Plato’s Meno - What is virtue?

The ancient ruins of the Parthenon, Athens, Greece

The following analysis of Plato’s Meno is based on the translation of G.M.A Grube, found in The Complete Works of Plato, edited by John M. Cooper.

Common in most Platonic dialogues, there is a preface or build-up of some sort regarding a conversation that is to be had on a given subject. However, what we find in Meno is no introduction at all; rather, it starts fairly abruptly by Meno promptly asking Socrates, Can virtue be taught? Can we learn it by practice, or do some people have it by nature, and therefore it can neither be taught nor gained by experience? 

Meno is a very important interlocutor within this dialogue. Meno hails from Thessaly, which is friendly to Athens, of which they share common political interests. The significance of the interlocutor of Meno cannot be understated. Meno is a young man looking to embark on a long career in politics, and as such, would naturally want to know what virtue is. The reason for this is that how Meno displays said virtue directly affects his political career, which he so desires. So, to have a long one, not only does he have to be virtuous in his leadership, but he has to know what virtue is. This is crucial for Meno because whether he has virtue directly affects how he leads and governs others, through a political position. As such, he has come to speak to Socrates about the nature of virtue, so he can have a good and prosperous career in politics. A quick note to add, Meno comes from an aristocratic family and by nature is aristocratic. What is interesting to point out here is that Socrates, growing up in a democratic society, was suspected of leaning towards being aristocratic in his political views. Though he wasn’t, he was thought to be sympathetic to the aristocracy of his day.

Socrates’ association with prominent citizens, such as Alcibiades and Critias, often leads to interpretations of him as embracing certain aristocratic ideals. This becomes all the more apparent when we realise that Alcibiades, driven by personal gain and power, defected to Sparta and was seen as a traitor by the Athenians. Whereas Critias was one of the thirty tyrants who overthrew the democratic regime. Nonetheless, Socrates’ disdain for wealth and status, as evident in his teachings, aligns more closely with a democratic ethos than with aristocratic principles. He famously stated that “the unexamined life is not worth living,” promoting a life of virtue and wisdom over one of privilege. Caring very little for wealth, property, and fame, he cared more for wisdom and virtue. This strong desire for wisdom and virtue and disdain for wealth and luxuries doesn't allow for him to be aristocratic in his social standings nor beliefs.

Socrates’ ideals were more in line with a wise and virtuous life, and such a state ought to be governed by said principles. This lies in stark contrast with the democratic (rule by the many) and with the aristocracy (ruled by a family). As such, Socrates wouldn’t have advocated for either regime, because they both clash with his ideals. Socrates didn’t believe power should reside with the majority without recourse to wisdom and reason. Likewise, he wouldn’t believe power should lie with someone just because they come from a certain family, because said family doesn’t always have a recourse to wisdom and virtue. However, the life of being guided by wisdom and virtue is indifferent to both regimes.

Having covered a little context where there was none, let’s discuss the nature of virtue, according to Socrates and Meno. 

The discussion begins

So, as mentioned, Meno begins the discussion by asking Socrates, Can virtue be taught, learned through experience, or is it something inherent that only a few possess. To which, Socrates, in rather Socratic irony, says he doesn’t know what virtue is, never mind its nature. This is very much in line with Socrates in how he believes he doesn’t know anything. Had he provided an answer, it would assume that he knows what virtue is, when he doesn't. So, as a compromise, Socrates and Meno undergo the Socratic method to determine what virtue is. To demonstrate his ignorance regarding virtue, he provides an example. The example being, if Socrates doesn’t know Meno, can he also describe qualities peculiar to Meno that are true? The answer is no. In like manner, Socrates, not knowing what virtue is, cannot describe its nature.

The interesting thing about Socrates professing not to know anything (in this case, virtue) is that he is acutely aware of the limitations of his knowledge. Where he is deemed wise, much to his dismay, is his sheer awareness of this. Furthermore, even if Socrates knows what virtue is and its nature, rather than giving a straight answer, he invites others into a dialectical discussion. By doing so, Socrates believed that by using his Socratic method, he could elicit the truth out of someone and himself. As will be demonstrated later on, this form of questioning is a type of wise guidance. So, Socrates endeavors to put Meno under this form of wise guidance. To which Socrates begins by asking Meno what virtue is, since Socrates is in dire ignorance.

Menos’ first answer - virtue is acting in one’s natural role

Meno’ first answer as to why virtue is a form of natural duty that one has to do, which is by their sex or stage of life. As such, Meno’s response sees virtue as a dynamic duty that scales with sex, age, activity, and profession in life. We can see that virtue, at least according to Menos’ first response, is relative to the individual, which scales following where they are in life. To better illustrate his point, he gives many examples for men, women, children, etc, which are the following;

For a man, virtue is the ability to manage public affairs, of which by doing so he benefits his friends and harms his enemies, whilst avoiding harm to himself. The virtue of a woman is to take care of the household, preserve the possessions, and be submissive to their husbands. Of which this different kind of virtue goes for a child, an elderly slave, etc. It is quite evident here that Meno sees virtue as a natural function that one must act and perform a duty by their natural endowment. No matter the station, sex, or occupation in life, one, according to Meno, must act from their natural virtue. For a politician, it would be to enact laws, etc. In my mind, it seems as though Meno has both a natural virtue in mind, that of men and women, but also a profession or occupation of virtue, too. In this way, I believe Meno’s first answer is based on a dynamic and changing view of virtue, which isn’t inherently static. This dynamic and relative view on virtue is at odds with someone who believes there is a universal virtue that we all ought to attain, which is the same for everyone, and therefore is fixed and absolute. 

This first answer, being relative, seems like one can virtue as subjective, without being subject to a universal standard. But this response is overly simplistic and vague. In effect, it doesn’t describe what virtue is, but rather an example of virtuous actions. Furthermore, this conforms to relativism, which can lead to a misunderstanding as to what virtue is by nature.

Whilst Socrates finds Meno’s response somewhat admirable, Socrates is looking for what virtue is, not a multitude of examples of virtue. In essence, Socrates wants to get at the very heart of what virtue is; there may be many virtues, but Socrates is more concerned with virtue in and of itself, not a part of it. To clarify what Socrates means by this question, he suggests that if one was looking to understand the nature of bees, one wouldn’t say how bees differ from one another; they would describe the nature of a bee that applies to ALL bees. Socrates, to drive home his point to Meno, provides many more virtues that apply to both men and women, children, and slaves. Some of these include strength, health. It is evident that Socrates is not interested in the semantics and examples of a thing, but what the thing is, that universal and applies to all, including their examples of said thing. 

