Ana içeriğe atla

Pride and Individualism in Plato's Apology

 


In the 5th century BC, when Socrates lived, Athens provided a liberating place for people to express their opinions. However, in this city where liberty is rooted to its core Socrates was condemned and sentenced to death for series of accusations but mostly consisting of “not believing in the gods of the state and introducing some other new gods, as well as corrupting the morals of the youth”. One reason they considered while dooming him to death could be that if they had saved the city from Socrates, whom they saw as the originator of this idea, they would have saved the city from a movement that was a constant element of instability, violence, and conflict, and thus brought stability to the city. Perhaps it was enough for the Athenians that Socrates no longer spoke (that is, he gave up philosophizing), or that he left Athens. But he chose not to remain silent or to leave Athens, but rather to die. Throughout the Five Dialogues and the Republic, Socrates proposes various questions while masking himself similar to a student that does not have knowledge concerning anything. This concept of lack of knowledge is emphasized in the last dialogue, “Apology” where Socrates claims that he is wiser than others merely because he knows that he doesn’t know anything. Ensuing that he suggests that it his sacred and god-given mission to remind everyone that they also don’t have any knowledge depicting himself as a necessary alleged evil. This sacred mission dooms him to be trailed and Socrates in trial says “unexamined life is not worth living for men” (Apology 38b) alluding to his mission. In this essay, I shall analyze why Socrates devotes the meaning of life to examining it by arguing that examining could be the only source of virtue, and I will argue that by binding virtue to examining others Socrates puts importance to individualism and pride's blinding impact on people.

According to Socrates unexamined life is a life deprived of virtue because meditating and examining life reminds them of what they don’t know driving them to try to learn it. In Protagoras and Meno Socrates claims that virtue cannot be taught because there can be neither teachers of such thing nor students. Following that he proposes that our souls have an opinion regarding virtue and in life, we are, in suitable conditions, driven to reconcile it. This depicts the process of becoming virtuous as a very individualistic journey where the individual can learn about virtue by trying to reconcile it without the help of any guidance. However, this raises a problem; how can people know the concept they think they know, and in fact do not know? Socrates views himself as a guide for those who are blinded by their pride and are incognizant of what they don’t know. In Meno, Socrates asks a rhetorical question “If then, during the time he exists and is not a human being he will have true opinions which, when stirred by questioning, become knowledge, will not his soul have learned during all time?” (Meno 86b) conveying and foreshadowing the idea that true opinions and knowledge form a strong alliance tying down what he calls “recollection”. In Apology Socrates puts forward his superior wisdom and he explains his superiority by subtly alluding to his awareness of this connection. It is, according to him, his utmost mission to remind those who claim to have knowledge concerning virtue that they are ignorant. As a result, Socrates suggests that people can only recall what they previously knew through the help of knowledge and true belief or opinion, and such process cannot be aided from outside drawing it as an individualistic process. 

Moreover, Socrates describes the Sophists as "deceiving, deceiving, anti-knowledge, charlatan" because they see knowledge as a salable object and try to deceive people with various rhetorical strategies instead of seeking wisdom. To put it in the words of Socrates: “We are not at all wrong to call the one who buys his knowledge in bulk, travels from city to city and sells them for money, as a great trader.” (31e) “Then it is necessary to see him (the Sophist) as a juggler, a charlatan and a copyist.” (27d) Socrates revealed what kind of an understanding of education he had with this attitude towards the Sophists.  From this point of view, Socrates differs from the Sophists in that he admits that he knows nothing against the pedantry of the Sophists. More importantly, in Meno Socrates asserts that

“I would contend at all costs in both word and deed as far as I could that we will be better men, braver and less idle, if we believe that one must search for the things one does not know, rather than if we believe that it is not possible to find out what we do not know and that we must not look for it.” (Meno 86c)

This piece of quotation underpins the reason why Socrates views Meletus Orators Lycon, Anytus as less wise than him. Their pride begets their lack of awareness driving them to believe that they have a complete understanding of what virtue is whereas Socrates is fully cognizant of his lack of understanding. In his apology Socrates touches upon the reasons the accusers find in reproaching Socrates, “And whenever someone asks them, “By doing what and teaching what?” (Apology 23d) they have nothing to say, but are ignorant. So, in order not to seem to be at a loss, they say the things that are ready at hand against all who philosophize. This illustrates the accusers’ corrupt concern to not appear ignorant which blinds them to see the truth. The truth that Socrates does not have any intention to humiliate them, his intention is pure and virtuous, he aims to remind them that they don’t know what virtue is so that they can start their individual journey to find what virtue is.

