Why Everyone Should Read Plato’s Apology
The Apology is one of Plato's earliest known dialogues. Socrates is on trial for blasphemy charges and corrupting the Athenian youth in this literarily rich text. These charges involve teaching the youth to “make weaker arguments appear stronger,” among other rhetorical skills, such as oratory mastery (attributable to teachers known as "sophists") and believing in idols or gods not approved by the state. In Aristophanes' play Clouds, Socrates’ “sophistry” is amusingly satirized as the philosopher tricking the youth into paying him to teach them subversive childishness, such as farting instead of arguing.
The unfortunate effect this and other hostile works of art and theater had was to amplify the beliefs that most Athenians, especially older ones, already held — namely, that this 70-year-old man was a danger to the state and must stand trial. But how did Socrates get an entire city to despise him? What "idol" did Socrates worship, and what wicked things did he teach the youth of Athens?
Socrates goes to the Oracle.
In ancient Greece, the Oracle of Delphi was a place people visited for guidance and wisdom. No one quite knows what this oracle was — it could have been a rambling priestess high from huffing toxic fumes or simply a feeling of inspiration akin to a “conscience” –a feeling that is common among artists, sages, philosophers, and mystics alike. In some translations of the Apology, it is referred to as a “God.” In any case, it is a guide to conduct, and if you follow it, you cannot go wrong. We appeal to our conscience routinely, so if we do something "bad," it is unintentional, as one has unreflectingly followed their “moral compass,” as it’s often called.
During the trial, Socrates relays that his friend, Chairephon, who had since passed away –but whose brother was present to testify on his behalf-- once went to the Oracle to ask it who was the wisest of all in Athens. Chairephon told Socrates that the Oracle said to him that he, Socrates, was the wisest and most knowledgeable of all in Athens. Socrates was perplexed because he had considered himself completely ignorant and unwise. Given that ignorance, what could the Oracle think was wise about Socrates? This question eluded Socrates, so following his friend’s story, he sought to refute this quasi-God –which, in Athens, was considered an irrefutable source of divine wisdom.
To do this, Socrates sought out those conventionally thought to be wise or knowledgeable and got them to relay their wisdom and knowledge through a series of questions. What Socrates found through questioning poets, politicians, merchants, and artisans was that such individuals were highly adept in certain respects --namely, those related to their specific trade or craft— but that, based on this limited wisdom, they erroneously came to believe that they were knowledgeable in all respects. To expose their lack of understanding, Socrates merely had to ask them questions outside their limited domain of knowledge, as they’d go on to confidently spew ignorance –as if they knew what they did not know.
By seeing what wisdom did not consist in –despite all appearances generated from customs and timely biases—Socrates could resolve what initially appeared to him as an absurdity from the Oracle. For Socrates admitting you are eternally ignorant is genuinely the Oracle's definition of wisdom and knowledge, as it prevents one from arrogantly thinking and acting in ways that align with such ignorance. Socrates became self-conscious of fitting this description after interrogating the Athenian class of “experts,” which was sufficient for him to be served charges for corrupting the Athenian youth and blasphemy. Questioning an expert to the point of exposing their credulity is equivalent to "meddling in other's private affairs" here, as most don't take kindly to being exposed in their ignorance --which was the true cause of these charges, as counterarguments could not be made and out of sheer pride.
Indeed, the charges were patently false, as due to Socrates’ “religious duty to truth” –which is no different from being a philosopher, for better or worse—he couldn’t help but use his defense in court to refute them one by one, through the same type of questioning that got him there in the first place. Socrates himself says the Oracle had been guiding him all along in this duty, but that hitherto it had only appeared as a ‘voice’:
You have often heard me speak of an oracle or sign which comes to me... The sign is a voice that comes to me and always forbids me to do something which I am going to do but never commands me to do anything, and this is what stands in the way of my being a politician.
In other words, his inability to conceal his authenticity is because of this “oracle’s” guidance--which Socrates associates with the Delphic Oracle’s divinity. Socrates' authentic self –the expression of his “religious duty”-- is that of a man who always inquires, even if it is dangerous.
Throughout the trial, Socrates defended himself with the same kind of questioning –now known as the Socratic Method—which got him there in the first place. Authorities and people, in general, do not like to be proven wrong unless they’ve cultivated the attitude of uncertainty which Socrates and the Oracle advocate –they dislike proofs more than baseless denials because, in the face of proof, one must either yield to it or oppose it by brute force.
As Socrates argued with prosecutors, it increasingly enraged them. Finally, when his defense was up, Socrates began suggesting "punishments" for his "crime" –he was being patently ironical. At first, the charge was a hefty fine. His friends were willing to cover for him. Then, however, Socrates suggested the state either subsidize his "religious duty" or reduce the fine to something more reasonable. Considering the charges, this act of irony –which was perfectly reasonable, if a bit impractical— was the final straw, leading to a death sentence.
Socrates Teaches the Consequences of Wisdom
The attitude which Socrates took to life was a “love of wisdom” (Greek: φιλοσοφία, philosophia) which is the ancient Greek definition for “philosophy.”
"Love" here is of the most profound sort imaginable –it is an ascetic dedication to modern people comparable to a monk or sage’s to their religion and religious practices. It is a love one doesn't choose but which compels one to act on its behalf dutifully, as Socrates' "voice" compelled him. “Love of art” compels artists to engage in creation even at their own well-being’s expense, just as “love of wisdom” compelled Socrates to live in poverty so he could spend all of his time thinking and conversing with friends and conventionally-ascribed “wise” people.
However, many truths –especially popular values and conventions, which states and whole populations ascribe to—resist the philosopher’s love with violence, misrepresentation, and social ostracization. The “wisest” among Athenians did not want their “knowledgeable” status undermined, even though, in truth, the “wisdom” such status rested on never existed in the first place. Socrates didn’t intend to harm anyone with his questions but only intended to get to the bottom of things –for Socrates, there was no higher “good.”
Socrates became unpopular because out of his love and through the philosophical attitude it engendered, he could not help but question the absurd where he saw it --even in socially or politically unacceptable places. He cannot resist saying what everyone holds back from saying on a daily basis –whether from fear of retribution or genuine conviction in whatever's being "undermined." Socrates is not alone in history here --Jesus and Spinoza are quintessential historical examples of the same questioning for love of truth and God, leading to brutal treatment. That stopped none of them from their religious duty to truth –and that is why such figures are so rare in history: they dared to love and to love deeply!
In the domain of thought, the Apology is the rubric from which all inquiry should follow. Thinkers –those who also “love wisdom”-- must assume themselves to be ignorant of most things. In virtue of this assumption, one must point out ignorance where one sees it and question it. Where the danger rests, however, is in the fact that most ignorance that masquerades as truth exists among "the people," "the masses," or "the general population." To point out that most people are confused –even if true—is a death sentence, as Socrates himself found out.
Consensus has little to no relation to fact, and Socrates is the spitting example of this in his trial. Dissent and truth have a long-standing relationship, whereas popularity and truth do not. As Christopher Hitchens once stated, "the truth needed saving from the masses historically, not the other way about." Everyone –individually and collectively-- has a ten-foot pole in their hands, pushing away some truth they'd prefer not to confront. A person like Jesus, Socrates, or Spinoza forces it out of everyone's hands. That's truth! It is thus bound to make one unpopular fairly often --and leniency shouldn't be expected, as the truth is often straightforwardly insulting, as everyone is riddled with insufficiencies.