What can be seen based on this first answer is a difference between arriving at the truth of virtue and things in general. Meno is concerned here with arguing from a particular and working his way up to understanding what virtue is. As such, Meno arrives at a relative take on virtue by giving examples of virtue relative to one’s sex, profession, and natural endowment. Socrates, on the contrary, believes virtue is a universal standard applicable to all that included potential additional aspects of virtue. Socrates is concerned about what virtue is, which supersedes all examples, as the parts are a part of the whole. Socrates is interested in the whole, not the part of virtue. Based on this, though admirable and generous, on these grounds, Socrates finds Meno’s first response inadequate.

Meno’s second answer - justice and how virtue is ruling over others

Having discussed why Menos’ first response wasn’t sufficient to define virtue, the conversation shifts to ruling over others, to which justice is discussed.

Both Meno and Socrates go on to discuss the nature of ruling a household and ruling a city. What immediately comes to mind is justice. Both men agree that justice with moderation is needed in ruling a household and a city, to which failure to have such traits would imply that the city and household cannot be run well. So, what is evident justice is a necessary component when it comes to ruling over people. Remember, this conversation of leadership appeals strongly to a young Meno who is looking for a career in politics. Justice is key because it falls under virtue. So if one were to rule justly, they would, by extension, be virtuous. By ignorant and a lack of virtue would lead a state and person to ruin, whereas virtue would lead it to grow, health, and prosperity. 

So, it is agreed between both Socrates and Meno that justice and moderation are key to ruling well, whether that is over a city or a household, all is the same. Furthermore, it is also agreed that both men and women, young and old, can possess moderation and justice. Since justice and moderation, and others are a part of virtue, which are the same irrespective of sex or profession, anyone can have virtue. But as we have previously shown, Socrates is not looking for a part of virtue, which justice and moderation are, but what virtue is as a whole. Socrates and Meno agree that by possessing virtue and its qualities, such as justice, they are good, but if they lack the qualities and, by extension, virtue, they are bad. After briefly discussing the qualities and virtues and virtue is the same regardless of sex and otherwise, Meno suggests that virtue is ruling over others.

Socrates unsurprisingly views this second answer as insufficient and, here’s why. 

As has been demonstrated prior in the conversation with Meno, anybody who possesses the qualities of virtue is virtuous by nature. This universal application applies to a slave also, but a slave is also someone who is ruled and not a ruler, yet, as Meno admits, anyone can possess virtue, including slaves. For example, a slave can be just and moderate, and good. But according to Meno, virtue is ruling over others, but how can this be so for a slave? Meno appears to contradict himself, because on the one hand he says, virtue can be possessed by anyone, yet virtue is ruling over others, which a slave is ruled by.

By using this example, Meno either has to abandon one of two positions. He either has to part ways with the virtue is ruling over others or virtue can be held by anyone; he parts ways with the former. This is proven more evident when we consider that people who rule can become bad tyrants and lack virtue. Therefore, virtue cannot be simply ruling over others, so Meno compromises and suggests that virtue is ruling justly, which rules out a bad man. Seems reasonable, but again, Socrates is not satisfied; it appears we come full circle back to the last objection of Meno’s first answer. The issue at hand is that Socrates is not looking for a part of virtue to describe what virtue is as a whole, but rather its whole. So, since justice is a part of virtue, this answer of ruling justly is ruled out in describing what virtue is. Simply ruling wasn’t enough, nor is ruling with justice enough to define virtue, the former because anyone can rule, including bad people. Nor is it the latter since justice is a part of virtue, but we want to know what virtue is that applies to all parts of virtue, including justice. 

I believe Socrates is correct in raising such objections. We want to know what virtue is as a whole, not its parts, which Meno has only provided. Virtue is a universal standard that governs all good actions and qualities of actions. But we cannot understand virtue as a whole by only look at examples of it. When we want to understand a chair, we cannot simply look at one leg. We need to see all its parts, and the essence of what gives the name, chair. 

Yet again, Socrates, to drive home this point to Meno regarding parts of virtue, of those that are not of interest to Socrates in relation to finding what virtue is as a whole. Socrates provides even more examples, this time using shapes and colour as an example.

Say, for instance, one wanted to know what shape and colour are, we wouldn’t give an example of a shape or colour, but rather define what colour and shape are that apply to all shapes and all colours. For example, when asking someone what a shape is, and they say circle, they wouldn't be describing what a shape is that describes all shapes, but only an example using circles. For Socrates, the part doesn’t define the whole, but the whole defines the part. 

So far, the answers provided have proven to be insufficient for Socrates, because they describe the part of virtue and not its whole, of which Socrates is more interested. Ruling over others is an unsatisfactory answer because both a slave and a ruler can possess virtue, of which also being just is not a correct answer because it gives a part of virtue (justice) to describe its whole (virtue). Having been refuted Meno proceeds to provide a different answer as to what virtue is. It is quite evident, based on what we have seen so far is that Socrates is arguing from a universal perspective, in which a definition or nature of a thing describes its potential parts. Socrates is less interested in the parts when describing what a thing is in and of itself. Meno uses particulars to describe what the whole is. Both men aim to understand what virtue is, but from different approaches. Socrates wants a fixed definition of what something is; Meno inclines to a more relativistic approach, in which definition and application of virtue vary.

Let’s move on to the third answer, which Meno gives.

Menos’ third answer - virtue is desiring beautiful things and the power to acquire them

Following on from the previous answers, Meno suggests that virtue is desiring beautiful things and having the power to acquire them. Socrates and Meno then agree that people can desire good and bad things. Moreover, it is agreed that some people know what is good and desire it, while some people desire what they think is good but is bad. In the case of the latter, they lack true knowledge of what it is they desire, because whilst thinking it to be good, it is bad. And as we have seen, what is good is virtuous, what is bad is not.

So, if a man attains what is bad, they are not virtuous, and therefore, simply desiring beautiful things and having the power to do so cannot be virtue by itself. This is because if someone lacks the knowledge of what they believe to be beautiful, they unwittingly attain what is bad. So, to simply suggest that virtue is desiring what is beautiful isn’t sound when one lacks true knowledge. With this lack of knowledge, the ignorant man won’t know how much harm a bad thing he desires that he believes to be good. For all he knows, what he is desiring is good, but in reality it is bad, but owing to his ignorance of it being bad, he lacks the knowledge of what harm he could do to himself.

Furthermore, it is noted that if a man doesn't know that a thing is bad, he cannot desire what is bad, because he lacks knowledge of what is bad. Likewise, he wouldn’t know what is good if he were ignorant of what is good. Seeing as though what is evil brings misery and harm, it can hardly be supposed that someone willingly wants things that are harmful and cause misery to himself. So, seeing as though misery and harm are bad, to which nobody would consciously desire, no one desires what is bad. They get what is bad by being ignorant of the knowledge of what is bad.

Based on what has been said thus far, the desiring aspect of Meno’s answer is called into question. Socrates notes how anyone has the desire for anything, whether young or old, wise or ignorant. And seeing as though this desiring aspect is shared by anybody, including a ignorant man, they can desire what is bad unknowingly which, as we have seen, is virtue, because virtue is what is good. So, to put it simply, virtue cannot simply be a desire for beautiful things. But what about the power to acquire these things in Meno’s response?

So, having disputed virtue as simply desiring beautiful things, Socrates asks Meno, Is virtue the power to acquire beautiful things, to which Meno says, Yes. Well, as with the first part of his statement, Socrates also sees fault in this part as well.

To better clarify what he means, Socrates probes Meno, to which he is asked to do just that, to clarify what he means. Socrates asks, Do these beautiful things include health and wealth? To which Meno says yes. What about gold and silver? Yes. But seeing as though a bad or ignorant man can possess such power to attain these things, whilst lacking true knowledge of what is truly beautiful. Socrates and Meno then agree that an element of impiety and injustice when acquiring said things is wickedness. To which, as was agreed upon before, virtue is what is good, and injustice is bad. Virtue is not injustice so therefore, an unjust man cannot possess virtue. With this in mind, we can see how someone with the power to acquire things can have either virtue or injustice and is therefore good or bad, respectively. So, simply saying virtue is the power to acquire these things is not enough. 

So, as a compromise, Meno and Socrates suggest that virtue is acquiring these things whilst being just and moderate, but here lies a problem: Meno is providing Socrates with a part of virtue to describe virtue as a whole. Socrates, as mentioned, is not looking at it as parts to define virtue. So, as a result, they are back to square one again.

Meno so far has only provided Socrates with parts, actions, to qualities of virtue, not what virtue is as a whole. All of which have been proven to be insufficient in defining what virtue is as a whole. It appears that both men are at a loss as to what virtue is. After some friendly jabs and jokes, with which Meno suggests Socrates is like a torpedo fish, and Socrates describes how truly perplexed he is, both men return to the issue at hand once more. A quick thing to note about the perplexed state Socrates finds himself in. Socrates is accused by Meno that he intentionally perplexes others, to which he is like a Torpedo fish, stinging anyone he comes across with perplexity. In defending himself, Socrates suggests he doesn’t do this on purpose, because he is genuinely perplexed about such things. As a result, others share this state of perplexity, which this state, comes from Socrates not knowing anything. As such, Socrates invites people to join him on his quest for truth, which they agree to, which can be perplexing. 

The theory of recollection

Socrates and Meno are at this point utterly at a loss as to what virtue is; Socrates and Meno are as perplexed as each other. What has been described so far are parts of virtue, or things that are not virtue. As such, Meno returns to the original question with which we opened up the dialogue with. Meno asks Socrates once more, Is virtue taught, is it what we already have, or do we get it through experience? Socrates agrees to return to this point, but Meno complains that if a man knows what he knows, he does not need to search for the thing he already knows. However, if he does not know, how can he search for something that he does not know? Socrates disagrees with this line of argument and endeavors to show why.

It is here that we come to the infamous theory of recollection, though found in greater detail elsewhere in The Phaedo, a brief discussion is found here. Socrates mentions how he has heard many poets and diviners talk about how the soul is immortal. The soul is again and again reborn, collecting knowledge of previous lifetimes; as such, any form of learning or knowledge we attain is from a previous life. When we “learn new knowledge,” we are merely recollecting what we already know. For Socrates, we don’t learn, but rather remember the knowledge that lies latent within our immortal soul. To demonstrate this, Socrates asks Meno to bring over one of Meno’s house attendants to prove this notion.  

A depiction of Socrates

So, to prove his point, Socrates provides a series of mathematical and geometrical puzzles to solve. Although a little hesitant, the young attendant agrees and takes part. The whole point of the exercise was for Socrates to draw out of the young man the latent knowledge he has within his soul regarding these puzzles. Previously and throughout the exercise, the young man didn’t know about certain problems, yet with a little questioning, Socrates was able to elicit correct answers out of him. All this was done on the boy’s account, without anyone giving him any correct answers to help him.

Socrates assures Meno that with the correct questions to guide someone, we can elicit any true answer we can out of someone, namely because their soul has said knowledge about these things. So, at first, a man would claim that he doesn’t know (forgetting the knowledge within his soul), but in time, with correct questioning, we extract the correct answers out of him. In doing so, a man can come to know what he previously didn’t know, again, re-remembering what the soul already knows. This is shown in the case of the attendant coming to true knowledge about the puzzles and revealing correct answers by the Socratic method.

Socrates and Meno agree that if the soul knows and has such knowledge about say, mathematics, they must have always possessed it. But if they have not been taught this in this life, yet they have always had this knowledge, then they must have had it before birth. When agreed, the only other answer is that the soul is immortal and has always possessed such knowledge in previous lifetimes, which is carried over into this one. 

In somewhat of a long and arduous way, Socrates has answered how to attain knowledge, mainly through recollection. We have answered the question of whether a man can come to know what he didn’t already know, namely, through recollection. So yes, a man can come to know what he previously didn’t know by learning, but by learning we mean recollection of the latent knowledge we have within the soul. 

This, at a glance, seems quite satisfactory; however, they have not described what virtue is, but rather they have described its qualities, and knowledge is recollection. They have both described what knowledge is and how we attain it. But Socrates is still in doubt as to whether virtue is knowledge. Meno again urges Socrates to return to the original question, but Socrates is reluctant because Meno is asking for qualities of virtue, not what virtue is as a whole. However, Socrates relents and endeavors to question Meno more.

