by W.D. James

Philosophers have a comprehensive understanding of all aspects of existence. What they know, they always know with certainty. They are practically gods in the realm of knowledge and wisdom.

Wait – none of those things are true (though philosophers often forget that). That philosophers might think and act like they were true was part of the informal charges his antagonists brought against Socrates when they hauled him into court. In his defense speech, Socrates says people say of him “he inquires into things below the earth and in the sky, and makes the weaker argument defeat the stronger, and teaches others to follow his example” (19b*). That is, he has a reputation for being a know-it-all jerk. Socrates asserts that his opponents are wrong on all three counts.

In a previous essay we saw that the notion that Socrates was interested only in winning – and, hence, would practice the skill of making the weaker argument appear to be the stronger – was the skill actually virtually printed on the calling cards (if they had had them) of the sophists, the main group Socrates and Plato want to distinguish philosophers from.

What of this inquiring into things ‘below the earth’ and ‘in the sky’? This probably means things dealing with the afterlife and with the gods respectively. Socrates says he does not do this, or, more accurately, he only does it in a very human way. These are the provinces of things like theology and metaphysics which Socrates seems to be saying lie outside the bounds of philosophy. His student Plato would certainly not refrain from approaching them, almost to the exclusion of more mundane fields of study. Yet, here is Plato writing the myth of philosophy and his hero Socrates in the dialogue Apology and that is what he has Socrates say. I think that is probably because that is what Socrates said. So, whatever it is that Socrates thinks philosophy is about, it is apparently something more down to earth (to get a bit Platonic and mythological, it is clearly the middle thing, the thing between ‘below the earth’ and ‘the sky,’ the realm of the earth which is the proper home of humans, though they may have dealings with the other two realms).

Finally, Socrates insists he is not a teacher. He says, “if you have heard anyone say that I try to educate people and charge a fee, there is no truth in that either” (19e). The not charging a fee is another thing that distinguishes him from the sophists. That he insists he does not teach points to a larger issue. Socrates claims to not know very much.

Human wisdom

His claim of ignorance points in the direction of philosophical skepticism, the position that claims we have no access to non-trivial truths (trivial truths are truths of definition or logic). The Academy founded by Plato would come to be dominated by such skeptics several centuries later and they did have a basis in Socrates for holding that position. However, I don’t think that Socrates’ skepticism actually goes that deep. In fact, it’s more of a heroic humility, not a denial of the possibility of knowledge.

Socrates says there are recognized authorities in the realm of trades and their authority rests on technical competence. There are skilled trainers of horses, makers of various objects (such as statues, Socrates’ trade), and the piloting of ships. But what of the more comprehensive knowledge of how all these fit together? When looking at human beings in society as such, the issue becomes “seeing that they are human beings, whom do you intend to get as their instructor? Who is the expert in perfecting the virtues of people in society” (20b)? Knowledge of humans as such, and in their social relations, is what some of his opponents seem to claim for themselves and were recognized as having in Athenian society.

The poets (writers of the epics and the plays which told of the interactions of gods and humans) and sophists who taught how to wield political power and to what ends, implicitly claim to have understanding of human purposes and aims in general. Socrates is claiming they don’t. Further, he’s claiming that someone who did have this knowledge would rightfully possess the authority to educate people living in society.

Plato would later claim that it is philosophers who possess just this knowledge and hence ought to have political authority – his famous, or notorious, ‘philosopher-kings.’ I think Socrates is in fact being pretty audacious in this section of his trial. He is suggesting to the members of the jury that there is not just a contest going on between some people named Socrates, Meletus, Lycon, and Anytus. The struggle is actually between what forms of knowledge are held to be authoritative within Athenian society and they, as the democratic representatives of that society, are going to need to decide how that all plays into the health of their society by either accepting Socrates and his counter claims or rejecting them. So, quite literally, Socrates is representing philosophy itself and its role and place in human society in this trial.

But Socrates does not actually claim to have this knowledge. He admits to having a reputation for being wise. “I have gained this reputation, gentlemen,” he explains, “from nothing more or less than a kind of wisdom. What kind of wisdom do I mean? Human wisdom, I suppose” (20d). What is this ‘human wisdom’ he speaks of?

