Socrates's Position on his Punishment (Plato's Apology)

gadfly1007

Near the end of Apology, Plato states that Socrates denied to seek for any other penalty than death as proposed by Meletus. He based his argument on the fact that one must not fear things which he does not know (referring to the fear of death). While stating this, he also explored the other ways of punishment including imprisonment, fine and exile. Now, the last punishment (exile) is what intrigues me. Plato states that Socrates was of the opinion (Pg. 94) "For I am quite sure that wherever I go, there, as here, the young men will flock to me, and if I drive them away, their elders will drive me out at their request; and if I let them come, their fathers and friends will drive me out for their sakes." Basically he meant that if Athenians, his own men and fellow citizens have not tolerated him of his actions, the others won't too as well.

My question is how he (Socrates) who claims to know that he know nothing is able to know (presume to know) that he'll be driven out of other places? Unless there lies a underpinning contradictory assumption that he knows nothing?
"I know only one thing, that I know nothing." This statement when put against Socrates' own method of Principle of Non-contradiction, how can one know that he knows nothing if he claims to know nothing?

Outlander

Probable odds. People don't like having their beliefs questioned. Then or now.

As for the staple phrase and resulting paradox. Perhaps it was esoteric in nature. Could have just been a motto to encourage others to be more open minded. Or one could argue that one assertion was excluded from the premise ie. "I know nothing other than that I know nothing (aside from this fact)."

Congau

↪gadfly1007

Socrates would in many cases use the word “to know” without necessarily employing it in a strictly literally sense. We use it in much the same way, exaggerating our certainty. “I know he will come tomorrow,” you might say, although you are fully aware that you can’t predict the future. Our language just can’t be totally logical all the time. If it were, we would hardly be able to say anything. We assume that people know more or less what we are talking about and move on.

That is also true for the second part of your question. You know perfectly well what Socrates himself or the paraphrase intended to express, but if you attempt to be strictly logical about it you inevitably run into a paradox:

“I know nothing.”
“Not true. At least you know that.”
“Ok. I only know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.”
“You mean, you only know one thing and that is that you know only one thing.”
“Right. I know only one thing and that is that I know only one thing, which is that I know only one thing, which is that I know only one thing, which….” Wait a minute, how many things do I know?

If this gives you a headache, you may find comfort in the fact that it is not philosophy. It’s sophism, and that’s not what Socrates was doing.

Socrates's Position on his Punishment (Plato's Apology)

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions