ARGUMENTS AGAINST SOCRATES’ ATHEISM

Socrates was tried and sentenced to death by taking poison for “morally corrupting the youth” and for “impiety toward the Gods”.

With regard to religion, the exact charges reportedly were:

He does not believe in the gods the state believes in, but in other new spiritual beings (Pl. Apol. 24b-c)

His adversaries had charged him with not believing in the gods worshipped by the state and with the introduction of new deities in their stead (Xen. Apol. 10)

And Socrates’ own statement:

For he says I am a maker of gods; and because I make new gods (kainoi Theoi) and do not believe in the old ones (Pl. Euthyph. 3b)

Socrates’ main accusers were Anytus and Meletus who represented groups of people that held a grudge against Socrates. Anytus was a wealthy and powerful Athenian politician from a family of wealthy tanners, who had been angered by Socrates’ remarks about famous men being unable to teach virtue to their sons (Meno 94e), and by Socrates’ advice not to let his son follow a career in the family trade (Xen. Apol. 29).

Anytus is also said to have initiated the corruption of the judiciary by bribing the jury in a court case brought against him for a military fiasco in which he lost the city of Pylos (Aristot. Ath. Pol. 27).

According to Hermogenes who was present at Socrates' trial:

The Athenian courts have often been carried away by an eloquent speech and have condemned innocent men to death, and often on the other hand the guilty have been acquitted either because their plea aroused compassion or because their speech was witty (Xen. Apol. 5)

It can be seen from this that the fact that Socrates was indicted, tried, and found guilty, does not necessarily mean that he was guilty as charged.

If Socrates had simply been a known atheist, then (a) he would not have been allowed to preach his views for many years (he was in fact taken to court late in his life and by people who clearly had a grudge against him), and (b) it would have been in the prosecution’s interest to make his alleged atheism part of their case.

In Xenophon’s Apology, Socrates himself states after the trial that “the witnesses were instructed that they must bear false witness against me, perjuring themselves to do so” (24).

Socrates knew many people and likely had reliable information to make such a claim.

In addition, there seems to be no independent tradition according to which Socrates was an atheist.

This suggests that the charge of atheism may not be as credible as it seems.

Is there any positive evidence to indicate that he was not an atheist?

1. The accusation of “making new Gods” may itself be such an indication. Making Gods does not necessarily mean inventing non-existent entities. Artisans in Ancient Greece made images or statues of Gods in whom they actually believed. Following ceremonial dedication, a statue was treated as if living and was inhabited by the deity during epiphany. Similarly, when the Israelites made a gold image of a calf which they worshiped, as described in Exodus, they did not invent the deity, they simply made a religious representation of it (possibly under Canaanite or Egyptian influence). Socrates himself did not make concrete images but he made literary images in his speeches about demons, Cosmic Gods, and Forms, i.e., entities he apparently believed in.

In a speech about Socrates in Plato’s Symposium, Alcibiades compares him with a Silenius statue full of words that are like divine images that mesmerize the audience like the song of a Siren, Alcibiades himself feeling left “in a condition of a common slave”:

Whether anyone else has caught him in a serious moment and opened him, and seen the images inside, I know not; but I saw them one day, and thought them so divine and golden, so perfectly fair and wondrous, that I simply had to do as Socrates bade me (Sym. 216e-217a)

It is not difficult to see how speeches about Socrates’ Siren-like words being like “divine images” that captivated the minds of younger men, could inspire rumors of his “corrupting the youth by making new Gods”.

2. During trial, Meletus claims that Socrates does not believe in the Sun and Moon or any other deities.

However, Socrates first points out that (a) the claim that the Sun and Moon are stone and earth is Anaxagoras’, not his own and (b) that his alleged disbelief in any deities contradicts the original claim that he believes in new Gods:

I am glad that I have extracted that answer, by the assistance of the court; nevertheless you swear in the indictment that I teach and believe in divine or spiritual agencies (new or old, no matter for that); at any rate, I believe in spiritual agencies, as you say and swear in the affidavit; but if I believe in divine beings, I must believe in spirits or demigods; - is not that true? Yes, that is true, for I may assume that your silence gives assent to that. Now what are spirits or demigods? are they not either gods or the sons of gods? Is that true?