Is virtue knowledge? And is it teachable?

I believe, thus far, that Socrates has answered the question as to whether virtue is innate, which it is. The reason for it being innate is that the soul experiences many lifetimes and has gained knowledge and experiences, including virtue. Though Socrates doesn’t believe that people are virtuous by nature, simply because we forget at birth the prior knowledge we had, including virtue. However, virtue is latent within the soul; the reason we are not virtuous is that we forget this bit of knowledge. It is only until someone “learns (remembers)” this innate knowledge of virtue that we become virtuous. Socrates goes on to say that a man who does not know, already knows within him, but at the time of lacking knowledge (not knowing), he is unaware of this latent knowledge which he already has. With guided questioning, the man who did not know can come to know what he has always known. But if we have always had this knowledge within the soul, it must have lived many lifetimes, therefore making it immortal.

With this in mind, we return to the dialogue in which both Meno and Socrates try to answer the question of whether virtue is thought or not.

First, they endeavor to answer whether virtue is a form of knowledge and, therefore, teachable. It is agreed by Socrates and Meno that knowledge is something that can be taught. So, if virtue is a form of knowledge, it can, by extension, be taught. However, if virtue isn’t knowledge, then it is not teachable. With this in mind, they get into the discussion concerning whether virtue is knowledge. 

Virtue, it is agreed, is what is good, and as such, makes one good and gains all sorts of good benefits from being virtuous. It is also understood that knowledge is a form of good, but if virtue being good is separate and different from knowledge, then it isn’t knowledge. However, if both virtue and knowledge are good as agreed, and knowledge encompasses all goods, including virtue, then virtue is knowledge. With this in view, Socrates begins to work off this framework, namely, whether virtue is a good separate from knowledge or a part of knowledge that also makes it good. If it turns out that knowledge encompasses virtue, then it is knowledge and can be thought. If, however, it is separate from knowledge and good independent of it, then it is not knowledge but something else. Virtue and knowledge share in common with what is good; that much is agreed. 

Socrates and Meno begin to use this framework to see whether virtue is knowledge and thus teachable.

To begin with, Socrates names off a few of many things that benefits us, whilst at the same time they can bring us harm. For example, courage is an innately good virtue, but too much courage, too much of this good thing, can bring us harm, namely by being too rash and reckless. This dualistic nature of what is good can also what bring harm is exemplified more when incorrect use of these things occurs. As such, it is quickly understood that a certain level of understanding of this nature and how to put them to use properly is what is needed. This correct understanding is what Socrates believes to be wisdom.

Thus, having wisdom being the director and guide for the good use of these benefits is what is necessary. Ignorance leads to incorrect use of said benefits. Here, we can see yet again how a man can see that being courageous is good. Yet, being ignorant of too much courage, he fails to see how it can harm him. So, it is understood that one who is guided by wisdom attains happiness and what is good and beneficial. For those who are ignorant, they will be guided to a miserable life. Socrates here suggests that virtue is a kind of wisdom, because virtue and wisdom are what guide a person. But if wisdom is knowledge, and virtue is a part of wisdom, then virtue is knowledge. 

However, we again come to a stumbling block, namely, because Socrates doubts whether virtue is taught. His reasoning for this is simple. Both Meno and Socrates name off a bunch of people who were thought to be virtuous. As an example of many, they use Themistocles and his son Cleophantus. Both men agree that Themistocles was a good and virtuous man, and his son was good at riding horses, yet when it comes to virtuous deeds and actions, Themistocles’ son was ignorant of them. From this, Socrates suggests that if virtue were teachable, it is most likely that Themistocles would’ve taught his son virtue, but he didn't. Socrates and Meno acknowledge that there is great confusion and debate within the intellectual circles, whether virtue can be taught; some think it can, others don’t think it can be taught. And so, if there is no general agreement about this, for Socrates, it means there are no teachers of virtue, since they cannot agree whether it can be taught or not. And since there are no teachers, it cannot be taught.

It is also agreed that many profess to teach a certain knowledge, such as virtue, yet when examined and questioned on the matter, they lack true knowledge of virtue. In a word, they give of the appearance of having virtue and can teach it, yet when describe what virtue is, they have no clue. We can clearly say that this is a problem; these people think that they know what virtue is and claim to teach it, but being misguided by what it is and having known knowledge of it, they do not know what virtue is.

I believe in affect this is what they describe as a sophist, of which many of them proclaim to teach what they do not know. Again, thanks to ignorance and what they think is right, lacking in wisdom, which the great guide, they miss the mark on virtue. So in a sense, those who claim to know what virtue is, lacking in wisdom, provide an opinion, not true knowledge of what virtue is. So, lacking in wisdom, to which they lack the knowledge of what they profess to teach, they neither know nor are they able to teach about the given subject they believe to know so much about. And seeing as though one cannot teach what one does not know, he is not a teacher because he is unable to convey true knowledge, which is teachable.

Seeing this is the case with virtue also, both Socrates and Meno seem to agree that there are no teachers of virtue.

Wisdom is the correct guide to virtue

Socrates and Meno seem to conclude that since there are no teachers of virtue, of which virtue is a good, there are no good men then. But from what we can observe, there are good people, as well as bad people. So, how does that work with the conclusion that there are no good men? 

Well, to begin with, we can say that we are not good men by nature, this is because virtue is not innate at birth. Since it is not innate, yet there are good and virtuous men, we must have gotten it somehow. We come to attain virtue not through direct teaching, like some kind of knowledge, but through guidance. This guidance comes under deep Socratic questioning from others and within yourself. In going such a rigorous method, we invoke the soul to recollect what it already knows about virtue. Through correct guidance of questions and wisdom, we attain virtue. However, virtue is not something that is taught in a traditional sense, but it can be taught by guiding others through the process of questioning, to which virtue is itself a guide. This can only be done effectively when one follows the method and is guided by wisdom.

In picking up from the dialogue, Socrates and Meno agree that knowledge and true opinion can lead to the right place. Knowledge, based on wisdom however, stands more firm and is a more accurate guide in one’s life. True opinion is a good guide, but due to it being an opinion, they fall prey to ignorance, and thus have their opinions change at a whim. Knowledge based on wisdom doesn’t allow this to happen; it stands firm against ignorance and opinions, being held firm in wisdom and truth. True opinion states what it is, true knowledge (wisdom) states what it is and why. To better illustrate his point, Socrates uses a navigator.

