Plato's Apology continues the plot line from Euthyphro in following the trial, conviction, and death of Socrates. In Euthyphro, Socrates was at the court of Athens to receive the formal charges for crimes of "corrupting the young" and "not believing in the gods". In Apology, Socrates presents his defense at the trial itself.
I found this text to be rich with ideas, and one overarching theme stood out to me, which I think is best expressed in the following statement by Socrates:
It is the greatest good for a man to discuss virtue every day, for the unexamined life is not worth living.
To be honest, I am still chewing on this statement since it is much more complex than it seems and begs for further thought. What is virtue? What is an unexamined life - and conversely, what is an examined life? What exactly makes life worth living? I don't pretend to know all of the answers to these questions, but I do want to offer my general interpretation of this statement based my readings of Euthyphro and Apology.
Socrates begins his speech by drawing a distinction between what he calls the "newer accusers" and the "older accusers". The newer accusers are the young men Meletus and Anytus who have brought the criminal charges that directly resulted in the trial. The older accusers are the mass of people with whom Socrates has had interactions with throughout his life who do not like him, speak negatively about him behind his back, and spread rumors about him. Socrates feels it is necessary to defend himself against these accusers even though they are not directly bringing charges since their accusations will affect others' judgement about him.
Socrates then tells a story that explains why he behaves the way that he does, seeking out people of the city and questioning them about their knowledge. His motivation in doing so, he claims, is to find out why the oracle at Delphi said that no one was wiser than Socrates. He says that since he does not think himself very wise, he thought that it would not be difficult to find someone that was clearly more wise than he is. However, once he started questioning people, his outlook began to change. After examining a prominent politician who thought himself to be wise but actually was not, Socrates says
So I withdrew and thought to myself: "I am wiser than than this man; it is likely that neither of us knows anything worthwhile, but he thinks he knows something when he does not, whereas when I do not know, neither do I think I know; so I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know what I do not know."
Apart from this being an amusing thought, Socrates is describing a very important realization: It is not wise to believe oneself to know something when you do not actually know it, but it is wise to recognize the things that you do not know. That is, it is wise to be aware of your own ignorance.
Why might this be the case? If you mistakenly believe that you know something when you really don't, then you will be more likely to lead yourself and others astray. On the other hand, if you are able to recognize the things that you do not know - those areas of knowledge in which you are ignorant - then you will be more likely to be able to fill in those gaps and overcome your ignorance.
In my previous post on Euthyphro, I noted that the dialogue seemed to question whether or not religion helped bring a person knowledge because Euthyphro was a priest who failed to provide a satisfactory definition of piety. In retrospect, I do not think that Socrates was questioning the virtues of religion per se, but more generally the class of people who think they know something when they do not. In his story in the Apology, Socrates identifies other people whom he has met that think they are wise when they are not. This includes politicians, whom many other people see as knowledgeable; poets, whose creative output seems to be similar to seers in that they don't seem to understand what they say; and craftsmen, who do have expert knowledge in one field, but as a result think that they have much knowledge about other fields.
Socrates goes on to make a very interesting statement about death:
To fear death, gentlemen, is no other than to think oneself wise when one is not, to think one knows what one does not know. No one knows whether death may not be the greatest of all blessings for a man, yet men fear it as if they knew it was the greatest of evils.
So Socrates puts "people who fear death" in the class of people who "think that they know something when they do not". He claims that since no one knows what it is like to actually be dead, no one can know whether or not it is good or bad.
Earlier in his defense, Socrates speaks about corruption. By corrupting people you make them wicked, and wicked people tend to do harm to themselves and to others. Later, Socrates makes a comparison between death and wickedness:
It is not difficult to avoid death, gentlemen; it is much more difficult to avoid wickedness, for it runs faster than death.
I found this statement very profound. To be wicked is to engage in bad or unvirtuous behavior. Despite the fact that every person is going to die at some point, it is virtually impossible to live your entire life without having engaged in bad or unvirtuous behavior. Therefore, in order to avoid becoming wicked, Socrates says that one must "prepare oneself to be as good as possible".
This is where living an "examined life" comes into play. If you don't closely examine your own life and your beliefs and your truth claims, you are living in ignorance of your own faults and weaknesses, and you will likely end up doing harm to yourself and the people about whom you care. However, if you examine yourself and become aware of your own ignorance, you will be better able to avoid harming yourself or others.
A couple of additional thoughts:
A man who really fights for justice must lead a private, not a public, life if he is to survive for even a short time.
Does this ultimately imply that the vast majority of people are wicked and will avoid justice?
