Saturday, July 09, 2011

Weekend Forum

How do you know what Socrates means? Does Socrates mean it when he proposes that he should be honored with a feast in punishment for his crimes? Does he mean it when he proposes Athens will suffer more from their verdict than he will? Does he mean it when he says he knows nothing? What does it even mean to know you know nothing? Does he know that the unexamined life is not worth living? How does he know that, if he does? How does he know that nobody can knowingly harm another? If a sophist accepts fees, what does it mean when Socrates accepts the contributions of his students to pay in penalty to Athens as he does? Is Socrates really even defending himself? What else might he be up to? Was Socrates wrong to withdraw from public life for fear that public life would kill him since his pedagogical practice has condemned him to death anyway, or did his pedagogical practice give the lie to his pretense that he had withdrawn from public life when all is said and done? If he corrupted the youth of Athens in conversing with them, is he corrupting the rest of Athens in defending himself as he does?

Discuss amongst yourselves.

15 comments:

DJTomcik said...

It's less likely to know what Socrates means than it is to adjust the meanings that can be deduced to fit into any number of questions or concerns, or formulations of other contextual meanings. Going from there, I can believe that Socrates means what he both alludes to and explicates in Plato's "Apology," to the extent that it led him to follow his own logical, tropological and topical assertions (terms as we know them), and so finds meaning(s) amongst others by interpretation (which I believe he would anticipate according to his understanding of knowledge). Therefore, I believe we can consider his intentions of claiming to know nothing by following our interpretations of his assertions, and that he did not know the unexamined life was worth living, but concerned himself with the task of investigating this through a philosophical vantage just by proposing the notion. I think that it can be said that Socrates decided what he knew, did not know, and what to say about those decisions from a place that always renders knowledge as a question, such as what he himself thought about expressions of knowledge and knowledge itself through the application of discourses. In fine, I think what Dale is drawing our attention to is the current applications for the Socratic method through deconstructing Socrates' earthly conclusions in "Apology," for what would become this summative method for knowing something through the most apparent display of not knowing something: putting all phrases, with the exception, sometimes, of spirits and God(s), in the form of a question. So I feel compelled to ask, How do we distinguish between when he is in discussion with himself or others, especially concerning what seems apparent, and how supernatural forces guide these conversations from Socrates' vantage?

Dale Carrico said...

Anybody else have anything to say? C'mon folks, don't be shy...

DJTomcik said...

Ok, Here's what I think I'm getting at (one can never know with these tricky polytheistic Greeks of yore), in extra-fine: Was Socrates wise, or just a wise-ass who seduced others' children under guise of the concept "knowledge" as a trope, and condemned himself in Athens by trifling monotheistic practices with those of many gods?

Jason said...

Firstly, you must consider that Socrates' words in Plato's "Apology" is not actually what Socrates originally said and so we can't really discuss what Socrates means, but only what Plato thought Socrates meant.

Socrates' proposal of a feast is more of a joke than an actual serious suggestion. After being declared guilty despite all the evidence he provided, it is obvious that being honored with a feast as punishment will never happen. Yet, he mentions it to stay true to his position--that he is not guilty and that he has actually helped improve Athens.

Given his belief in the gods, Socrates' statement that Athens will suffer more than he will as a result of the verdict is probably what he truly believes. Firstly, the damage done to him is only physical and he has done no evil. On the other hand, by deeming him guilty despite all the evidence, Athens would fall out of favor with the gods. Since the gods were considered all powerful and were the center of their lives, falling out of their favor would definitely be more damaging than death. Furthermore, Socrates knows that no one has returned from death to tell tales of what the afterlife is, and so he cannot know what the afterlife is like. Yet, because the gods are all powerful, he might assume that the gods will exist in some form in the afterlife, where he will be in their favor for his attempts to improve his fellow humans.

When Socrates says he knows nothing, and in knowing that he knows nothing, he knows something, I think it means that he knows that his knowledge is not all-inclusive.