If someone wanted directions to Larissa and they asked a man who knew how to get to which he has also been to to Larissa, he would be considered a good guide. This is because the man knows what direction to take and has been there himself. This man can be said to have true knowledge and wisdom about how to get to Larissa. He has gained the wisdom on how to get there and has visited Larissa himself. So, this man can not only offer correct direction to Larissa but can accurately describe what Larissa is like and what it looks like. This wise guidance would offer the man who was looking for direction, wise guidance on how to get there, what it looks like, and what it is like in Larissa. For example, it can let the man know what the best paths to take are, describe the structure of the city, such as the buildings, and what the people are like. The man seeking directions has received wise guidance on how to get to Larissa with added knowledge, which is true. As to the man who gave such wise knowledge, he can be said to be wise.

Now, let’s say the man asks for directions from a man who knew where Larissa was, to whom he had a true opinion on how to get there, but has never been there himself. Although this man his correct in the direction he gives to the man to Larissa, he lacks true knowledge of the wisdom of Larissa is like and the shortcuts one can take. This man cannot offer what the terrain may be like, nor what the city looks like, or is like. Though having a true opinion about how to get to Larissa, he is wholly ignorant of the shortcuts, terrain, what the city looks like, and what it is like to be in the city. 

Though both men know how to get to Larissa, they are both equal. Of which the knowledge of the wise man, and the one who has a true opinion, is no different when it comes to directions. Where they differ is how both men are guided, one by wisdom, one by ignorance. The man guided by wisdom gives a more advanced guide on how to get there, what it looks like, and what the city is like. This is due to this man knowing not only how to get there, but also having been there himself. Whereas the man who has a true opinion about how to get there, though true in his belief, is ignorant of what the wise man knows and more. Again, this is because the man with the true opinion, though he knows the directions, has never been there himself. The wise man has true opinion and true understanding, whereas the other only has true opinion, not true understanding.

A wise sage

Using the example above, the wise man’s direction is more accurate and reliable than the one who only has a true opinion. This is because the wise can cross the threshold of direction and go into more details about the how, what, and why. The wise man can do this because he has wisdom (true understanding). The man whose true opinion, however, cannot cross that threshold, simply because his ignorance and lack of true understanding, of which he lacks wisdom, don’t allow him to. For if he tries to do so, he can only stick to opinion, which opinion itself ebbs and flows between truth and falsehood. To use an example, say the man with true opinion says to the man looking for guidance, about 3 miles from here, you will come across a mountain range. At this point, the man can only guess, but he passes it off as true knowledge of the thing he is ignorant of. Setting out on his journey 3 miles in, the man sees no mountain range. The man, shocked, will feel he has been lied to.

This same principle can be applied to all realms of wisdom and true opinions about a particular subject matter, including virtue. If we return to an earlier point, it was suggested that some profess to have virtue and can teach it. But then, upon further questioning (socratic method) there is ignorance is shown up. This is because they only possessed a true opinion of virtue, not a true understanding of it. In this case, they are being guided by ignorance, which can lead to either a true or false opinion. At the same time, wise people know what virtue is because they are guided by wisdom and can teach it to others. The man of true opinion will profess that they can teach virtue in a traditional sense by telling them what it is. Maybe they give a lecture, a speech, to write a book about it. Whereas the wise man teaches those, not by those means just mentioned. But by questioning them, and invoking the soul to recollect what they already know. They guide others to be guided by their innate wisdom, which the soul has.

The consequence on those who come to these people is simple: by the wise man with true understanding, they will come to possess virtue and be able to teach it to others in a way just mentioned. Whereas those who go to ones who have true opinion (sophists) will have a correct opinion, but not be virtuous themselves. Again, to return to an example of Themistocles and his son. Themistocles was unable to make his son virtuous, even though he was. This is because Themistocles had a true opinion, but lacked true understanding (wisdom) and so was unable to make his son virtuous. This is because he cannot teach what he lacks true understanding of.

The conclusion

So, to finally conclude, what is virtue in the eyes of both Socrates and Meno? 

Well, we can say what virtue isn't. Virtue is not acting by one’s natural disposition, such as sex, nor is it acting by one’s activity or profession. Neither is it, ruling over others or acquiring beautiful things, nor is it the power to do so. We arrived at the theory of recollection and how the soul is immortal, to which it possesses knowledge of all things which they are is also wise. Everything that we learn is merely recollection of the knowledge that the soul has gained through many lifetimes. We have discovered that wisdom is not a form of knowledge, but a guide, and since virtue is a part of or is wisdom, virtue is also a guide.

Wisdom and virtue are a guide that directs the good and wise soul, which influences their actions and what they say. But since wisdom is not knowledge but a guide, virtue can be taught, in the traditional sense of how knowledge is conveyed. Knowledge is teachable, but again, wisdom and virtue are not knowledge but a guide.

But since wisdom and virtue is not knowledge and is not teachable, how do people become wise and virtuous? Socrates and Meno conclude that one becomes wise and virtuous through guidance from the divine. Through recollection, the soul can come to remember what it had already forgotten, wisdom and virtue. Through careful examination of oneself, either by oneself or by the use of others. One can be guided using the Socratic method to attain this latent guidance. The way this guidance is conveyed to others, by questioning, is how you “teach” wisdom and virtue. Not by instruction, but through examination of one’s soul. To recollect the latent wisdom and virtue all souls have.

The way the one is guided is crucial to this. If one is guided by wisdom, they can arrive at correct understanding and possess wisdom about the given subject, in this case, virtue. As such, they can lead a virtuous life and guide others to attain virtue. In being guided by wisdom, they are not swayed by opinions of any sort. Now, if one is misguided by ignorance, they will lack true understanding and therefore, wisdom. But lacking in these crucial areas, they can only arrive at true opinion, and as such, are unable to cross the threshold into true understanding, so long as they remain ignorant. To remedy such a problem, one should be guided by their wise soul and not ignorance.

