When reading about the trial against Socrates (469-399 BC) and the exchanges between accusation and defence, I’m always amazed at the poor logic employed by Socrates. His defence in the trial was not only incompetent, but counterproductive.

If he had left Athens beforehand and let the trial take place in his absence, I don’t think that he would have been sentenced to death. He may have been condemned to exile because of his habit of questioning Athenian politicians, but not to death.

Even if he had stood trial but kept his mouth shut, he might have ended up in a better position. A condemnation to exile or ostracism would have been far more favourable than death.

In fact, Socrates performed so badly during his trial that he could not have attained a worse result. From this perspective, I find it difficult to comprehend why most historians view him as a great philosopher, a great debater, and a great man overall.

Plato’s “Apology” chronicles the trial against Socrates; thus, we have a fairly good idea of the arguments he employed in his defence. Even if Plato’s text only provides an approximation to Socrates’ words, his unrealistic attitude doesn’t fail to transpire.

A weak argument

While Anytus and Meletus, the accusers, were asking for the death penalty to be imposed, Socrates argued that he was a divine gift to the Athenians because of his habit to “stir them up,” that is, to annoy them by questioning their motives and by exercising acerbic criticism.

Socrates compared himself to a gadfly that is flying around a horse, causing constant annoyance. He was especially proud, he explained, that he had been dispensing his wisdom for free, and to prove his point, he invoked his poverty.

Let us ponder Socrates’ argument for a second. Anytus and Meletus were accusing him of impiety and of corrupting young men, that is, that he was spreading revolutionary ideas, making young men doubt Athens’ philosophy and religion.

Socrates could have denied the charges, cross-examined the witnesses, or used any other strategy available to defendants in a criminal trial. Instead of doing so, he confirmed that he was guilty as charged and immensely proud of it.

According to Western philosophical tradition, Socrates is a hero because he had been asking acerbic questions, exercising bitter criticism, and remained shamelessly proud of his deeds.

I wonder how long someone could stay alive in any ancient culture if he behaved like Socrates. Think about ancient Egypt, ancient Mesopotamia, or ancient Rome.

Their way of life was primitive and dependent on a set of myths and fabrications. Those cultures could survive only as long as their narratives were kept alive. History proves that, as when the narratives were eroded, those civilizations collapsed.

I acknowledge the immense benefits of understanding the world and knowing the truth, but I question Socrates’ habit of dispensing his wisdom all around, uninvited and unwelcome. It isn’t surprising that, in those circumstances, he made numerous enemies, some of them occupying high positions in Athens.

Far from proving a high social acumen, Plato’s “Apology” is illustrating Socrates’ social disconnect; he couldn’t fail to know that he had made powerful enemies and that they wanted him to shut up or leave Athens.

Crucially important

My point is that learning the truth is crucially important, but speaking out the truth to hostile, ignorant people is immensely stupid. Nothing good can ever come out of it.

Instead of acknowledging their mistakes and changing their ways, the recipients of the message will react aggressively. The truth teller will be demonised or silenced, scaring other people away from philosophical enquiry.

What a gigantic waste of time and energy, and what a pity that Socrates failed to adopt a better strategy. His friend Crito had tried to convince him to quit Athens and go into exile, but Socrates foolishly rejected the offer.

Apparently, he preferred dying in the spotlight to enjoying a longer life away from Athens. I would have made a different choice. Socrates’ execution by means of suicide provided Plato the plot for a best-seller, but does it transmit the right message?

What worries me is that, still today, people may be tempted to imitate Socrates, get themselves flamed, and then spend the next ten years complaining about the world’s injustices.

Let me spell out my criticism of Socrates’ attitude clearly, so that there are no misunderstandings. He did the correct thing in gathering knowledge and discussing his ideas with his friends and disciples, that is, with people like Plato and Crito.

On the other hand, it was foolish for Socrates to make lots of powerful enemies for no good reason. He was sophisticated enough to know that, in history, acerbic criticism never proved effective at changing ignorant, hostile individuals.

It also worries me that Socrates regarded himself as a divine gift to Athens. That’s a sign of reckless megalomania. Socrates could not have failed to notice that he was intensely disliked by a large share of the Athenian population.

Anytus and Meletus, his main accusers, were manipulative and self-serving, but people like them exist in every society in every historical period. As a general policy, it is more prudent to steer away from those people than confront them directly.

Socrates’ friend, Crito, displayed better sense than Socrates himself, but unfortunately, his advice fell on deaf ears. If Crito had succeeded in convincing Socrates to leave Athens, history would have been spared of a hapless victim and of the attempt to glorify self-immolation as a philosophical achievement.

If you are interested in applying rational ideas in all kinds of situations, I recommend my book “Against all odds: How to achieve great victories in desperate times.”