Socrates says the unexamined life is not worth living, but this is not necessarily true. Yet, it sounds plausible and would portray himself as one who makes others' lives worth living by examining them. From Plato's Apology, it seems that Socrates' examinations of others were more examinations of the qualities of their character. It sounds like he would look for signs of pride, conceit, ignorance, and other qualities. Yet, although just because he points out these qualities does not mean the person will change his life to make it better. Also, if Socrates examines someone whose life seems not to have any of the negative qualities he looks for, that life was once "unexamined" but would still have been worth living according to what Socrates probably meant. Yet, if the focus of his statement is on whether the life is examined, he may simply be saying that people should know whether their life is a good life or not. His examinations seem to be a sort of practice to categorize others' lives as, generally, good or bad. If one does not know whether their life is good or bad, then they will not know how to improve it, which would make it not worth living.

He does not know that nobody can knowingly harm another. Greek myths and legends contain a lot of violence and wars, which should be evidence enough that the statement nobody can knowingly harm another is false. However, the way he explains it may imply that anyone who has thought out the consequences of his actions will not harm another and he is someone who will think of the consequences of his actions, which he demonstrated through his explanation.

Socrates is not defending his physical life, but more his spiritual life. By spiritual life, I mean his ideas and beliefs. He does what he believes to be the right thing to do even though he knows, especially when he is declared guilty, that his actions will lead to his death.

I think Socrates defines public life as politics (since he mentions that he did not become a politician) and private life as normal, everyday, pedestrian life. In the public life, he would need to build his public image and therefore would be unable to truly discuss all the negative aspects of life and society. In the private life however, he is not hindered by the importance of his public image and can bring attention to all the problems that others would prefer to avoid.

Jason said...

Assuming he did corrupt the youth of Athens, whether he is corrupting the audience depends on at least two factors. Firstly, he is the sole "corrupter" while everyone else is an "improver." Given this, while he might be corrupting the audience, it would have no effect because as soon as he corrupts one of the audience members, those around him would improve the corrupted. Also, whether the corruption is caused simply by the act of speaking or whether it is caused by the content of the conversation will also determine whether he is corrupting the audience. Socrates is simply defending himself, content unlikely to come up in a conversation with random youths of Athens. In this case, he is not corrupting the audience. Yet if simply by speaking, he corrupts, then he is corrupting the audience, but because everyone in the audience is an "improver," he should have no effect at all.

Jason said...

As for whether Socrates "was Socrates wise, or just a wise-ass who seduced others' children under guise of the concept "knowledge" as a trope, and condemned himself in Athens by trifling monotheistic practices with those of many gods", it really depends on the perspective. From Socrates' point of view, neither would be true. He knows he is not wise and he knows he is not corrupting others' children. From Meletus' point of view, the latter would be true. From his followers' view, the former may be true, depending on whether they share the same definition of what it means to be wise with Socrates.

DJTomcik said...

So you believe his religious views did him in--that is, if . . . "Firstly, [we] must consider that Socrates' words in Plato's "Apology" is not actually what Socrates originally said and so we can't really discuss what Socrates means, but only what Plato thought Socrates meant"?

As far as "Socrates' proposal of a feast [a]s more of a joke than an actual serious suggestion", I tend to agree, as it was he who said: "Bad men live that they may eat and drink, whereas good men eat and drink that they may live" (that Socrates was such a talker).

DJTomcik said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

Is Socrates really even defending himself? What else might he be up to?

I think Socrates defends himself until he is found guilty, or at least plato thinks Socrates defends himself until Socrates is found guilty.

Socrates takes a very logical approach to his defense in the defense portion of the text. He even comments on how the defense should be purely logical in the second to last paragraph when making his indictment of a pathos approach of bring the family in.

Socrates even makes that point in a brilliant for his defense manner-he mentions the family so his jurors know they are condemning a family man to death. He probably makes his point better in that manner than those who brought their family because it conjures up the tropological image of the jurors family in their mind. The best referent each have for a son is their own.

I think Socrates knows he will die after conviction because of what Dale explained Socrates was accused of. He did not merely "corrupt the youth" but he drove someone to become a general for the Spartan army that then defeated Athens or, at least, that is my understanding of the story.

This explains why most of what I think the jokes are happen after he begins attempting to bargain for a better sentence.

I think Socrates may have been attempting to change the structure of the Athenian legal system to be more serious are formal--as apposed to a family affair. He attempts to make the trial more dependent on the truth of his charges and not the emotional pain convicting him would do.