[Jury] Yes, that is true.

But this is just the ingenious riddle of which I was speaking: the demigods or spirits are gods, and you say first that I don't believe in gods, and then again that I do believe in gods; that is, if I believe in demigods.

Indeed, in the Phaedo, Socrates recounts to his friends how he had long distanced himself from Anaxagoras’ materialist teachings that he found unsatisfactory and disappointing (Phaedo 98b-c).

He now says:

At any rate, I believe in spiritual agencies, as you say and swear in the affidavit; but if I believe in divine beings, I must believe in spirits or demigods; - is not that true?
[Jury] Yes, that is true (Apology)

3. Socrates’ statement that he believes in spiritual entities is consistent with numerous other statements in the Phaedo, Gorgias, Republic, etc. For example, he says that the soul is immortal and that those who believe this and care for their soul should take his account of afterlife or something like it as true (Phaedo 114d). He says that he is convinced of divine judgement after death and urges all men to join him in this belief in order to save themselves in the other world (Gorgias 526e). He repeats this in the Republic (621c), etc.

4. According to his own statement at trial, Socrates took part in public sacrifices to the Gods:

One thing that I marvel at in Meletus, gentlemen, is what may be the basis of his assertion that I do not believe in the gods worshiped by the state; for all who have happened to be near at the time, as well as Meletus himself,—if he so desired, — have seen me sacrificing at the communal festivals and on the public altars … For it has not been shown that I have sacrificed to new deities in the stead of Zeus and Hera and the gods of their company, or that I have invoked ill oaths or mentioned other gods. (Xen. Apol. 11, 25)

In Memorabilia, Xenophon states that Socrates always offered sacrifices at home and at public temple altars (1.1.2), suggesting that it is hard to believe that someone who devoutly performs religious rites does not believe in the Gods in whose honor he performs the rites.

5. This, and other instances throughout Plato’s dialogues seem to be inconsistent with atheism. For example:

Socrates tells Critias to carry on his discourse by invoking the aid of Apollo and the Muses (108c).

Socrates prays to the Cosmos (as a God) to grant them the knowledge to provide a truthful account (106b).

Socrates invokes the aid of the Muses in making his first speech on love (Phaedr. 237a)

Socrates refers to the Sun as “one of the Gods in heaven” (Rep. 508a).

Socrates is said to have prayed to the Sun at sunrise after a long contemplation (Symp. 220d).

6. In Apology, Socrates concludes his address to the jury with the following statements:

But you also, judges, must regard death hopefully and must bear in mind this one truth, that no evil can come to a good man either in life or after death, and God does not neglect him (41c-d).

I go to die, and you to live; but which of us goes to the better lot, is known to none but God (42a).

On balance, Socrates seems to hold religious beliefs that are similar to those of Athens’ intellectual classes. Yes, he does advocate examination of one’s beliefs in general, which is only natural as he believes in intelligence and knowledge, but he does not seem to advocate that people discard all their religious beliefs.

In particular, Socrates does seem to connect wisdom with some spiritual or divine agency. Even his own quest for wisdom is said to have been prompted by a statement attributed to the God Apollo.

More generally, what we must not overlook is that religious beliefs were quite common among ancient philosophers, and it seems unwarranted to assume that they, and Socrates, were secret atheists.

Further reading:

Mark L. McPherran, The Religion of Socrates
Darrel Jackson, “The Prayers of Socrates”
James A. Notopoulos, “Socrates and the Sun”

IIRC, Socrates seems to have been a (shamanic / daimonic) animist, maybe even a pantheist in the manner of later Stoics, but not an atheist in the secular, modern sense; and only a polytheist in terms of local custom, not devotion.

