Philosophy books seldom spell out the crucial lesson to be learned from Socrates, namely, prudence. Neither Socrates nor Plato meant to teach us to be more prudent, circumspect and cautious, but those are my takeaways from studying Plato’s works and Socrates’ life in great detail.
At the same time, I must express my scepticism about what most philosophers regard as great Socratic teachings. I regard those teachings as worth examining, but one shouldn’t practise them blindly.
There are snakes hiding in the grass and, for this reason, we should think twice before imitating Socrates’ behaviour. How much are Socrates’ lessons worth, we should ask ourselves, and ponder the answer carefully.
Let us keep in mind that, when Socrates was seventy years old, he was criminally prosecuted and sentenced to death. The evidence against him was rather thin, and the accusers and jury overly biased, but Socrates had the opportunity to leave Athens and go into exile.
The fact that Socrates opted for staying in Athens to face an unfair death penalty does not speak in his favour. I personally think that he should have left Athens, moved somewhere else, and lived happily ever after.
A crucial decision
I regard Socrates’ decision to stay in Athens as the epitome of imprudence, but unfortunately, that was not the only case in which Socrates displayed rather poor discernment.
Similarly, I find it alarming that neither Plato (427-347 BC) nor Thucydides (460-400 BC) raised any criticism of Socrates’ weak defence in the criminal trial. They don’t offer any advice for readers on how to avoid similar predicaments.
Instead of analysing why Socrates had found himself facing a death sentence, they took it for granted that the same would have happened to any great philosopher; it’s as though a death penalty was the natural reward for telling the truth.
I could not disagree more and I find it regrettable that Plato and other commentators could not imagine better decisions on the part of Socrates. Their only suggestion was to remake the world, so that future generations wouldn’t mistreat individuals like Socrates.
What lessons did Plato draw from Socrates’ life, teachings, and personal interactions? From all commentators, he was the one closest to Socrates and the best writer of them all.
I would not put Thucydides at the same level as Plato when it comes to moral and philosophical aspects, and certainly not Plutarch (45-125 AD) and Diogenes Laertius (3rd century AD), who based their biographical sketches on earlier sources.
Ignorance and wisdom
Plato regarded Socrates’ modesty as a major moral virtue, as the prerequisite for finding the truth. In “Apology,” Plato says that Socrates had argued during his defence in the criminal trial that “I am wiser because, in contrast to other people, I do not pretend to know something that I do not.”
Socrates’ ploy of playing dumb during debates has received endless praise by philosophy historians, but I fail to see how it could help anybody today to win a debate, get a job, find love, friendship or shelter.
I have never seen anyone get anything done just by saying that they do not know the subject. Indeed, it’s ethically superior to acknowledge one’s ignorance than to claim possession of a skill or insight that, if disproven, may place someone else’s life in danger, but the acknowledgement of ignorance will itself not guarantee that we ever find the truth.
The second key lesson drawn by Plato from Socrates’ ideas is that “the unexamined life is not worth living.” Socrates said those words as part of his defence speech in the criminal trial. I have seen those words quoted endlessly in philosophy books as though they revealed a remarkable prescription for living.
If we turn the archaic translation into modern language, the quote from Socrates seems less impressive; few people employ the word “unexamined” in normal speech; modern translations should read “the unreflective life” or “an unphilosophical life.”
In any case, the quote exaggerates the role played by deep philosophical reflection. I agree with Socrates that philosophy can vastly improve human life and happiness, but it’s incorrect to say that, without philosophy, life is not worth living.
A false dichotomy
Daily experience belies Socrates’ and Plato’s statement and has been doing so for thousands of years. Very few people will choose to commit suicide if they lost access to philosophy or at least to philosophy books and philosophical conversations.
My guess is that even fewer will opt for imitating Socrates’ lifestyle as a whole and devote their time to debating unwise or prejudiced individuals. Plato presented such a lifestyle as “the examined life,” but I would just call it foolish.
At best, it was a waste of Socrates’ time, and at worst, it can get one into serious trouble. In the case of Socrates, his habit of preaching “the examined life” had made him strong enemies like Meletus and Anytus, who then became the accusers in the criminal trial.
I submit that one can live more happily by avoiding Anytus, Meletus and any other prejudiced persons. I regard it as deeply counterproductive to follow Plato’s and Socrates’ advice in this respect; there is nothing to be gained from engaging in debates with people who are genuinely disinterested in philosophy.
During the criminal trial, Socrates seemed to have realised that his position was hard to sustain. At a certain point, he said that “it is not hard to avoid death, but it is far more difficult to avoid wickedness because it runs faster than death.”
Socrates was referring to the possibility of surrender in war, instead of fighting to the bitter end. He considered surrender as ethically inferior to resistance when one is fighting a just war. I would not contest the statement in a military context, but daily life does not play on a battlefield.
By conflating wickedness, ignorance, and unethical actions in general, Socrates was establishing a life-or-death dichotomy that has no connection to reality. Even with the best intentions, all of us make mistakes, sometimes ethical mistakes, but those will rarely carry apocalyptical consequences.
I must reject the life-or-death dichotomy put forward by the embattled Socrates during the trial. We shouldn’t elevate those words to a life-motif or motto that can never deliver happiness.
What a pity that Plato could not look beyond the heartache of seeing Socrates lose his life in an unfair trial. Plato failed to draw the lesson that future generations would badly need: that wisdom must take one’s circumstances into account, and that a workable path to happiness requires more discernment than the life-or-death dichotomy posited by Socrates.
If you are interested in applying rational ideas in all sorts of situations, I recommend my book “The 10 Principles of Rational Living.”