On an earlier note, Plato probably had a better idea about what Socrates wanted to convey at the trial than Socrates was able to convey at the trial because they probably spoke before Socrates was executed about the trial and such.

-Chris Conway

Unknown said...

Is Socrates really even defending himself? What else might he be up to?

I think Socrates defends himself until he is found guilty, or at least plato thinks Socrates defends himself until Socrates is found guilty.

Socrates takes a very logical approach to his defense in the defense portion of the text. He even comments on how the defense should be purely logical in the second to last paragraph when making his indictment of a pathos approach of bring the family in.

Socrates even makes that point in a brilliant for his defense manner-he mentions the family so his jurors know they are condemning a family man to death. He probably makes his point better in that manner than those who brought their family because it conjures up the tropological image of the jurors family in their mind. The best referent each have for a son is their own.

I think Socrates knows he will die after conviction because of what Dale explained Socrates was accused of. He did not merely "corrupt the youth" but he drove someone to become a general for the Spartan army that then defeated Athens or, at least, that is my understanding of the story.

This explains why most of what I think the jokes are happen after he begins attempting to bargain for a better sentence.

I think Socrates may have been attempting to change the structure of the Athenian legal system to be more serious are formal--as apposed to a family affair. He attempts to make the trial more dependent on the truth of his charges and not the emotional pain convicting him would do.

On an earlier note, Plato probably had a better idea about what Socrates wanted to convey at the trial than Socrates was able to convey at the trial because they probably spoke before Socrates was executed about the trial and such.

-Chris Conway

Unknown said...

Is Socrates really even defending himself? What else might he be up to?

I think Socrates defends himself until he is found guilty, or at least plato thinks Socrates defends himself until Socrates is found guilty.

Socrates takes a very logical approach to his defense in the defense portion of the text. He even comments on how the defense should be purely logical in the second to last paragraph when making his indictment of a pathos approach of bring the family in.

Socrates even makes that point in a brilliant for his defense manner-he mentions the family so his jurors know they are condemning a family man to death. He probably makes his point better in that manner than those who brought their family because it conjures up the tropological image of the jurors family in their mind. The best referent each have for a son is their own.

I think Socrates knows he will die after conviction because of what Dale explained Socrates was accused of. He did not merely "corrupt the youth" but he drove someone to become a general for the Spartan army that then defeated Athens or, at least, that is my understanding of the story.

This explains why most of what I think the jokes are happen after he begins attempting to bargain for a better sentence.

I think Socrates may have been attempting to change the structure of the Athenian legal system to be more serious are formal--as apposed to a family affair. He attempts to make the trial more dependent on the truth of his charges and not the emotional pain convicting him would do.

On an earlier note, Plato probably had a better idea about what Socrates wanted to convey at the trial than Socrates was able to convey at the trial because they probably spoke before Socrates was executed about the trial and such.

-Chris Conway

Ale_Garcia! said...

He is corrupting the youth of Athens by giving them the idea that they can do no work and just make fools of each other for a living, and someone else will support their pointless life styles. Eventually creating a cycle of idleness that will destroy their civilization since everyone is too wise to do any real work.... wat?

DJTomcik said...

Alejandro - If I understand you correct, he is too wise for his own, and everyone else's, good--so he was likely an anarchist (per your indictment). And either this is a good thing because Athens' civilization was corrupt, or an insufferably unjust way to dispatch a rabble rouser from influencing society's impressionable young successors...?

Dale Carrico said...

I suspect few slaveholding elites of Athens needed Socrates to cajole them into a life of idleness...

Ale_Garcia! said...

Nah think of it this way. Let's say everyone becomes like Socrates and pursues only wisdom, (completely hypothetical situation of course and an extreme), after his preaching has spread everywhere. There are no more farmers, or soldiers, or janitors in Athens, just scholars who apparently all live in poverty in the pursuit of knowledge and fear of manual labor. To imitate their teacher of course and follow that pursuit of knowledge... Do the Athenian people then reason hunger and the enemies away? I was being extreme hence the wat... at the end. Also the only claim I made was that he was lazy. Also just to comment on the lifestyle choice, and his apparent belief of it's superiority over everyone else's.