In the Apology, Socrates says that the highest level of wisdom that a human being can achieve is to know that you don’t know the things you don’t know. Put differently, there are things beyond human knowledge and, by accepting the limits of our own understanding, we make possible our own path toward greater insight. In what way might this position (now known as “Socratic wisdom”) have influenced Plato’s decision to write philosophical dialogues instead of treatises?
Socrates wisdom is based on the idea that our capacity of knowledge is limited, and that frequently we believe that we are possessing knowledge about a subject, as we are firmly set in our ideas, while in reality, we are ignorant of the true knowledge about issue in question. The idea, however, that we do know, is preventing us from opening our minds to the true knowledge, that might be available and easily accessible in front of us, but by our own free will, and because it makes us feel more comfortable to assume that the version of knowledge we adopted is the right one, we refuse to look at our alleged knowledge with the necessary skepticism. As Socrates pointed out in 21d: " I am wiser than this man; it is likely that neither of us knows anything worthwhile, but he thinks he knows something when he does not, whereas when I do not know, neither do I think I know; so I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know what I do not know."
According to Socrates, we are lacking humility, one of the requirements for true wisdom. We are also lacking the ability to differentiate between justifiably right knowledge and presumed knowledge. We are further lacking the ability to convert our knowledge into practice, by achieving a life "lived well", according to the virtues and principles of goodness, Socrates taught his followers and opponents. Finally, we are lacking the ability to realistically realize our limitations in acquiring knowledge, which Socrates mentions on several occasions when he discerns between human wisdom and divine wisdom: "What has caused my reputation is none other than a certain kind of wisdom. What kind of wisdom? Human wisdom, perhaps." (20d); and "the god is wise" (23a), as well as in "human wisdom is worth little or nothing" (23a).
Considering all these deficiencies, we are -potentially and actually- carrying around as humans, our quest for knowledge is -and should be - an ongoing process. Putting up a theory, testing it and deciding its validity might be working in certain circumstances and certain cases to make sure that the knowledge, we are adopting, is firmly grounded and has been sufficiently verified, but it should not be the bigger picture or general attitude, we should adopt in our conquest for the right knowledge, and the wise implementation of it into our lives. Because, once we lose the ability to question, we are basically losing our ability to progress as a human being. This has been shown by the development of mankind, which never stopped to discover new facts and truth in the many fields of science and arts since its beginnings. These advancements could only be achieved at times, when people were in a position which allowed and enabled them to question existing assumptions and theories.
Plato reflects this eternal quest for knowledge and the application of knowledge, which should lead to wisdom, in the literary form he chose to present Socrates words in. Socrates is always involved in the exchanges of ideas with others, questioning and responding in an active interchange of ideas and perspectives. He does not present a theory and then proceeds to explain and to prove it, but develops ideas and views along the course of the discussion. The conclusion -if any- is drawn towards the end and often leaves the reader questioning his/her own assumptions together with Socrates and his opponents' point of views - which is exactly where Plato wants to take his readers, into the cycle of questioning and raising concerns about one's own ideas and assumptions. If Plato would have chosen another form than the one of dialogues, he would have also missed out on the occasion to demonstrate, how different kind of views are often related to the kind of person speaking, and linked to their particular situations and circumstances. He demonstrates well, how a different kind of fundamental beliefs and assumptions (in goodness versus oratory skills for example in Gorgias) can easily lead to a different behavior and position of argumentation. He hereby creates awareness in the reader for questioning the motives and background of the person in question, in order to better comprehend their ideas and views by putting them into the right context. A dialogue equally offers the possibility to present the case of a change of opinion and the process of how this change was induced, revealing the process of doubts, contradictions, as well as mental, emotional and cognitive change the person went through during the discussion. Another important advantage of the dialogue form is that Plato is actually teaching the techniques of questioning and building arguments, of logic, reasoning, and conclusion right there, in front of the readers eyes, through the example of his Socrates. Plato also takes the freedom to breach out at any time into related subjects during the discussion, if it is necessary for the deeper understanding of the topic. I personally believe that no other literary form would have allowed him as much freedom and flexibility in conducting the thorough discussion of his subjects, and at the same time provided him with the opportunity of demonstrating the very topic his Socrates was busying himself with so passionately that it ultimately lead to his demise: the quest and strive for wisdom, truth and knowledge and the teaching of the path to follow.
Question #4: Some have argued that the story of Socrates’ prosecution, as related in the Apology, is the core inspiration for Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave”. Explain how that might be plausible. A big hint: perhaps Socrates was the guy in the allegory who was freed from his chains.
The Allegory of the Cave very obviously describes the situation of a man, who escaped the general darkness of his society and rose up towards the light or sun, metaphor for knowledge and wisdom. He experiences a different reality from the one known 'in the cave', and gains deep insight into subjects his fellow men - still unable in the cave to even turn their heads into a different position to get a glimpse of a different view - have never heard of, much less thought of. On his return to the cave, after his exposure to knowledge and ideas completely unknown to the inhabitants of the cave, he becomes the rejected misfit, as his ideas are too hard to grasp for those, who have only been exposed to the simple version of the shadows of truths. While the returning one is eager to teach his fellow men - as he took the sacrifice to abandon the world of thought and ideas to descend again into the darkness for the sole purpose to bring enlightenment to those, who stayed chained in the dark – the prisoners of the cave are resilient and even violently object his new views and perspectives. These new ideas clearly surpass their mental and emotional capacities and threaten their set ways of functioning as a society.
