Key Concept
God as God – The phrase “God as God” is basically a synonym for “God the subject.” In other words, it refers to God precisely in God’s status as an incomprehensible divine Other.
Menu
Sometimes, we say things that we don’t mean. We might tell someone that their new haircut looks nice to spare feelings. Or we might apologize even though we don’t think we were in the wrong. The temptation to say things we don’t mean becomes even greater when the stakes are high. What if telling the truth would cause you to lose your job, your best friend, or maybe even your life?
In the Apology, the stakes are very high. Socrates is on trial on some trumped-up charges, and the death penalty is on the table. He doesn’t think he did anything wrong. In fact, he thinks he was doing what was best for the people of Athens. But he could go free if he apologizes and promises to change his ways, even though he doesn’t mean it. If you were in Socrates’ place, and all you had to do was say something you didn’t mean, would you do it?
As we will see, Socrates does offer an apology, but probably not the kind of apology you have in mind. Instead of saying he is sorry, Socrates defends his actions, and says he’s even willing to die for what he has done. But what, exactly, did Socrates do? Why do the Athenians want him dead, and what is he willing to die for?
Plato (425-348 BC) was a Greek philosopher who founded the Academy, a school for philosophers in ancient Athens. Famous for developing his theory of the forms and the practice of Socratic dialogue, Plato is one of the central figures in all of philosophy. The student of Socrates and the teacher of Aristotle, Plato’s thought set the agenda for much of Western philosophy. As A.N. Whitehead, a 19th and 20th century philosopher, once remarked, “The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.”
While the text we are considering was authored by Plato, the Apology is about his teacher Socrates. Much of what we know about Socrates’ philosophical legacy comes to us primarily through the works of Plato, and in the Apology, Socrates is put on trial by the people of Athens. The charges brought against him are closely related to his philosophical approach, making the Apology both an important work of philosophy and a captivating biographical account of Socrates’ last hours. If this reading inspires you to dig deeper, the full Apology of Socrates can be found here.
Apology – a formal defense or justification of an action or belief. A Christian apologist, for example, is someone who defends their faith and seeks to justify it through an appeal to reason.
Socratic Ignorance – an awareness of one’s own ignorance, and the reason that Socrates was deemed wise by the oracle of Delphi. A person who lacks Socratic Ignorance may believe they know many things they actually don’t, leading them to overestimate how well they understand the world
Virtue – a character trait, acquired through habitual practice, that enables one to act well. The virtues can also be thought of as excellences of human character, as they make it possible for us to live a life of flourishing. Examples of the virtues include courage, prudence, and justice
Let’s set the scene. Socrates has been put on trial by the people of Athens, and the accusations are serious. The death penalty is on the table. But they give him a chance to defend himself and respond to the charges. To begin his testimony, Socrates explains why he has gone down a path that landed him in front of this tribunal.
I will begin at the beginning, and ask what the accusation is which has given rise to this slander of me, and which has encouraged Meletus to proceed against me. What do the slanderers say? They shall be my prosecutors, and I will sum up their words in an affidavit. “Socrates is an evil-doer, and a curious person, who searches into things under the earth and in heaven, and he makes the worse appear the better cause; and he teaches the aforesaid doctrines to others […]
I dare say, Athenians, that someone among you will reply, “Why is this, Socrates, and what is the origin of these accusations of you: for there must have been something strange which you have been doing? All this great fame and talk about you would never have arisen if you had been like other men: tell us, then, why this is, as we should be sorry to judge hastily of you.” Now I regard this as a fair challenge, and I will endeavor to explain to you the origin of this name of “wise,” and of this evil fame […]
I will refer you to a witness who is worthy of credit, and will tell you about my wisdom – whether I have any, and of what sort – and that witness shall be the god of Delphi. You must have known Chaerephon; he was early a friend of mine, and also a friend of yours, for he shared in the exile of the people, and returned with you. Well, Chaerephon, as you know, was very impetuous in all his doings, and he went to Delphi and boldly asked the oracle to tell him whether – as I was saying, I must beg you not to interrupt – he asked the oracle to tell him whether there was anyone wiser than I was, and the Pythian prophetess answered that there was no man wiser.
