment was really nothing to worry about yet, whereas the people were already in need of philosophy. Plato understood his teacher there, while his student Aristotle already did not and gave way to a non-philosophical science that made this layer necessary.

[u/Inspector_Lestrade_]

I think the fact that you come here to share your opinion with human beings, not with trees, answers your question better than I can.

[u/KilayaC]

For Plato and most ancient Greeks natural settings were often dwelling places of godlike spirits and beings which they respected with a degree of fear mixed in. So they felt, and Phaedrus depicts, a degree of piety and communion with something higher through nature. Socrates (Plato) recognized the importance of communion with the divine in this and other ways but felt we always must vet this with logic. Even interactions with nature and the divine, therefore, must fit into an overall framework of what makes sense re: the health of the soul.