So, we can say that wisdom and virtue are not knowledge and therefore aren’t teachable. But, they are a form of guidance that can allow their souls to be guided by the innate virtue and wisdom their eternal soul has. But through said guidance, it can, in a way, become teachable, just not in the traditional manner. Depending on whether one is guided by wisdom or ignorance can determine whether one is virtuous and can direct and guide others. Depending on how wise or ignorant they are, it can influence how they teach or guide others and themselves. We can also see the difference between “seeming” and “being” within this dialogue. They who are wise can be said to have true understanding and wisdom (being), whereas the ignorant man, having a true opinion, “seems” to know what he doesn’t know, due to a lack of true understanding and wisdom.

A wise man guides, an ignorant man teaches what he does not know.

Is Socrates right in describing virtue? 

The Death of Socrates

The death of Socrates by Jacques-Louis David 1787

“Crito, we ought to offer a cock to Asclepius. See to it, and don’t forget”

The last days of Socrates, Pheado, Penguin classics, translated by Hugh Tredennice and Harold Tarrant (p.198)

These were the last words spoken by Socrates in his final moments. But what could be the meaning of these last words?

Many years ago, when I first began my never-ending fascination with philosophy, I came across this passage, which, since then, has left a lasting mark on me. When I think about Socrates's death, Christ's death also comes to mind. The more I contemplate the death of both these men, I can’t help but find a few similarities, which are of great intrigue to me. However, before I get into this contrast of sorts, I would like to discuss the death of Socrates, as this is the main topic at hand.

A great deal has been mentioned concerning the death of Socrates from various accounts, of which we derive most of what we know of his death, comes from Socrates’ contemporaries. Two are of note: Plato and Xenophon, whilst both depict Socrates differently, agree on how he was killed, drinking poisoned hemlock. What is remarkable about Socrates is how he bore his ill fate with a calm, moderate, and defiant tone. If one were to read between the lines of the opening quote of this post, we can see Socrates’ virtuous and wise tone in full display. For those unfamiliar with Greek Myths, Asclepius was the God of healing, and just like many of the gods whom the Greeks honoured, they would make offerings to the Gods. It’s quite curious why Socrates would say this in his last words. So why would he instruct Crito to make an offering to the God of healing?

The meaning of his last words

As mentioned, we need to read between the lines here, seeing as Asclepius was the god of healing and Socrates is about to take his last breath. We can safely assume that Socrates, when instructing him to make this offering, is being cured of the illness of life. From what has been inferred, we can then come to some sort of consensus as to what Socrates means under this assumption.

Within Platonic philosophy, the body is viewed as a hindrance to attaining true knowledge. The life of a philosopher is that of perpetual wonder and yearning for truth. This insatiable desire is felt throughout the life of a philosopher. However, for Plato, this doesn’t come without an element of difficulty. That is the body and its many needs and desires. As such, they serve as various distractions for the true philosopher. The moments in life in which the body of a philosopher is not demanding the attention of the soul to serve its wants and desires are moments of bliss for a philosopher.

Death, in this case for a philosopher, is not something to be feared, but to be embraced, as they will be stripped of the mortal body that provides endless troubles and finally dwell in the pilgrimage that is their eternal soul, Thus, they can continue their quest so to speak after true knowledge and being.

In light of what has just been mentioned, it is easy to see why Socrates asks Crito to make this offering. In a sense, God, in his care, has come to relieve Socrates of the illness that was the mortal body. It is a blessing for Socrates because he can dwell in his eternal being, which is his soul, unhindered by the body. Death for Socrates is either one of two things;

1. An endless sleep-like state

2. A migration to the next world

Either option for Socrates is of great benefit, the first being as such because it would be a peaceful, uninterrupted sleep, the second being brought to an eternal place, void of mortal problems. Death for Socrates shouldn’t be feared under these two options. In truth, many don’t know what it is like when we finally pass on. To assume so would have us believe we know something we don't know.

The conversation with Crito

It ought to be well known that Socrates, in a sense, chose to die. In a cold, dimly lit prison, there is Socrates, who is about to die. Yet, seemingly, he is unfazed by the dreadful fate that awaits him. A few days prior, a dear friend of his named Crito had come to visit him. Crito arrives just before dawn and has arrived at such an ungodly hour to request that Socrates escape urgently.

As it turns out, there has been a slight delay in the day in which Socrates is supposed to die. Crito believes the ship will arrive today, but Socrates disagrees and believes it will arrive the day after. Socrates was told in a rather prophetic manner that there would be a delay. Regardless, this gives Crito slightly more time to convince Socrates why he ought to escape, as the charges seem hardly just. Though unsure of this, Socrates relents and listens to what his friend has to say. As such, Crito provides 5 reasons as to why he should escape.

1. The opinions of others and the poor reputation of Crito and Socrates that would follow

2. His children would grow up without a father 

3. All expenses are covered, so money isn’t an issue

4. Socrates’ unjust condemnation is unjust 

5. Crito feels as though Socrates is choosing the easy way out

As strong as the arguments may seem, Socrates is seemingly unconvinced, and he will demonstrate why Crito’s arguments are unsound.

On the opinions of others 

Essentially, we shouldn't mind the opinions of the majority but only those that have an element of expertise in the given realm of knowledge. Ignorant opinions should not be taken too seriously. This is despite what the ignorant majority has done, utilizing a democratic vote that has condemned Socrates for. The ignorant, not knowing much of wisdom, should not be taken too seriously when searching for wisdom. When one wants to learn carpentry, one would not ask the advice on this matter from a baker. One possesses expertise concerning carpentry, the other doesn’t. 

The knowledge one ought to attain in a certain field should mould one's judgment and actions off the person who possesses wisdom in that given area. So the wise should not seek out an ignorant man. If one were to do so, they would feel the negative effect of not attaining wisdom because they paid too much attention to the ignorant man. For Socrates, a mind and body that is unhealthy and ruined by ignorance is not worth living. Whereas when one's soul and body are wise and virtuous, it is by extension worth living. Given what has been said, when one falls into ignorance by listening and taking seriously what the ignorant majority thinks, then the person would be unwise, unjust, and in utter ruin. As we have said, life in this state is not worth living. On this condition, if Socrates takes what the ignorant majority thinks and fears, he would have the ill effects that fall upon a man who has been previously stated. Instead, Socrates chooses to live with wisdom and virtue. 