You could be right there. In any case, he seems to be holding some interesting and intriguing views, especially in the eyes of moderns who are unfamiliar with the religious beliefs and customs of Ancient Greece. So, I thought this discussion might throw some light on it and maybe provide some new insights.

More generally, what we must not overlook is that religious beliefs were quite common among ancient philosophers, and it seems unwarranted to assume that they, and Socrates, were secret atheists. — Apollodorus

Who, pray tell, are these thinkers who assume Socrates was a secret atheist?

You just allowed the observation that the "secular, modern sense" is not germane in the matter under discussion. Are you not abandoning the OP that uses precisely that sense to identify an atheist?

Who, pray tell, are these thinkers who assume Socrates was a secret atheist? — Valentinus

I don't know of any such thinkers.

That was precisely my point - as far as I am aware there is no popular or scholarly tradition according to which Socrates was an atheist.

Therefore, if he was an atheist, he must have been a secret one. But I have seen no evidence to suggest this.

In any case, he seems to be holding some interesting and intriguing views, especially in the eyes of moderns who are unfamiliar with the religious beliefs and customs of Ancient Greece. — Apollodorus

Of course.

A particular type of atheism is usually shaped in reference to the theism it opposes, and so just like there are many theisms, so there are many atheisms. This is how an atheist with a Hindu background differs from an atheist with a Roman Catholic background; their respective atheisms are focused on different things. Then there is also the type of atheism that is not an opposition to a particular theism, but the result of a genuine ignorance of a theism. Futher, there is the type of atheism that is the result of the person becoming exhausted by the topic of theism.

Even if Socrates was an atheist by his contemporary standards, he can't be recognized as an atheist by modern standards.

Who, pray tell, are these thinkers who assume Socrates was a secret atheist?
— Valentinus

I don't know of any such thinkers. — Apollodorus

Actually, I think this is (or was) a popoular idea that one readily picks up in secular academia. I can't think of any names, but thinking back of philosophy classes at school, we'd talk about most of the old philosophers as if they would be secularists, non-theists, as if they would be "the good guys". At the time, it was a theme to recontextualize the religious/theistic claims of philosophers and to dismiss them, gloss over them. It's how secular academia made Descartes into "one of us".

Therefore, if he was an atheist, he must have been a secret one. But I have seen no evidence to suggest this. — Apollodorus

For example, by some Muslim standards, Christians are atheists. But does that make them atheists?

To go further East, there are many deities in Buddhism, for example, but a person not worshipping them is not deemed an atheist by those Buddhists.


It seems that the source of the problem goes back to the secular definition of theism and atheism that are to the effect of:

Theism: belief in a god or gods
Atheism: lack of belief or disbelief in a god or gods

Probably no actual theist ever defined theism as "belief in a god or gods", nor atheism as "lack of belief or disbelief in a god or gods".

Actually, I think this is (or was) a popoular idea that one readily picks up in secular academia. I can't think of any names, but thinking back of philosophy classes at school, we'd talk about most of the old philosophers as if they would be secularists, non-theists, as if they would be "the good guys". At the time, it was a theme to recontextualize the religious/theistic claims of philosophers and to dismiss them, gloss over them. It's how secular academia made Descartes into "one of us". — baker

Correct. Starting in the late 1800's and early 1900's there was a Marxist and Fabian Socialist-influenced effort to dissociate everything, including Christianity, from religious beliefs and reinterpret it in terms of "social change" and "progress" for political purposes.

But I think that the belief in Socrates' and Plato's alleged "atheism" tended to be more implied or obliquely hinted at than expressly asserted.

Probably no actual theist ever defined theism as "belief in a god or gods", nor atheism as "lack of belief or disbelief in a god or gods". — baker

That is possibly true. However, as no ancient tradition seems to exist according to which Socrates was an atheist, I take it in the modern, dictionary sense of "believing that there is no God".

