Philosophy Book Club: The Apology by Plato

Our first discussion will be on The Apology by Plato. It is an extremely short work detailing Socrates' trial and defense of philosophy before the Athenian court.

Some Questions to Think About:

*Unlike Plato's other works, this is not a dialogue, but rather a speech, which normally Plato associated with the Sophists and criticizes. Why do you suppose this work is presented as a speech rather than a dialogue?

* What does Socrates claim was his intent for questioning others?

* What are Socrates thoughts about death?

* Is this a philosophical system with answers to the nature of the world or just a methodology for getting to the bottom of the tough questions in life?

*What is the value of questioning the received wisdom of our communities?

And now you know; next time don't open the poll to people who simply will not participate. Same thing happened to the Poetry book club threads every time, except that philosophy is even more fringe.

I think this is the first forum book club I've been involved in that had questions at the start. Seems fitting in light of whom we are studying!

I'm out and about over the next few days, but hopefully will get time to make a start on this text soon. Just printed myself a copy (I can't e-read). It is, as you say, very short.

Is there any time schedule for the discussion?

I'm also a bit busy for the next days, but would like to join.
I try to re-read the text in English at the weekend. Hopefully this makes me more capable of contributing some thoughts to the discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

*Unlike Plato's other works, this is not a dialogue, but rather a speech, which normally Plato associated with the Sophists and criticizes. Why do you suppose this work is presented as a speech rather than a dialogue?

---

As Socrates is on trial, perhaps he can't get involved in a long dialogue with the the prosecutors. It's usually Socrates that steers the conversation and asks the penetrating questions, but here it is the prosecutors asking the questions. So maybe a long speech was his only option.

It is a speech, but with interpolated dialogue, so it doesn't completely stray from the form. Also, Plato could be picking up on Socrates's use of irony and using the speech form ironically.

Socrates also plays with the trial format -- it starts out with him basically predicting exactly how he's going to be convicted (because he's disliked, not because he's committed the "crimes" in question). Then, his "defense" is to basically put his accusers and the jury itself (which is a stand in for the city of Athens) on trial for failing to recognize its own purported values (accepting "stranger and Greek") in the flesh, so to speak.

I also find the Apology so darn funny -- his "penalty"? Free lunch at the town hall. Ha!

From the beginning of the apology, Socrates holds up a mirror to his accusers and judges and preempts their verdict and punishment by belittling its intended weight: "...I am wiser...[because] what I do not know I don't think I do." This Socratic mantra is used as the foundation of many of his arguments, but the one that is most striking to me is death. "For to fear death, gentlemen, is only to think you are wise when you are not; for it is to think you know what you do not know." And, lo, when he is sentenced to death, despite (as I said) preempting it by disarming its power, so to speak, Socrates then holds up the mirror of thoughtlessness again. He points out that those who don't use their minds and wisdom to peel back the layers to get to the truth, and instead stop thinking at the superficiality of a thing, are not wise at all. For who cannot agree that we ultimately do not know what awaits us after death? And any thinking man cannot say whether it is better or worse than this life. In this way, Socrates is teaching and wisening even his accusers in the face of death--the very thing he had devoted his life to and gotten in trouble for.

Some comments and questions:

Socrates is accused of corrupting the minds of the young, and believing in false gods. Is he guilty of this?

Is there anyone wiser than Socrates? Socrates interviews people with reputations for wisdom and quickly shows them that their reputation for wisdom is unfounded. But, of course, these efforts were resented. Given that these people are powerful, has he been wise to provoke them?

In helping the cause of wisdom by proving that the supposedly wise are not wise, he says he has been reduced to extreme poverty. Is this wise? He says young men have taken him as their model, so isn't this corrupting the young? Extreme poverty leads to starvation and disease - almost the definition of corruption!

People complain that Socrates fills young people's heads with wrong ideas. Socrates say they cannot say what these ideas are. But is that true? I can think of some. For instance, isn't "You should go around questioning people until you are reduced to extreme poverty and thrown into prison", a bad idea?

Socrates says that unfounded certainty is the greatest evil, suggesting it is wise to admit not knowing what comes after death. But then Socrates says he owes great obedience to God, and suggests this obedience leads him to never stop practising philosophy. But where does he get such certainty that there is a God? Even if there is a God, why he is so certain that God should expect him to practice "philosophy to destruction".

Socrates says his God commands attention to truth, understanding, and the perfection of the soul. How does he know this?

Socrates suggests wealth doesn't bring goodness, but goodness brings wealth and every other blessing, both to the individual and the state. But earlier he said that he's living in extreme poverty, so "goodness brings wealth" seem to be just plain wrong, based on the evidence of his own life. If we assume he means "spiritual wealth", then we still need to ask if extreme poverty a good thing. He goes around in bare feet, wears one rag all year round, suffers from the cold, and his wife is continually complaining about him. Is this good in any way?

Socrates says it is far worse to kill an innocent man than to die. Is it? Look at all the innocent people politicians have sent to their deaths on trumped up charges. Those politicians don't seem to suffer.

He says, the true champion of justice must confine himself to private life and leave politics alone. But then how can he justify going around in public making politicians look like fools? That's hardly leaving politics alone!

Socrates says death is either annihilation, with no consciousness of anything, or is a migration of the soul. He suggests that if there is no consciousness, only a dreamless sleep, death is a marvellous gain. This seems rather negative! What about losing the pleasures of having a good argument, of drinking, and of living with one's wife (when she's in a good mood!)? A dreamless sleep doesn't (to me) sound too bad, but how can it be called a marvellous gain?

He suggests that if death is a migration, he should like to spend his time there, as here, in examining and searching people's minds, to find out who is really wise. But how does he know that he will get to choose this fate? What if he really has upset the Gods? What if he is left alone, tied to a rock, with an Eagle chewing on his brain for eternity?

mal4mac:
In pursuit of your question as to why it is far worse to kill an innocent man than die, in order to understand at least the Platonic view of this idea, I highly recommend reading the Gorgias. In it, they discuss a degradation of the soul due to unjust acts. As of right now, I am reading the Republic, and in it they discuss an arrangement of the soul. I believe that Socrates' reason for stating that it is far worse to kill an innocent man and die is that if one dies innocent, he has no corruption of the soul and thus experiences no suffering other than the very superficial kind during the act of being killed. I'm not certain if you are familiar with "Crime and Punishment" by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, but in it a man named Raskolnikov murders a woman without leaving any trace of evidence that would prove him as the murderer. He is completely clean and would never have been caught by the government, and he could have lived the rest of his life in peace not spending another minute thinking of the insect he had erased from society. But, in the end (spoiler alert of you have not read it) he confesses to the murder because he simply cannot live with the guilt. This seems like proof that the perpetrator of the unjust act suffers infinitely more than the victim of his injustice.