The Apology is not about Socrates saying he is sorry. Rather, it is about him offering another kind of Apology, a formal defense or justification of his actions. In this passage, we see the beginning of his defense. Socrates claims that the oracle of Delphi said he was the wisest man on earth, and as we will see, this prophecy was one of the key events that led to Socrates’ trial.
Surprised by the oracle’s prophecy, Socrates sets out to discover whether he really is the wisest man. Questioning many that have the reputation of wisdom, Socrates finds their answers to be uninspiring, to say the least.
I said to myself, What can the god mean? and what is the interpretation of this riddle? For I know that I have no wisdom, small or great. What can he mean when he says that I am the wisest of men? And yet he is a god and cannot lie; that would be against his nature. After a long consideration, I at last thought of a method of trying the question. I reflected that if I could only find a man wiser than myself, then I might go to the god with a refutation in my hand. I should say to him, “Here is a man who is wiser than I am; but you said that I was the wisest.” Accordingly I went to one who had the reputation of wisdom, and observed to him – his name I need not mention; he was a politician whom I selected for examination – and the result was as follows: When I began to talk with him, I could not help thinking that he was not really wise, although he was thought wise by many, and wiser still by himself; and I went and tried to explain to him that he thought himself wise, but was not really wise; and the consequence was that he hated me, and his enmity was shared by several who were present and heard me. So I left him, saying to myself, as I went away: Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is – for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know […]
After this I went to one man after another, being not unconscious of the enmity which I provoked, and I lamented and feared this: but necessity was laid upon me – the word of god, I thought, ought to be considered first. And I said to myself, go I must to all who appear to know, and find out the meaning of the oracle. And I swear to you, Athenians, by the dog I swear! – for I must tell you the truth – the result of my mission was just this: I found that the men most in repute were all but the most foolish.
The oracle of Delphi said that Socrates was the wisest man, but how is this possible? Socrates himself says that “I neither know nor think that I know.” Philosophers have described this as Socratic Ignorance, an awareness of one’s lack of knowledge. Because Socrates doesn’t think he knows anything, he thinks that the oracle must be mistaken.
But even though Socrates does not claim to know anything, he does have one advantage. Once he begins to look for someone wiser than him, he finds that others overestimate how much they know. In this respect, Socrates is wiser than them because he can recognize his own ignorance. Now, no one likes to be told that they are not really wise or that they don’t actually know what they think they do. So even though Socrates confirms the oracle’s prophecy, he also makes some enemies along the way.
Along with the other charges, Socrates is also accused of corrupting the youth. Not only did his lines of questioning bother the politicians, poets, and rhetoricians, but the young men enjoyed listening to Socrates make the powerful and esteemed people of Athens look foolish.
There is another thing: – young men of the richer classes, who have not much to do, come about me of their own accord; they like to hear the pretenders examined, and they often imitate me, and examine others themselves; there are plenty of persons, as they soon enough discover, who think that they know something, but really know little or nothing: and then those who are examined by them instead of being angry with themselves are angry with me: This confounded Socrates, they say; this villainous misleader of youth! – and then if somebody asks them, Why, what evil does he practise or teach? they do not know, and cannot tell; but in order that they may not appear to be at a loss, they repeat the ready-made charges which are used against all philosophers about teaching things up in the clouds and under the earth, and having no gods, and making the worse appear the better cause; for they do not like to confess that their pretence of knowledge has been detected […]
And this, O men of Athens, is the truth and the whole truth; I have concealed nothing, I have dissembled nothing. And yet I know that this plainness of speech makes them hate me, and what is their hatred but a proof that I am speaking the truth? – this is the occasion and reason of their slander of me, as you will find out either in this or in any future inquiry.