In conclusion, the dialogue between Socrates and Meno started with the question of whether virtue is teachable or not and proceeded to what virtue is, whether it is possible to teach someone something, and if possible, how is it possible.  In this dialogue, Socrates presents his critique of the Sophists' understanding of education. In this critique, he unveils that knowledge and true belief reinforce the recollection of the individual and there cannot be any external assistance in this process except for examining. Socrates undertakes this sacred and very risky mission to examine everyone’s life by showing them their lack of awareness caused by pride. This portrays the process of virtue as an individualistic journey where pride should be eliminated.

Plato, A., G. G. M., & Cooper, J. M. (2002). Five dialogues. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.

Yorumlar

Bu blogdaki popüler yayınlar

Rhetoric in Hobbes' Leviathan

  Hobbes’ Word Play Hobbes argues in favor of a monarch or an oligarch. To be more precise, he is in favor of the idea that multiplicity comes with complexity, harming the integrity of the state. In his opinion, men are mostly power-driven, greedy beings who must surrender themselves to a sovereign power that can spread the terror of punishment. According to Hobbes, this fear of punishment is the only effective motivating force that can keep people from brutally murdering each other. While this Hobbesian idea of the state portrays the sovereign’s subjects almost as though they are slaves, this essay will argue that Hobbes is not fundamentally against liberty and allows it within the constraints of laws. Hobbes's description of liberty suggests that only external impediments are against freedom. He states that liberty is “the absence of external impediments” (189) and, although these impediments may take away man’s power to do what he would, they do not prevent men from using th...

Rousseau on Legitimacy of State

Hobbes'dan sonra Rousseau okumayı Proust'tan sonra Daphnes ve Chloe okumaya benzetiyorum. Proust aşkı öyle yapay, çıkarcı ve öyle çirkin yansıtıyor ki, ondan sonra okuduğun her romana ister istemez Proust'un realist bakış açısından bakıyorsun. Belki de realizm sevdamı bırakmalıyımdır. Hobbes'un determinist bakış açısı da birçok argümanını epey ikna edici kılıyor. Bazen bu bakış açısından kaçmak istiyor insan. Hobbes kimmiş lan, ben ölümlü tanrıya irademi falan teslim edemem, gayet özgürüm demek istiyor. Yine de gel gör ki Hobbes haklı. Nasıl, Kant ödev ahlakında nasıl ki herkes davranışlarının topluma yansıdığını varsayarak hareket etmeli diyorsa, Hobbes da yapılmak istemediğini yapma diyor. Buna karşı çıkmak da biraz zor. Rousseau abi Social Contract'ında denese de Emile kitabındaki ikna ediciliğini devam ettiremiyor gibi hissediyorum. Birazdan okuyacak olduğun yazıda da oldukça soyut fikirler göreceksin ve yer yer kendine e ama niye diye soracaksın. Bil ki ben de ...

Hobbes’ Paradox

Hobbes’ Paradox Resolved According to Hobbes, people are born with passions that ultimately lead them into a never-ending war. They require artificial power to stop killing each other. Unless such a power is erected, Hobbes suggests, leaving the state of nature is impossible since people are not inclined to cooperate and trust each other. The core reason why it is impossible to leave the state of nature is because of the innate passions people have that drive them to be constantly in conflict. Hobbes states that in the condition of nature, “any reasonable suspicion” renders any covenant or promise invalid since “bonds of words are too weak to bridle men’s ambition, avarice, anger, and other passions…” (196). Here, Hobbes highlights the importance of punishments, suggesting that without the motivating fear of punishments, covenants are practically invalid. It is also important to understand what Hobbes means by the condition of nature. He argues that because men are born equal, they...