Socrates, though facing such a calamity, believes that people's ability to bring about a great harm upon him can also bestow the greatest good. But due to ignorance, lacking wisdom and virtue, they chose the former and not the latter. But as Socrates doesn’t concern himself with ignorance but only with wisdom, he doesn’t care for the opinions of the ignorant, even if it means he has to die for it. Furthermore, he cares very little for what reputation the ignorant masses will give Socrates. In their ignorance, they lack true understanding and wisdom, which allows them to see the truth of who Socrates is. Socrates cares more for what the wise minority thinks of him, as they are wise and virtuous, of which he is concerned with.

So, Critos's proposal to escape on this first point is refuted.

The money concerned

Concerning the expenses being covered, Socrates is not concerned about the expenses being covered. His only concern is to do what is just, not what is financially feasible. Besides, he considers the expense argument to be a concern for the ordinary person, not with the one who is concerned with wisdom, justice, and virtue, as is Socrates. His only concern here is whether escaping, regardless of the expenses, is justified.

On his reputation and children

Like the previous counterargument regarding financial aid of escape, his counterargument, on the surface, seems very quick and straightforward. But a little digging under the surface should shed these two arguments in a deeper light, that is, if we read between the lines. On the surface, Socrates rejects Crito’s proposal of escape on these grounds because this is the concern of the everyday man and not a philosopher such as himself.

Regarding reputation, he doesn’t care that much about what people think. This is because they would, in a moment, be killed or brought to life whilst being indifferent to reason. The ignorant are neither wise nor virtuous. And seeing as though Socrates does not concern himself with the ignorant mob, he doesn’t care what ignorant reputation they will give him. His concern when it comes to any form of reputation with him by others is that of the wise and virtuous people. He only cares for what the wise and virtuous think. 

Regarding the argument for his children's sake, Socrates would argue that him concerning himself with wisdom and virtue is setting a good example for his children. His reputation as a wise and virtuous man is kept intact by choosing the wise and virtuous life even to the point of death. For if he chose to escape, he would give himself a bad reputation of being seemingly guilty and unjust. As a result, it would give his children a bad education in matters of what is right and wrong. But if he stays, he isn’t guilty, judged, and condemned poorly by an ignorant mob. This can be seen as a life lesson that Socrates gives to his children. He dies with his good reputation of being wise and virtuous intact. Socrates is a victim of ignorance, and not one who commits injustice.

On justice

Socrates's main concern throughout his conversation with Crito is justice. Now, Crito believes that Socrates is acting unjustly by choosing to die at the hands of the ignorant mob. Socrates, however, endeavored to explain why escaping would be unjust. So, with the previous points being argued away, he believes that escaping using money is unjust, likewise because of the reputation of opinions of others, and also for his children. 

What Socrates is mostly concerned with in Critos’ argument is whether it is just for him to escape, not what is circumstantial or personal. For Socrates, justice and what is right and wrong are tied up with virtue and ought to be a universal standard by which we measure our conduct, no matter the circumstance. This comes as no surprise in this case. Committing an evil for an evil would be an act contrary to the beliefs that they have held for many years at this point. So, to commit injustice in any case is a wrong and evil act, of which it is opposed to what is good and right. Wisdom and virtue are what is good, along with justice. Seeing as how Socrates is concerned with these only, to commit such an injustice in escaping would destroy who he is as a person. Remember, an unwise and ignorant life is not worth living. In choosing to die, he is choosing life by remaining wise and virtuous right to the end. A man possessing wisdom, virtue, and justice, and who is good by extension, will never return an evil for an evil, no matter the circumstance. Socrates sees no issues with the law, of which he deems just, but rather he sees issues with the element of democracy that promotes ignorance. He is in defiance of ignorance, not the laws, by sticking to the laws and accepting his fate, he is being just by obeying the law.

It is agreed by both Socrates and Crito that to commit an unjust act is always wrong. So, although what has befallen Socrates is an unjust sentence, he, even with his life on the line, cannot commit an unjust act by fleeing. Socrates and Crito then agree that when one agrees, granted the agreement is just and right, there is an obligation for one to fulfill that agreement. To not do so would be seen as an act of injustice. 

The laws speak to Socrates

Socrates is a man of justice and, with that, the law. Justice and the law are the same for him. The laws suggest that Socrates's fleeing would completely throw the laws upside down. What is just is universal and fixed; no matter the circumstance, one who is just should always be as such. Choosing to flee it undermines the laws that are just. This is because, if one commits a crime or is unjustly prosecuted, they should act in accordance with justice and the law. So, under this scenario, if one can escape after committing a crime or being unjustly condemned, they would be breaking the law. Whether guilty or innocent, one must obey the law, which is just, and this is what Socrates is doing; he is being just by obeying the law and not escaping it, and the law is not being undermined.

The laws go on to say that Socrates, at any point, could have left the city with no punishment. If he found fault with the laws, he could've left, but he didn't, so he stayed believing them to be just. But now, at this time in contemplating fleeing, he would do so under the most unjust reasons. The laws for Socrates are like a father-son relationship, in which a son ought not to raise his hand at his father if he scolds him for a wrong act.   

To put it simply, by escaping and disregarding the laws, he commits an unjust act. This will give Socrates the reputation of an unjust lawbreaker. No matter where he goes in any other city, people will know what he did. Likewise, the gods and those who dwell in Hades will know of his bad reputation. In doing so, Socrates will no longer be a wise, virtuous, and just man, and he will give his children a bad education and reputation. He will be a bad role model for his children and others. His sons will receive a good education and live in the very same city that Socrates never saw any fault in and enjoyed all his life. But this can only happen if he stays put and dies as a wise, virtuous, and just man. This will carry into the next life, where Socrates is eager to be. Furthermore, his reputation for being wise and virtuous will remain with him after death.

For Socrates, to escape is not a life worth living, either for himself, his family, or his friends. The laws suggest to Socrates that he should choose what is just, wise, virtuous, and right over the wrongful life he could live should he choose to flee. In choosing to obey the laws that are wise and just, Socrates is also wise, just, and virtuous. The laws proclaim that Socrates would be a victim of an ignorant mob, of which the laws are not at fault, but the ignorance of people is. Socrates will be welcomed as a hero in the world of Hades, to which the Gods will judge rightly, unlike the ignorance that condemned him in this one.

It is thus that Socrates chose to die.