Socrates probably startled (or enraged) his jurors and prosecutors, and he does us 2500 years later if we are looking to him as a guide to what being a philosopher entails, when he proclaims: “I shall call as witness to my wisdom (such as it is) the god at Delphi” (20e). Holy crud. Before we get to what that god might have to say on the matter, let’s unpack some of the implications of what Socrates has just said.

First, the god at Delphi is Apollo. He is, among other things, the god of prophecy and poetry. So, Socrates is invoking the testimony of the god of one of his personal opponents (the poet) and of one of the social contenders opposed to philosophy. He’s saying Apollo is actually on his side.

Second, in claiming that he, and philosophy, are concerned with ‘human wisdom’ he is in fact situating that mythologically. He is not saying he understands the gods. But he is not saying as a modern skeptic would that the gods are bunk. He’s saying the gods, the divine, are above the human – they mark out the boundaries of what is human, metaphysically and mythologically.

Socrates’ (quasi) divine vocation

What is the divine testimony Socrates is introducing in his defense? He recounts how a friend of his went to Delphi and asked a question of the prophetess there.ⁱ The prophetess at Delphi was an interesting character. In the Matrix film she is represented by the old African-American lady who bakes cookies and gives out cryptic advice. That’s pretty interesting, but the Greek one was even more so. Written above the temple entrance was the warning ‘know thyself,’ which also becomes a Socratic adage. The prophetess, probably intoxicated with wine or hallucinogenics, would channel the wisdom of the god by yielding cryptic statements.

The proclamations were notoriously difficult to accurately decipher. For instance, there is the story of the general or king who sought the advice of the oracle before going to war. She told him that, if he did, a great power would fall. He took this to mean that he would defeat his foe and cause their downfall. As it turned out, he was defeated and fell. He did not know himself. He believed what he wanted to believe, not what was the truth of his abilities in the ensuing conflict.

What question had his friend posed and what had the oracle proclaimed? His friend had asked who was the wisest person and the oracle had said Socrates was. Ok, what is Socrates pulling here? Is he saying, ‘I’m right because god says so’? That does not seem like a very convincing legal (or intellectual) defense, though I’m sure it has been tried before.

Fortunately, that is not what he is doing. First, he says he was very skeptical that the god was right. So, he does claim that challenging and testing ‘divine wisdom’ is within the scope of his philosophical activity. Then he goes about to prove the god wrong by finding someone wiser than himself. We looked in a previous essay at how he went and interrogated politicians, poets, skilled tradespeople, etc. and found them all lacking, generally in that they thought they had greater knowledge than they actually possessed.

Second, Socrates affirms the god’s assertion, but in humility. He explains: “This I take it, gentlemen, is the extent, and this is the nature of my superiority over the rest of mankind; and if I were to claim to be wiser than my neighbor in any respect, it would be in this: that not possessing any real knowledge of what awaits us in Hades, I am also conscious that I do not possess it” (29b, emphasis added).

This human wisdom Socrates claims to possess is knowing he does not possess divine wisdom. The gods, presumably, know all there is to know about ‘below the earth’ and ‘in the sky.’ Socrates doesn’t know that and he knows that he doesn’t know. There’s one major aspect of ‘human wisdom.’

In the rest of his defense speech Socrates will claim to have been doing the god’s business when he went about questioning and haranguing his fellow citizens. Socrates asserts philosophy has a divine mission of exposing cant and presumptuous claims.

However, his claimed wisdom is not all negative (pace the philosophical skeptics). The second big component is a knowledge Socrates does claim to possess: “But I do know that to do wrong and to disobey my superior, whether god or man, is bad and dishonourable” (29b).

This will be the basis of a more positive teaching (possibly the only one) Socrates will elaborate on and which we’ll examine a couple of essays in the future. For now, let’s note that if Socrates claims to possess some positive wisdom it has to do with what is right and wrong for human beings and what proper human conduct has to do with proper human being; it is moral wisdom. That was the point of knowledge he had identified earlier and said possession of which would lend one’s wisdom authority.

Next time we will turn to look at Socrates’ combat against the political monsters opposing him: the dynamics and drama of his trial itself, the battleground where his fate plays itself out.

All quotes are from: Plato, The Last Days of Socrates: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, translated by Hugh Tredennick and Harold Tarrant, Penguin, 2003.

i As a footnote, it is worth remarking that the skeptical Socrates, when he approaches issues of genuinely possessing knowledge, several times invokes a female figure as possessing that. Here the prophetess at Delphi, in the Symposium, the prophetess Diotima.