Socrates was in a similar situation: He had exited 'the cave' through questioning his assumptions and beliefs, and found his enlightenment in the insight, that his knowledge and wisdom were not as great as one would assume of someone, who had been called 'the wisest man' by a god himself. He then continued his quest by testing others on their knowledge and wisdom, and ended up realizing that they seemingly had even less answers to fundamentally important questions as he had himself. He was therefore trying to turn to his fellow Athenians and make this insight accessible to them, as he believed that the knowledge, that they did not know as much as they thought they knew, would make them a better society - one of individuals, who after thorough self-examination and self-awareness, would rather follow goodness and virtue than desire for wealth and honors. His new -however laudable- way to govern the city and "to care for virtue" (31b) was met with discomfort and rejection, as it challenged the kind of ruling already established and firmly in place that secured the positions of power of many, who did not have any interest in changing the status quo, as it served them well the way it was. Socrates explained that he would not be able to end his quest for wisdom, as he clarified that his convictions were also strong, because they originated from a divine source (another form of enlightenment), in a way that he has to continue his path, even in the case of his acquittal, as he would "obey the god rather than [the Athenians]"; and as Plato has him continue:, "as long as I draw breath and am able, I shall not cease to practice philosophy, to exhort you and in my usual way to point out to anyone of you whom I happen to meet: 'Good Sir, you are an Athenian, a citizen of the greatest city with the greatest reputation for both wisdom and power; are you not ashamed of your eagerness to possess as much wealth, reputation and honors as possible, while you do not care for nor give thought to wisdom or truth, or the best possible way of your soul?"(29de). With these words spoken, the Athenians decided to have the uncomfortable teacher, who was confronting them with a different more enlightened perspective than their own, a perspective of goodness and virtue, executed for the crime of not agreeing with their corrupt ways.
Question #5: In the Apology, Socrates refuses to stop discussing things with others in order to preserve his life. He refused to preserve his life by suggesting an alternative punishment such as imprisonment or exile. Only slightly less obviously, he makes several tactical choices during the trial that virtually ensure that he will be executed. Some scholars have suggested that, at least in part, the Gorgias amounts to Plato’s defense of Socrates course of action. Explain why that view of the Gorgias seems plausible, particularly by drawing a contrast between what Callicles and Socrates consider to be the best life. A big hint: Socrates exemplifies the choice of being good in fact but being punished. He is the one who Plato has in mind when mentioning what I called the second kind of life on the discussion boards (good in fact but with a reputation for wickedness and ultimately punished). Callicles aspires, as Plato might see it, to exemplify being in fact wicked while being rewarded for it.
In Georgias, Socrates and Callicles discuss what kind of life is the most beneficial for an individual. While Socrates insist that 'good' has to be done for the sake of goodness, even if it is not followed by rewards, Callicles holds the position that a man must try by all means to achieve the most benefits during his life time, regardless the damage he might cause in the process to others or his society. While Socrates specifies that "doing what is unjust is actually the worst thing there is" (469b), Callicles counters with the example of Archelaus, who as a former slave became a ruler ignoring the laws and whose position of power is enabling him to commit the most heinous crimes without facing any consequences. (471b)
In the Apology, when Socrates is put to trial on what seems to be spurious charges, he is actually put to the test to prove that he follows his own words, spoken in the Georgias: "…it is a greater good for oneself to be delivered from the worst thing there is ("doing what is unjust") than to deliver someone else from it."(458a) He has to prove that he will accept to end his life without reward, but by remaining true to his principles. While attempting however to prevent the Athenian judges to condemn him unjustly, he knows that he cannot give up his principles to save himself.
Socrates path is the path of searching truth and wisdom and he enjoys refuting and being refuted as a process that helps to release false assumptions from the human mind, and consequently leads to a higher level of knowledge and understanding, thereby enabling the individual to live a 'good' life. He cannot give up this way of living that puts the search for truth above everything, and he cannot hold himself back in making the Athenians aware of their injustice and their failings, as this would mean that he abandons his principles of following the virtue, over following one's own desires and wishes. He cannot accept to do 'whatever it takes' to save his life, or, in other words, what would bring him the most possible benefit, the way Callicles suggest to live a life successfully. For example, Socrates is well aware, that by letting his judges know, that he is not going to stop in pursuing 'his crime' of questioning even after an acquittal, he is condemning himself to death. However, denying his intentions would violate his pursuit of the virtuous path, as lying and deceiving are contradicting those values. The same is true for deceiving and emotionally manipulating the judges by bringing his family and begging for their pardon by making use of his oratory skills.
As Socrates is promoting the view that a good life has to follow doing right and good for its own sake, he has to accept that his life, spent in the search for truth and lived guided by the virtues, might eventually come to an end without honors and rewards. He is demonstrating in the Aplogy that he is willing to follow his words to the end.