Just last night I was listening to an audio on Socrates' trial. True, the great luminary of western philosophy was charged with two counts of misconduct - impiety & corrupting the youth - and, as per the analysis presented, Socrates refused to accept Gods who were as flawed as humans, the Greek pantheon consisting of divine beings who "suffered" from human weaknesses like anger, jealousy, vengefulness, etc. This just didn't sit well with Socrates, the audio doesn't explain why?

Too, Socrates was no friend to democracy and preferred "alternatives" :wink: to what he probably saw as a group of ill-informed, poorly-trained, peasants trying to make decisions on matters they had not the slightest clue about, a not too flattering description of democracy and also the Greek gods with all their endless quarrels. The greek religion, it seems, was just too democratic for Socrates' tastes if you know what I mean.




:chin: Hmmmm Celestial North Korea! Socrates' dream state!

Too, Socrates was no friend to democracy and preferred "alternatives" :wink: to what he probably saw as a group of ill-informed, poorly-trained, peasants trying to make decisions on matters they had not the slightest clue about, a not too flattering description of democracy and also the Greek gods with all their endless quarrels. The greek religion, it seems, was just too democratic for Socrates' tastes if you know what I mean. — TheMadFool

You could be right. However, if we are to judge Athenian democracy by the way they conducted their trials, with juries bought by the likes of Anytus, etc., then maybe Socrates had a point.

But I’m not sure Socrates was quite as “undemocratic” as he might seem. My impression is that what he and Plato really attempted to do was to bring some order to the confused society and culture they lived in, and this implied some religious and political reforms. How undemocratic these were is of course debatable.

My impression is that what he and Plato really attempted to do was to bring some order to the confused society and culture they lived in, and this implied some religious and political reforms. — Apollodorus

But what exactly were their roles in society then? What political power did they actually have?

I tend to doubt that they sought political power for themselves. Socrates was the antithesis of politician and he was an old man. I think the basic idea was to influence society, including the political classes, through education, though Plato may have liked to see himself in the role of advisor to political leaders.

Obviously, there were failures, like Alcibiades. But Plato's pupil Aristotle became tutor to Alexander the Great and this may be an indication of some degree of success.

The main point, though, is that they succeeded in popularizing philosophy. Without Plato and Aristotle Europe and the world would be a different place. For example, there may be no philosophy forum .... :smile:

You could be right. However, if we are to judge Athenian democracy by the way they conducted their trials, with juries bought by the likes of Anytus, etc., then maybe Socrates had a point.

But I’m not sure Socrates was quite as “undemocratic” as he might seem. My impression is that what he and Plato really attempted to do was to bring some order to the confused society and culture they lived in, and this implied some religious and political reforms. How undemocratic these were is of course debatable. — Apollodorus

I thought Socrates' antipathy towards democracy was no secret. If memory serves, he was more in favor of wise kings. The so-called Philosopher King was a notion he invented and his student Plato developed further.

The idea looks nice on paper but is a Philosopher King a coherent concept? Could it be that what we're trying to conceive of is an impossible object, a square circle? To use a simple labor logic, if 10 people can't lift a slab of granite, how can we expect 1 person (the king) to do so? It seems like Socrates was under the impression that making a philosopher out of a king is to give the king superhuman powers, making said king able to perform feats that all the people combined (democracy) can't.

Frankly, Socrates seems to have formulated his political theory on the proverb, too many cooks spoil the broth but in doing so he's ignored the wisdom of the other adage, two heads are better than one.

As a side note, it seems probable that Socrates was also a monotheist; it squares with his political views of philosopher kings.

Little wonder Athenians wanted him dead.

It needs to be borne in mind that the meaning of "democracy" has probably changed over time since the Athenian experiment and what Socrates was writing/speaking against may not be what democracy is in the present day.

