Classical Self-Education discussion

Discussion thread for Plato's Apology.

So by and large, you can break Apology into several very short sections. First of all, you have to consider why you're reading it in the first place. Whether Apology is a faithful recounting of the trial of Socrates by his student Plato, or in fact a work of philosophical fiction, as was first suggested by Johann Jakob Brucker in 1741, it remains a keystone work through which you must pass in order to understand the logic upon which Western Civilization built. My personal view is that it IS a more or less true account...And that Socrates was a dick. Really. A person so annoying they tried, convicted, and sentenced him to death without a single witness. I'll make the case for Plato's writings as being essential to thought, as well as the absolute douchebaggery of Socrates both on a personal level, and as a abuser of logic using what we refer to in modern times as the "Ham Sandwich Paradox" (more accurately defined as one of the logical fallacies - "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmin... the Consequent".) A fallacy you'll encounter time and time again in differing and occasionally ingenious forms.



I begin by considering the first, the defense against his first accusers:

1. He begins by claiming his accusers tell excellent lies, always a strong opening remark in court. It attempts to convince the jury that "My accusers are so good and powerful, of COURSE I look guily, they're conspiring against me... P.S. I'm not lying."

2. The "I'm just a country boy, but.." tactic. Another future classic courtroom cliche, which began here! Here Socrates claims you should forgive him if he doesn't sound smooth and eloquent, because he is just a simple guy who doesn't know anything. You see this repeated constantly in every political debate and interpersonal debate you have in life where the speaker will claim something such as, "Now I'm just a simple southern boy, but back home we knew which was right, and which was wrong" usually followed by a statement related to family values. The idea is to disarm the listeners bias with false humility (when have you seen a speaker use this device with TRUE humility?) then follow it up with an overtly elegant suggestion.

3. Next, he lays out that the Gods have deemed him wise. We'll have to remember here that it's a different age. The modern equivalent would be along the lines of Socrates winning Time Magazine's "Smartest Man Alive Award - 399BC edition". The oracle, as supposed mouthpiece of the Gods says he's the wisest man alive.

4. Now, the crux of the problem...claiming not to feel wise (uh-huh, sure) he ventures forth to examine all these wise men to find for himself that he's not as wise as the oracle claims. First, politicians, then poets, and finally craftsman. He then harpoons these poor mopes with his interrogation method, which leads me to the Ham Sandwich Paradox:
1) Nothing is better than Eternal Bliss.
2) A Ham Sandwich is better than Nothing.
3) Therefore, A Ham Sandwich is better than Eternal Bliss.
Uh-huh.
Socrates often employs this and similar devices to catch his prey by getting them to agree to something seemingly small and unrelated at the beginning of the dialog, then bringing it back around at the end after getting his quarry to disagree with the central premise and smacking them with the illusory paradox he seems to have created. Words are imperfect tools. The Sixth Zen Patriarch, Huineng, is usually attributed as having made the famous quote referring to words as "Fingers pointing to the Moon", the moon being the actual meaning the words attempt to convey. The idea being the finger isn't the important bit (no, dear reader, I don't mean to disappoint you that Bruce Lee didn't invent that saying.) By using word games to trap the opponent, whether in the cause of truth or the cause of being an annoying prick, he proceeds to declare himself the winner, and additionally a superior man, and oh, P.S, you're an idiot....and does so loudly, publicly, and in front of the guys friends.

So it's not surprising that after doing this with EVERY notable politician, artist, and craftsman, and compounded by the fact that his followers aren't just a quiet group of studious young people drawn from every corner of Athens, but they're a bunch of rich boys with nothing better to do (as Socrates himself points out early in Apology) who then after witnessing this verbal smackdown go forth and play "Gotcha!" logic with each other and everybody else they can get to sit still long enough to endure it. Personally, I'm sure an arrogant and ridiculous following was what really condemned him.

So wrapped in a flag of false humility he claims to have proven he's smarter than everybody else, and acknowledges that this has made him amazingly unpopular. Good start.

So a little further on, Socrates makes perhaps his strongest argument in his defense, that of his former/older student. Against the charge that his teaching corrupts youth, he mentions (far too briefly) that many of his students have grown to adulthood and have children themselves, and after making a far-too-detailed argument using basic logic to show that people don't enjoy being hurt (really? We had to go that far to get to that point? And anyway, some people do) he mentions these older students and that none have come forward, either on their own or as witnesses of the prosecution to say they were harmed by his influence. Modern students note, this is why in making an argument, you often repeat your strongest point(s) in slightly different ways. Risking the irritation of the intelligent to get the attention of the bored and through the skulls of the dim...my own students now seeing my methods in a different light, perhaps.

