Plato’s Apology is perhaps the most accurate depiction of Socrates and his conduct in the ancient Grecian world. It is not intellectually taxing to read (unlike other manuscripts by Plato), and it contains therein the speech by Socrates at his trial, his ideology, his motivations, and an abstract biography of his long and driven life. The drama scenes we often see today depicting “one man against the world” heroism is already a pervading impression in this ancient text, with clear values of honour, virtue and wisdom personified within the protagonist. It is indeed a powerful text whose words rightly belong in the pinnacle of great literature and ancient philosophy.

Socrates’ Life

Socrates lives largely in poverty for much of his life, but in Apology, he related that he used to hold a public station as a senator of the Antiochis tribe, even presiding over the trial of the six generals who were executed in the aftermath of the battle of Arginusae. He was an idealist who believed in righteousness and virtue, and at that trial which he presided, he refused to allow the vote to pass due to the unconstitutional nature of the trial, in spite of threats of impeachment and arrest by fellow politicians. He also related an incident during the reign of the oligarchy of the Thirty, where he and four others were asked to bring Leon of Salaminian to be put to death. He slipped away, and escaped death only because the Thirty lost their powers shortly afterwards. He also mentioned that he was a soldier at Potidaea, Amphipolis and Delium, which perhaps occurred in his youth.

Apology contains its fair share of Gods and elements of Grecian mythology, but Plato relates only to one divine being in his retelling of the trial. At the beginning of the text, Socrates started off by describing to the Athenian jury the circumstances which gave rise to his evil reputation. Chaerephon, his brother, and Socrates went to Delphi and asked the oracle if “any one was wiser than (Socrates) was, and the Pythian prophetess answered, that there was no man wiser”. In an attempt to refute the God, Socrates then went to people who have the reputation of wisdom. Firstly, he examined the politicians, and concluded that they knew nothing, and think that they knew, whereas he himself neither know nor think that he knows. In the course of his examinations, he made enemies of the victim and the victim’s associates.

After that, he went next to the poets, and “knew that not by wisdom do poets write poetry, but by a sort of genius and inspiration; they are like diviners or soothsayers who also say many fine things, but do not understand the meaning of them”. He thus made enemies of the poets, observing that “upon the strength of their poetry they believed themselves to be the wisest of men in other things in which they were not wise”. Lastly, he went to the artisans, and unfortunately, also made enemies of this last group. Socrates concluded that their errors are similar to the poets’, who “because they were good workmen they thought that they also knew all sorts of high matters”. By this time, he has made enemies of people whom society viewed to be the wisest of men, and it is the representatives of these groups whom he later faced in the trial set in Apology, where he later lost his life. He lost by 30 votes in a jury made up of hundreds of Athenian citizens, despite his powerful speeches and obvious victory over the prosecution.

Socrates’ ideology

The quest he embarked upon formed the foundation of much of his later philosophy, and the nature of the quest established the Socratic method of debate via dialectics. It is through this quest that he realised “that God only is wise, and by his answer he intends to show that the wisdom of men is worth little or nothing”. Socrates truly believed that it was a holy mission to teach the world that all men are not wise as a “duty … imposed upon me by God”, that all they know is that they know nothing. In the later section of his plea, he claimed that “you may not sin against the God by condemning me, who am his gift to you”, and that “no greater good has ever happened in the state than my service to the God”. Somehow, this strikes me as either egoism or a prophetic complex akin to that of Jesus Christ or John the Baptist.

Socrates and Jesus share many similarities: both were both widely hated by the powerful; both teached in contrast to contemporary thought; both were poor but strongly idealistic, with circles of followers who later became wildly influential; both were eventually executed by their enemies despite their wide following. Socrates indeed conducted himself in a manner no less expected of a missionary: he spoke somewhat arrogantly while professing to be humble; he believed in his own righteousness and, more importantly, believed that he represented truth, even in the face of death.

In fact, he detailed the thought processes that led to the confidence that he was indeed carrying out the work of God by his work on cross-examination. Upon the realisation that men are not wise, he claimed that the oracle pointed himself out as the wisest as a form of illustration that “he is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing”. Socrates thus went around the world to vindicate the oracle by showing everyone how they are not wise through cross-examination, which was his idea of serving the God. He looked upon the act of vindicating the oracle as his duty. Socrates lived in poverty, accepting no coin for his teachings to others, and was eventually tried and executed by the enemies he made over the course of his “duty to God”.

In Apology, Socrates also elaborated on his ideas of death. In Grecian mythology (or at least, according to Socrates), there is apparently no conclusive indicator of the presence of an afterlife. He had repeatedly shown his utter lack of fear of death several times in the past, and in the trial, he said that a man who fears death suffers from a pretence of wisdom. Death is unknown; to fear death is to look upon death as evil rather than good, and thusly, to assume that death is something it may be not. Towards the end, he expounded further by saying that death can be either a state of nothingness or a true afterlife, which is a remarkably modern idea for his time.

As mentioned earlier in the brief biography, Socrates is an idealist who believes in righteousness. One of his teachings in Apology, in connection to his idea of death, is that the consideration of right and wrong takes precedence over considerations of living and dying. He also claimed to teach that “virtue is not given by money, but that from virtue comes money and every other good of man”, that first and foremost amongst his teachings is to prioritise the improvement of the soul. Do note here that “virtue” can be better translated as “excellence”, in which the above quote makes much better sense than mere “values”.

Conclusion

Plato’s Apology can be read as a historical piece or as a philosophical piece; either way, they provide powerful insights into the workings of the Athenian society. Reading Apology puts all other dialogues into perspective: I had attempted reading Charmides and Theaetetus in the past, but it was quite slow going. One must understand the ideology of the protagonist or risk delving blinded into other dialogues of Plato, as the main character is, always, unmistakably, Socrates. However, the most noteworthy point I noticed was the tendency towards prophesying, in spite of the strength of his reasoning. What it does reflect is that even at the height of Greek intellect, religion played such a vital role in society that to be an atheist is actually a crime (which Socrates is alleged to be). Whether Socrates really did debate for a holy purpose, or out of a more worldly sense of duty, is an issue that remains to be speculated.
22:04
0 Comments | Post/Read comment