I thought Socrates' antipathy towards democracy was no secret. If memory serves, he was more in favor of wise kings. The so-called Philosopher King was a notion he invented and his student Plato developed further. — TheMadFool

In Plato’s Gorgias, Callicles suggests that society should be ruled by intelligent and courageous men irrespective of other virtues like self-control and righteousness, and invites Socrates to join his group.

Socrates replies by inviting Callicles to join him in his belief in righteousness and divine judgement in the afterlife:

And I invite all other men likewise, to the best of my power, and you particularly I invite in return, to this life and this contest, which I say is worth all other contests on this earth; and I make it a reproach to you, that you will not be able to deliver yourself when your trial comes and the judgement of which I told you just now (Gorg. 526e).

The concept of philosopher-king has been much misunderstood. I think the idea was to train philosophers to rule wisely. This is what it really boils down to, wise and just rule, in accordance with the established standards of ethical conduct based on the four virtues (self-control, courage, prudence, and righteousness), etc., and a proper legal system.

But you are right, it may be described as a utopian vision and it is doubtful that Socrates and Plato intended to implement everything exactly as discussed in the Republic. Still, Greek rulers tended to be more democratic that those of Persia or Egypt, for example.

Should be noted that "atheist" used to not only denote someone who disbelieved in the gods, but also someone who said/believed blasphemous things about them.

I imagine the term was probably closer to "heretic" or "blasphemer" (which would cover unbelief as well) than our modern sense of "atheist".

If Socrates really did not believe in the Gods worshiped at Athens then perhaps he could be described as an "atheist" in this narrow sense. However, this has not been established. And if he believed in other deities as implied in the official indictment, then he wasn't an atheist in the modern sense either.

I thought Socrates' antipathy towards democracy was no secret. If memory serves, he was more in favor of wise kings. The so-called Philosopher King was a notion he invented and his student Plato developed further.
— TheMadFool

In Plato’s Gorgias, Callicles suggests that society should be ruled by intelligent and courageous men irrespective of other virtues like self-control and righteousness, and invites Socrates to join his group.

Socrates replies by inviting Callicles to join him in his belief in righteousness and divine judgement in the afterlife:

And I invite all other men likewise, to the best of my power, and you particularly I invite in return, to this life and this contest, which I say is worth all other contests on this earth; and I make it a reproach to you, that you will not be able to deliver yourself when your trial comes and the judgement of which I told you just now (Gorg. 526e).

The concept of philosopher-king has been much misunderstood. I think the idea was to train philosophers to rule wisely. This is what it really boils down to, wise and just rule, in accordance with the established standards of ethical conduct based on the four virtues (self-control, courage, prudence, and righteousness), etc., and a proper legal system.

But you are right, it may be described as a utopian vision and it is doubtful that Socrates and Plato intended to implement everything exactly as discussed in the Republic. Still, Greek rulers tended to be more democratic that those of Persia or Egypt, for example. — Apollodorus

I suppose Socrates examined the pros and cons of different forms of government very closely. His analysis may have looked something like:

1. King: Power concentrated in one indiviudal but may not know how to govern. (risk of tyranny)

2. Democracy: Power distributed but may not know how to govern (risk of failed state)

3. Philosopher: No power but knows how to govern (pointless)

There are two options available:

4. Make all citizens philosophers (power distributed and knows how to govern)

OR

5. Philosopher-King (power concentrated and knows how to govern)

I can't fathom why he chose 5 over 4. Any ideas?

Speaking for myself, there's the practical issue of making every citizen a philosopher vs making only one person, the king, a philosopher. The latter is doable but the former is a pipe dream.