Children ask a lot of questions. Anyone who has had a toddler can tell you that they ask about everything – why rain comes from clouds, why their parents go to work, and why they have to eat their vegetables. And this questioning does not stop as we get older. Teenagers and young adults often question the authorities, whether those authorities be their parents, their teachers, or the state.
Now imagine that you are an Athenian parent and your teenagers are starting to ask questions right as Socrates comes along. Not only does listening to Socrates encourage them to think about the world, but they also start imitating him, questioning all of the authorities in your society. Do you think that you would view Socrates as a helpful teacher, or more as a concerning threat that was undermining their education?
Socrates realized his approach was making him some enemies. So why did he keep questioning people? In this passage, Socrates reveals that he didn’t just learn that he was the wisest man from the god Apollo, but he also believed that he was called by god to be a philosopher.
If you say to me, Socrates, this time we will not mind Anytus, and will let you off, but upon one condition, that are to inquire and speculate in this way any more, and that if you are caught doing this again you shall die; – if this was the condition on which you let me go, I should reply: Men of Athens, I honor and love you; but I shall obey god rather than you, and while I have life and strength I shall never cease from the practice and teaching of philosophy, exhorting anyone whom I meet after my manner, and convincing him, saying: O my friend, why do you who are a citizen of the great and mighty and wise city of Athens, care so much about laying up the greatest amount of money and honor and reputation, and so little about wisdom and truth and the greatest improvement of the soul, which you never regard or heed at all? Are you not ashamed of this? And if the person with whom I am arguing says: Yes, but I do care; I do not depart or let him go at once; I interrogate and examine and cross-examine him, and if I think that he has no Virtue, but only says that he has, I reproach him with undervaluing the greater, and overvaluing the less. And this I should say to everyone whom I meet, young and old, citizen and alien, but especially to the citizens, inasmuch as they are my brethren. For this is the command of god, as I would have you know; and I believe that to this day no greater good has ever happened in the state than my service to the god. For I do nothing but go about persuading you all, old and young alike, not to take thought for your persons and your properties, but first and chiefly to care about the greatest improvement of the soul. I tell you that virtue is not given by money, but that from virtue come money and every other good of man, public as well as private. This is my teaching, and if this is the doctrine which corrupts the youth, my influence is ruinous indeed.
Here we can see that Socrates not only questioned people to prove that he was the wisest person around, but also to help them grow in virtue. For Socrates virtue is more important, and more fundamental, than having fame or fortune. If a person is virtuous, then this can lead to many other good things like wealth and social status, but it is virtue that is more foundational than these other goods.
So Socrates knows that his questioning makes others hate him, and he knows that his trial is a result of his questioning, but he also thinks that obeying god, and living a life of virtue, is more important than always getting along with everyone. In fact, Socrates tells the Athenians that they are lucky to have an annoyance like him around.
And now, Athenians, I am not going to argue for my own sake, as you may think, but for yours, that you may not sin against the god, or lightly reject his boon by condemning me. For if you kill me you will not easily find another like me, who, if I may use such a ludicrous figure of speech, am a sort of gadfly, given to the state by the god; and the state is like a great and noble steed who is tardy in his motions owing to his very size, and requires to be stirred into life. I am that gadfly which god has given the state and all day long and in all places am always fastening upon you, arousing and persuading and reproaching you.
In this passage, Socrates compares himself to a gadfly for the city of Athens. Gadflies are annoying, and require constant swatting to keep them at bay. Likewise, Socrates is annoying, which has led the Athenian citizens to finally bring him to trial to put a stop to his constant pestering.
Martin Luther King Jr. recognized the need for gadflies in society. In his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”, written in the midst of the civil rights movement, King compared nonviolent protestors to Socratic gadflies: “Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths […] we must see the need of having nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men to rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.” Even though criticism can often be unpleasant, social critics like Socrates and Martin Luther King Jr. can awaken us to truths that we don’t want to acknowledge.
Socrates has already told us one of the reasons that he doesn’t plan on changing – he believes that the god Apollo has called him to be a philosopher. But another reason is that he thinks that part of what makes life worthwhile thinking deeply about our commitments and our lives.
