Human Wisdom as Occupational Hazard

Human Wisdom as Occupational Hazard

            In this essay I will elucidate passage 20 C-D of Plato’s Apology. In the aforementioned passage, Socrates responds to the question of his bad reputation; why is it that, if everything is has he claims and he is not guilty, he has found himself the target such strong accusations? Socrates argues that his ‘human wisdom’ is ultimately what made him susceptible to being targeted by these accusations.

            What is Socrates referring to when he mentions ‘all those rumours and talk’, and what does this have to do with the accusations made against him? (25) Socrates developed a reputation in Athens of himself as a pest by virtue of questioning the occupations of some of its most prolific citizens; rhetoricians and poets. For instance, in other Platonic dialogues like the Gorgias and Ion Socrates calls into question the connection between one’s occupation and knowledge; in the former, Socrates questions the grounding of rhetoric when he questions Gorgias, and in the latter Socrates questions whether the poet, Ion in this case, has knowledge of what he is concerned with.  The sceptical approach assumed by Socrates in these dialogues was met with tension in Athens because, unlike those who claimed to have knowledge and those who took these claims for granted, Socrates did something else; he questioned this assumption that one had knowledge. This caused a negative reaction from some Athenians and this is best illustrated in the negative way in which Socrates’ is portrayed in Aristophanes’ Clouds. In this play, written before Socrates’ trial, Aristophanes portrays ‘Socrates’ in a way that mirrors the accusations put forth by Meletus in the Apology;  he is a veritable embodiment of ‘corrupting the young and of not believing in the Gods in whom the city believes, but in other new spiritual things’. (28) Thus it is clear that there is some relation between Socrates’ actions and his reputation, and furthermore, this reputation itself has shaped the charges laid against him.

            But why is Socrates sceptical of Athenian citizens when they claim to possess knowledge? Is it because after going to so called experts he finds that they can never provide a justification for their belief in possessing knowledge? In a sense this could be true, but in this passage Socrates is claiming that he possesses a ‘certain kind of wisdom’ and that this is ultimately responsible for the reputation he has created for himself Athens. The answer has more to do with why Socrates questioned people in the first place. After being told that the Oracle of Delphi proclaimed that ‘no one was wiser’ than Socrates, Socrates was sceptical of this very claim (he didn’t believe he knew anything) and went on a journey to find someone wiser than him. It was only after being disappointed time and time again by his interlocutors that Socrates came to appreciate the true meaning of the oracle’s proclamation; he realised he was the wisest because he knew that he knew nothing. This knowledge is what Socrates means by ‘Human wisdom’ and what he believes has caused such an uproar against him in Athens and what one could argue causes the sporadic uproars against him in the courthouse.

            When Socrates assures the jury that anyone claiming he has ‘a wisdom more than human’ is lying, he is in one sense accusing the sophists he named earlier in his defence (Gorgias, Prodicus, and Hippias) and the poets of falsely believing that they possess knowledge, and in another re-affirming his supposed innocence in relation to the charge of introducing new gods into Athenian society. In relation to the sophists and the poets, insofar as Socrates finds them unable to justify their beliefs he concludes that they must have some wisdom that transcends ‘human wisdom’ that justifies their position; if they really had ‘human wisdom’, then why would the oracle proclaim that Socrates was wisest of all men? This reinforces Socrates’ defence against the charge of religious deviance insofar as it distances him from the knowledge required to posit the existence of deities; if he claims to know nothing, how can his accuser charge him with claiming that these new deities exist? Socrates is arguing that his accusers impose their standard of knowledge on him and insofar as they do this they misrepresent him; Socrates points out the discrepancy in arguing that he has knowledge when he himself claims to know nothing.

Work cited:

Grube, G. M. A.. Five dialogues. 2nd ed. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub. Co., 2002. Print.