Right, but the point is that that's not really how ancient Hellenic cultures thought about atheism or blasphemy: it didn't matter what people believed so much as whether people honored the gods on the appropriate days with the appropriate rituals (the focus on belief was something Christianity introduced- the pagan world didn't care much about ones personal belief, but about engaging in the correct rituals to honor the gods)... because failing to do so could lead to e.g. famine, drought, etc etc

So I'm not sure that framing this as "was Socrates an atheist in the modern sense" is necessarily the most helpful way to look at it, not because its not a valid question, but because that isn't what would have mattered to ancient Athenians. What they would have been really concerned about is, is Socrates failing to properly honor the gods, and/or is he teaching the youth things that may cause them to not properly honor the gods? (and evidently they thought so, hence his death sentence)

There are two options available:

4. Make all citizens philosophers (power distributed and knows how to govern)

OR

5. Philosopher-King (power concentrated and knows how to govern)

I can't fathom why he chose 5 over 4. Any ideas?

Speaking for myself, there's the practical issue of making every citizen a philosopher vs making only one person, the king, a philosopher. The latter is doable but the former is a pipe dream. — TheMadFool

Well, the options suggested in the Republic are:

Either (1) philosophers become kings in our states or (2) those whom we now call our kings and rulers take to the pursuit of philosophy seriously and adequately, and there is a conjunction of these two things, political power and philosophic intelligence, while the motley horde of the natures who at present pursue either apart from the other are compulsorily excluded, there can be no cessation of troubles for our states, nor, I fancy, for the human race either (Rep. 473e-d)

Obviously, “philosophers become kings” really means some philosophers. Even if you made the whole population philosophers, only a small percentage would actually rule. In other words, in option (1) you select the best from a pool of philosophers which, in my view, makes sense.

Option (2) seems more problematic. The king whom you are trying to make a philosopher may not be the best material for the purpose.

So, the best option seems to be (1), e.g., train the military class in political philosophy and then select one individual that seems best suited for the role of king.

And if Socrates was a monotheist or monist, then having the city-state ruled by one monarch would be a reflection of the divine order that admits one ultimate authority or power over everything else.

So, you're suggesting that we look for a good philosopher and make faer king instead of trying to teach philosophy to a king already in power.

If Socrates thought the same then a philosopher-king is, as I suspected, an impossible object, a square circle. Kings, by definition, are hereditary rulers. Since there's no guarantee, as per your analysis, that the heir apparent will be as philosophically inclined as the father, the philosopher-king, we have a problem because then there would have to be an election system in place to decide which philosopher, not child/relative of the king, should be next in line for the throne but that's what democracy is, like the US federation of states except the highest office can be held for a lot longer than 4 years. In short, Socrates' philosopher-king system of government is actually a democracy with a philosopher as the most powerful person for as long as said philosopher is able to rule wisely.

In summary,

1. Either kings have to be made philosophers

OR

2. Philosophers have to be made kings

3. Making kings into philosophers is, first, not going to be easy if the king is not interested and second, is no assurance that the heir, the next in line to the throne, will want to learn philosophy.


So,

4. Philosophers have to be made kings. However, such a philosopher-king can't establish a hereditary monarchy for the reasons given in 3 above. Ergo, the next king would have to be selected among worthy philosopher candidates and that invariably involves a vote, a selection process which is precisely what democracy is. Perhaps Socrates would prefer voting rights to be restricted to philosophers; after all he believes only philosophers know how to govern. Even so, the fact remains that the philosopher-king isn't actually a king with hereditary privileges. Au contraire, the philosopher-king is simply a person given the responsibility of running the government for as long as possible, physically and mentally. That means the word "king" in philosopher-king is equivalent to what in US democracy is "president."

Even so, the fact remains that the philosopher-king isn't actually a king with hereditary privileges. Au contraire, the philosopher-king is simply a person given the responsibility of running the government for as long as possible, physically and mentally. That means the word "king" in philosopher-king is equivalent to what in US democracy is "president." — TheMadFool

Not exact equivalent but close.

The Greek term "basileus" did not necessarily mean hereditary ruler. And in some cases, the basileus was a member of a group of tribal chiefs.