By this point, perhaps some additional thoughts on WHY this all needs to be read..
From Yale University: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFglU_...

So to finish my initial thoughts on Apology, the work presents FAR more questions than answers. Some common questions you'll find in many books and lectures include:
#1: What WAS the real charge, that of corruption of youth, as most modern people remember, or was really the charge of impiety the central issue?

#2: Was he guilty of either charge?
#3: Why does he adopt THAT defense?

The great classicist Alan Bloom makes the case quite convincingly (for me, at least) that impiety was in fact the real serious charge at the trial, and that furthermore, Socrates neatly PROVES his guilt through his own defense. Bloom doesn't say in so many words, but his analyses of Socrates stated reasons sort of shows that indeed he is guilty. The lecture I linked earlier makes the case for the real reasons behind the trial, giving a historical context for the argument. So really, the trial was over before it ever really began. Still, my humorous point that Socrates died because he was a dick is still true, although not quite for the reasons you might have thought I was saying so. If you're still confused, hit that lecture I linked, and perhaps hunt around for some Alan Bloom thoughts on Plato's Apology (there are some, I always check before referencing..you, gentle reader, must always have the chance to know whatever little I know..so look on YouTube)

So in conclusion for The Apology, Socrates loses a trial he had no chance to win. Furthermore he uses it as a chance to make some subtle and not-so-subtle digs at his accusers and the jury, then insults the entire process with his suggested punishment. In so doing, he helps create the field of political science, and the foundation of western philosophy. Not too shabby for a days work.
Next, the days after....

I started The Apology this morning and was amazed by the first two paragraphs. Last year, I served on a Federal criminal jury and the FBI attorney and the defense attorney each addressed the jury almost exactly the same way as Socrates addressed the Athenian jury. I imagine that The Apology is required reading in law school.

Will write more when I finish the dialogue.

Not to my knowledge, as most 1L's have a full plate of the nitty-gritty in things like contracts and torts.

But, as I write in my very flippant piece on The Apology, it and the other writings of Plato/Socrates were to a small extent immediately influential, as Plato and other followers immediately set forth to strengthen the legacy of their teacher, and of course Plato would later teach Aristotle, who had a great deal of influence in his own way. This would mesh somewhat with the Stoics later as well, and while all of these would largely be forgotten with the decline of Hellenistic thought as Roman power would absorb and dominate the known world, the texts were kept alive through time, surfacing in rabbinical and Arabic writings occasionally, and much like J.S. Bach being largely forgotten until Felix Mendelssohn revives him in 1825, 75 years after his death, Hobbs, Locke, and Voltaire would bring Socrates to the forefront as the foundation of Western Philosophy. AS that foundation, the Socratic Method is the basis for Law Schools, especially in the United States....all this despite his incompetency in his own defense (see the series of short YouTube videos with Alan Bloom at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRnzrD... )

What stands out like a huge red flag for me is the question posed to the Delphic oracle and the response.

Q. Is there anyone wiser than Socrates?

A. There is no one wiser than Socrates.

Socrates asks, "...what can he mean by asserting that I am the wisest man in the world?"

What would Socrates purpose be in mis-quoting the oracle?

Oracle said no one is wiser than - which means "not greater than"

Socrates says he is wisest - which means "greater than"

Maybe this is clarified elsewhere, but looking at it purely as a logical argument, the oracle never said Socrates was the wisest.

This reminds be of a gigo question posed to a computer - the machine responds to the question asked. The quality of the answer is wholly dependent on the quality of the question...

This was the one of the most painful things I've ever had the misfortune to read.

Most painful was when he made the weak 'Horse' analogy for his defense; it just really made me wonder what made people respect this guy and Plato when their thinking now seems painfully clear to be antiquated. I understand his importance, and his limitations given the context, but the only value of these dialogues now is to train yourself in dissecting arguments and spotting fallacies.

Sometimes, I like to pretend that he's really a genius toying with people's minds by intentionally constructing facile arguments, and that when he said that there was a voice in his head, he was really making a joke that references the stereotype of the "insane genius," and I would laugh, finding him quite the riot.

But alackaday, I can only dream.