I will not say of myself that I deserve any evil, or propose any penalty. Why should I? […] Someone will say: Yes, Socrates, but cannot you hold your tongue, and then you may go into a foreign city, and no one will interfere with you? Now I have great difficulty in making you understand my answer to this. For if I tell you that this would be a disobedience to a divine command, and therefore that I cannot hold my tongue, you will not believe that I am serious; and if I say again that the greatest good of man is daily to converse about virtue, and all that concerning which you hear me examining myself and others, and that the life which is unexamined is not worth living – that you are still less likely to believe.
In this passage, Socrates answers those who suggest that he go into exile and give up philosophy once and for all, leading to perhaps his most famous quote. According to Socrates, he would rather die than give up participating in a philosophical community, as he claims that the unexamined life is not worth living.
At the beginning of this reading, we considered what sorts of things would be worth dying for. Throughout his trial, Socrates was faced with precisely this question. Would he make an insincere apology and stop doing philosophy in order to save his life? Surprisingly, Socrates seems to think that saying something he doesn’t mean would be a fate worse than death…
I would have you know that, if you kill such a one as I am, you will injure yourselves more than you will injure me. Meletus and Anytus will not injure me: they cannot; for it is not in the nature of things that a bad man should injure a better than himself. I do not deny that he may, perhaps, kill him, or drive him into exile, or deprive him of civil rights; and he may imagine, and others may imagine, that he is doing him a great injury: but in that I do not agree with him; for the evil of doing as Anytus is doing – of unjustly taking away another man’s life – is greater far […]
You think that I was convicted through deficiency of words – I mean, that if I had thought fit to leave nothing undone, nothing unsaid, I might have gained an acquittal. Not so; the deficiency which led to my conviction was not of words – certainly not. But I had not the boldness or impudence or inclination to address you as you would have liked me to address you, weeping and wailing and lamenting, and saying and doing many things which you have been accustomed to hear from others, and which, as I say, are unworthy of me. But I thought that I ought not to do anything common or mean in the hour of danger: nor do I now repent of the manner of my defence, and I would rather die having spoken after my manner, than speak in your manner and live. For neither in war nor yet at law ought any man to use every way of escaping death. For often in battle there is no doubt that if a man will throw away his arms, and fall on his knees before his pursuers, he may escape death; and in other dangers there are other ways of escaping death, if a man is willing to say and do anything. The difficulty, my friends, is not in avoiding death, but in avoiding unrighteousness; for that runs faster than death. I am old and move slowly, and the slower runner has overtaken me, and my accusers are keen and quick, and the faster runner, who is unrighteousness, has overtaken them. And now I depart hence condemned by you to suffer the penalty of death, and they, too, go their ways condemned by the truth to suffer the penalty of villainy and wrong.
In this passage, Socrates makes some bold claims. He acknowledges that his accusers can injure him in many ways – that they can deprive him of his civil rights, exile him, or even kill him. But he also says that, by doing these things, they would suffer an even worse injury. Socrates then goes on to say that he is not even willing to tell his story while “weeping and wailing and lamenting” to be spared by the Athenians because he is more focused on avoiding unrighteousness than he is to avoid death. What do you think? Is it worse to commit an injustice, like executing an innocent person, or is it worse to have an injustice done to you?
The trial has been decided. Socrates is found guilty, and he is sentenced to death. And in the face of his execution, Socrates considers how he should be feeling. Should he fear death? And if so, why?
Let us reflect in another way, and we shall see that there is great reason to hope that death is a good, for one of two things: – either death is a state of nothingness and utter unconsciousness, or, as men say, there is a change and migration of the soul from this world to another. Now if you suppose that there is no consciousness, but a sleep like the sleep of him who is undisturbed even by the sight of dreams, death will be an unspeakable gain. For if a person were to select the night in which his sleep was undisturbed even by dreams, and were to compare with this the other days and nights of his life, and then were to tell us how many days and nights he had passed in the course of his life better and more pleasantly than this one, I think that any man, I will not say a private man, but even the great king, will not find many such days or nights, when compared with the others. Now if death is like this, I say that to die is gain; for eternity is then only a single night.