Socrates’ philosopher-king would be elected from among the military caste. The (US) president is elected from among the political class (consisting of people with legal or business background).

Another difference would be that Athenian voters were male citizens with military training. So, practically, the military voted for one of their own.

In any case, it seems that Socrates wanted a ruler who was wise and just, and it shouldn't prove too difficult to find one if you have a pool of suitable candidates.

Not exact equivalent but close.

The Greek term "basileus" did not necessarily mean hereditary ruler. And in some cases, the basileus was a member of a group of tribal chiefs.

Socrates’ philosopher-king would be elected from among the military caste. The (US) president is elected from among the political class (consisting of people with legal or business background).

Another difference would be that Athenian voters were male citizens with military training. So, practically, the military voted for one of their own.

In any case, it seems that Socrates wanted a ruler who was wise and just, and it shouldn't prove too difficult to find one if you have a pool of suitable candidates. — Apollodorus

:up:

Not exact equivalent but close.

The Greek term "basileus" did not necessarily mean hereditary ruler. And in some cases, the basileus was a member of a group of tribal chiefs.

Socrates’ philosopher-king would be elected from among the military caste. The (US) president is elected from among the political class (consisting of people with legal or business background).

Another difference would be that Athenian voters were male citizens with military training. So, practically, the military voted for one of their own.

In any case, it seems that Socrates wanted a ruler who was wise and just, and it shouldn't prove too difficult to find one if you have a pool of suitable candidates. — Apollodorus

Basically, king meant something other than how we now understand the term. It calls for caution when we read historical texts for words seem to have different meanings and connotations back when they were written.

I was just thinking about how the conventional meaning of "king" could apply to philosopher-king. If a king and his heirs are brought up in the right philosophical environment, I'm sure we can have a line of hereditary rulers deeply interested in philosophy. Catch 'em young, as they say. I just hope that it doesn't devolve into some kind of brainwashing scheme for children though.

I tend to doubt that they sought political power for themselves. Socrates was the antithesis of politician and he was an old man. I think the basic idea was to influence society, including the political classes, through education, though Plato may have liked to see himself in the role of advisor to political leaders. — Apollodorus

So what were they? The primordial armchair philosophers? I'm being both ironic and not.

The main point, though, is that they succeeded in popularizing philosophy.

I doubt a few men can have such influence, so I'd look for another explanation.

So what were they? The primordial armchair philosophers? I'm being both ironic and not. — baker

Not at all. They saw themselves as influencers through education. Socrates himself was not interested in active politics. As he points out at his trial:

I have had this from my childhood; it is a sort of voice that comes to me, and when it comes it always holds me back from what I am thinking of doing, but never urges me forward. This it is which opposes my engaging in politics (Apol. 31d)

Plato took a more active interest in politics, but he saw himself more in the role of advisor to rulers.

For example, Syracuse on the Italic island of Sicily was at the time the greatest city in the Greek world. Its ruler, Dionysus II, had been converted to Plato’s idea of philosopher-king by his uncle Dion, a powerful figure at the court and a close disciple of Plato.

Dion persuaded Dionysus to invite Plato as his advisor and in 367 BC Plato made his way to Syracuse where he was received with royal honors, and again in 361. Dionysus did implement some of Plato’s political program, and Plato’s philosophy did gain in popularity and prestige but the political intrigues in which his pupils became involved apparently caused him to turn away from politics.

I doubt a few men can have such influence, so I'd look for another explanation. — baker

Though Plato eventually withdrew from politics (he was already over sixty), he was highly influential throughout the Greek world and his pupils enjoyed the patronage of Greek rulers. His pupil Hermias of Atarneus became ruler over several cities in Asia Minor and Plato’s other pupil Aristotle became tutor to young Alexander the Great. He later founded his own school with royal patronage and became famous in his own right. The Greek rulers who succeeded Alexander were keen promoters of Greek culture and learning and built libraries with philosophical works in every major urban center ….