But if death is the journey to another place, and there, as men say, all the dead are, what good, O my friends and judges, can be greater than this? If indeed when the pilgrim arrives in the world below, he is delivered from the professors of justice in this world, and finds the true judges who are said to give judgment there, Minos and Rhadamanthus and Aeacus and Triptolemus, and other sons of god who were righteous in their own life, that pilgrimage will be worth making. What would not a man give if he might converse with Orpheus and Musaeus and Hesiod and Homer? Nay, if this be true, let me die again and again. I, too, shall have a wonderful interest in a place where I can converse with Palamedes, and Ajax the son of Telamon, and other heroes of old, who have suffered death through an unjust judgment; and there will be no small pleasure, as I think, in comparing my own sufferings with theirs. Above all, I shall be able to continue my search into true and false knowledge; as in this world, so also in that; I shall find out who is wise, and who pretends to be wise, and is not. What would not a man give, O judges, to be able to examine the leader of the great Trojan expedition; or Odysseus or Sisyphus, or numberless others, men and women too! What infinite delight would there be in conversing with them and asking them questions! For in that world they do not put a man to death for this; certainly not. For besides being happier in that world than in this, they will be immortal, if what is said is true.
The hour of departure has arrived, and we go our ways – I to die, and you to live. Which is better god only knows.
Here Socrates argues that, even though most of us do, we need not fear death. As Socrates sees it, death can mean either we fall into a state that is like eternal sleep or we journey to another world, and he thinks that both options might actually be a good thing! Here is the structure of his argument:
Premise 1: Death is either a state of nothingness or a journey to another world
Premise 2: If death is a state of nothingness, then we do not need to fear death
Premise 3: If death is a journey to another world, then we do not need to fear death
Conclusion: We do not need to fear death
The argument is valid, meaning that if its premises are true, then the conclusion is true. So what do you think of Socrates premises? Are there any that look questionable, or do they all strike you as true? If you agree with Socrates’ argument, then maybe death isn’t something to be feared after all.
Throughout his trial, Socrates is honest and straightforward. He responds to his accusers, explaining why the charges are inaccurate and what led to his somewhat strange behavior. Socrates thought that philosophy was good for the people of Athens, and he wanted to help them live lives of virtue. But Socrates also makes it clear that, if he is released, he will go right back to doing what he was doing before and that he is prepared to die rather than giving up his approach to philosophy.
For a summary of Socrates’ trial along with some reflections on whether Socrates is right that only the examined life is worth living, check out this video from a philosophy professor:
If you are interested in learning more about the life and philosophical views of Socrates, you can check out articles at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or read more of Plato’s dialogues as they feature Socrates as the main protagonist.
This work has been adapted from the Apology, a title from the MIT Internet Classics Archive. This work is in the Public Domain. All images were created using Midjourney and are the property of the Philosophy Teaching Library.
Siscoe, Robert Weston. 2024. “No Apologies: Plato’s The Apology of Socrates.” The Philosophy Teaching Library. Edited by Robert Weston Siscoe, <https://philolibrary.crc.nd.edu/article/no-apologies/>.
God as God – The phrase “God as God” is basically a synonym for “God the subject.” In other words, it refers to God precisely in God’s status as an incomprehensible divine Other.
Incarnation – The Christian doctrine of the incarnation is the notion that the word of God became fully human in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. It is closely associated with the doctrine of the trinity, which asserts that God the Father, God the Son (Jesus as the word made flesh), and God the Holy Spirit are one God.
Religious Fanaticism – In Feuerbach’s use of the term, a religious fanatic is someone who is unwaveringly faithful to God as an utterly mysterious superhuman being. They subordinate other things—especially the love of other humans—to submission before this divine other.
God the Subject – When Feuerbach refers to God as a subject, he is referring to the commonplace religious belief that God is a being who has various attributes, like a loving nature.
Faith Separates Man From God – Faith separates God from man in this sense: it treats God as a mysterious other, a being radically distinct from us.
Faith – Belief in and fidelity to a transcendent divine subject like God.
Orthodoxy – Orthodoxy refers to “right belief,” and it is concern with identifying heresies and ensuring that people believe and practice correctly.
Indirect Form of Self-Knowledge – Feuerbach’s view is that religious belief is a naive way of relating to our human nature and its perfections. It is naive or childlike because it treats these as external realities that belong to God. He believes a mature and contemplative person realizes these don’t belong to God, but rather to our species, abstractly conceived.
Above the Individual Man – The human perfections are “above the individual” insofar as no particular individual ever perfectly realizes them. They are abstractions.
Divine Trinity – Feuerbach is having fun here. He is using the theological phrasing of the Trinity to talk about human perfections. In calling reason, love, and freedom of the will “divine,” he means they are absolutely good; they are activities whose goodness is intrinsic to their practice or exercise. This isn’t a novel philosophical view. For example, Immanuel Kant argued that autonomy or a good will is the only thing which is unconditionally good.
Perfections – The end to which a faculty or power is ordered. For example, omniscience would be the perfection of the intellect. Traditionally, God is said to possess all perfections.
Love – When Feuerbach writes about love, he is referring to unconditional concern for others and the desire for fellowship with them. He is here asserting that love, understood in this sense, is the perfect activity of the affective faculty. In other words, our feelings and passions are fully actualized and engaged in an intrinsically valuable activity when we genuinely love others.
Infinite – The infinite is whatever can be understood as unbounded or unlimited. Human nature in the abstract is unbounded and unlimited. It is only bounded or limited in its concrete form as it is realized by particular material individuals.
Higher Consciousness – The sort of consciousness that mature human beings possess, but which other animals do not. It is “higher” than animal consciousness because it involves thinking abstractly about the form or essence of things.
Science – Feuerbach uses the term science in its classical sense, meaning systematically organized knowledge. Any body of knowledge founded on an understanding of first principles and the essences of things is a science in this sense.
Popular Sovereignty – The view that a government’s authority to rule comes from the people, making a ruler subject to the will of their citizens.
The Divine Right of Kings – The theory that kings are chosen by God and thus that political revolt is a rebellion against the will of God.
Synthesis – The prefix ‘syn-’ means “together,” so a synthesis “brings together” or combines elements of both a thesis and its antithesis.
Antithesis– An antithesis is the contradiction of a thesis. For example, internationalism could be understood as the antithesis of nationalism.
Thesis – In Hegelian terms, a thesis can be understood as a position or theory. Examples include any of the “-isms” that we discuss in science, history, and philosophy, such as Darwinism, capitalism, nationalism, etc.
Progressor’s Temptation – a unique temptation for those making progress in which pride impedes their further progress and leads to backsliding.
Progressors – those who are not yet expert Stoic practitioners, but who are also aware of the fact that they must change their lives in that direction. They are working on making progress.
Intellectualism – the philosophical view that our motivations and emotions are all judgments. The reason why you do something, your motivation, is because you believe it’s the right thing to do. The reason why you feel good or bad about something, an emotion, is because you believe that something good or bad happened to you.
Duties – acts of service, obedience, and respect that we owe to each other. The duties we owe to each other depend on what kind of relationship we have.
Askeses – exercises of Stoic thought and practice that make the lessons and habits of Stoic philosophy second-nature for Stoic practitioners.
Externals – things that are not under our control but that are all-too-easily confused with things that should be important to us, like wealth, status, and pleasure. Too many people believe externals like these are necessary for the good life, and the Stoic path is to focus not on these things but rather what is up to us.
The Fundamental Division – the division between things that are under our direct control and those that are not. The important lesson is to care only about the things we can control.
The Greatest Happiness Principle – A principle which says that actions are right insofar as they promote happiness and wrong insofar as they promote unhappiness