Refusing to escape - the moral code

As the story of Socrates’s last moments has passed down through the ages, many people have debated why Socrates refused to escape and thus chose to die. I think the reasons have been demonstrated sufficiently throughout this post, but I would like to give particular focus on this seemingly odd refusal. To do that, we need to apply a special focus on Socrates’ moral code.

Socrates, throughout his life, was mainly concerned with the attainment of wisdom and virtue. His never-ending quest for the attainment of these made him either a friend or a foe with his contemporaries. He thought that an unexamined life is not worth living, and such he sought to do that not just to himself but with others. Socrates cared very little for everyday life and would consistently get lost in his mind, bereft of attention. Justice was a very high standard of life that he thought one should seek to attain. Justice for Socrates was a universal application in which it ought to be applied at all times, no matter the circumstance. As such, this at times would seemingly come at the cost of his personal life. Though many agreed with Socrates, many didn’t. Hence why they went to the lengths of putting him to death. Justice for many of his contemporaries consisted in democratic voting, which Socrates strongly disagreed with. Morals and justice, in a democratic were at the mercy of the whims of the mob, who were either ignorant or wise. This, for Socrates, wasn’t a correct application of a moral code and justice.

With the unerring desire to attain wisdom and virtue, Socrates never really cared for ignorance. Ignorance for him was a great evil, seemingly because this is where evil deeds stem from, ignorance. So, he sought to dismantle his own and others’ ignorance but dialectically. In doing so, he challenged his views and others on ethics, justice, etc.

In refusing to escape, he conformed to his notion of Justice and ethics being a universal standard at all times. If Socrates chose to escape, he would become a hypocrite of his teaching. Even in the face of certain death, Socrates chose a life of wisdom and virtue, he did what was just to the very end of his life. Crito’s arguments as to why he ought to escape are futile and insufficient. For the most part, Crito is arguing from a subjective and personal reason as to why he ought to escape. Socrates was only concerned with what is right and just, by a universal standard, not what is right and good from a personal perspective or circumstance. Most of Critos’ arguments are not enough to persuade Socrates because they don’t conform to the universal standard for justice that Socrates has. The universal standard of justice for Socrates goes beyond personal desire, circumstance, or convenience.

Socrates very much valued wisdom and virtue, and justice in the highest standing. To be guided by these three was deemed a good life. To not do so, however, would be a life not worth living. For this reason alone, Socrates chose death because had he escaped, he would have valued life more than wisdom, virtue, and justice, to which having done so would’ve led to a more wretched life. Faced with a moral dilemma, he decided to value what was good and right despite his certain death. Socrates placed his values and principles which were infused by wisdom, justice, and virtue, over and above everything else, even over his own life.

In doing so, his death symbolised everything good and right. It was a beacon for wisdom, virtue, and justice. No matter the circumstance, at all times, despite it being at variance with our wants and desires. We ought to value wisdom, virtue, and justice above all, of which it should be the driving force behind what we say and how we act. In not doing this, it can bring your life to ruin, and one that is not worth living. This is a lesson that has been passed down through the ages. It teaches us that in the face of overwhelming ignorance, one who is wise and virtuous ought to remain steadfast in the radiant light of truth, wisdom, and virtue, which are the highest goods of life. In conforming to ignorance, like the masses of the Athenians did at that time, they bask in falsehood, judging and condemning people with indifference to reason, wisdom, and virtue.

In refusing to escape when he had many seemingly good reasons to do so, they didn’t conform to what is right and just. And, had he chosen to escape, he would’ve committed an unjust act. The people, not the laws, were at fault; ignorance and not wisdom were at fault which brought him to his demise. Socrates honoured wisdom and the laws over the general masses of ignorance. Socrates didn’t want to fall into a state of ignorance, and he couldn’t have done so; the voice of reason and wisdom told him not to, which has been with him for many years. It goes to show that at times, wisdom, virtue, justice, and reason can overrule ignorance and falsehood. And so when one (like Socrates) is guided by this inner voice at all times, ignorance and an act of injustice is very unlikely to occur. It has been demonstrated that the general masses, controlled by overwhelming ignorance, choose a life of riches and fame over wisdom, justice, and virtue. As noted, Socrates cared nothing about these things. When one is guided by the voice of wisdom, justice, and virtue, they can avoid the many ills that plague a mans life, including ignorance.

The charges - ignorance on trial

Socrates addressing the Athenian court

For the longest time, Socrates was considered a bit of an oddball but was generally quite harmless. Well, that all changed when he was charged and put on trial. The charges?

1. Impiety

2. Corrupting the young

These were enough to bring him to trial and ultimately to his demise. He was charged with impiety on the account of not recognising the god recognised by the state. What was most likely is that Socrates did believe in God(s), but where he differed was in his view of them. In challenging his views and others, he also challenged the religious customs of his time. Most of what Athenians and Greeks has by ways of religion was the stories they was told by Homer and other poets. This is the very same custom in which Socrates was brought up, yet he deviated from that custom and questioned it. Something that greatly offended his fellow citizens of his time.

As mentioned, Athenians had certain customs that honored the gods that were recognized by the state and its populace at large. Many temples and statues were erected in honour of the gods. It was expected of every Athenian citizen to make offerings, take part in rituals, and attend public displays of honoring the gods. In failure to do so, for many Athenians, was to incur the wrath of the gods upon the city. Socrates likely disagreed with these customs and stories handed down by the poets about the gods. As such, it is evident that this would’ve put Socrates at variance with the masses, particularly with those who were seriously religiously inclined. Holding any other view regarding the gods made Socrates an enemy of the state. The depiction of Socrates by Plato and how that reflected the real Socrates cannot be known for sure, thus, the line becomes blurred. But what we can infer is that the real Socrates would’ve disagreed with the immoral stories told about the gods. The reasons for this suggest that the poets gave bad moral advice to the youth of Athens, ironic, no? For example, the rage of Ares that overpowers reason, the lies of Odysseus, see the issues he would’ve had in agreeing with this?

From what has been said, we understand that Socrates disagreed with poets about the gods, and he also disagreed with the customs and rituals built on honouring the gods based on these stories. Socrates saw this as having a poor effect on the Athenians, it thought emotion over reason, passion over rationale, serving vices rather than wisdom. On the surface, the charge for impiety seems quite just, but to me, this isn’t so. The charge of not recognising the gods recognized by the state seems to fall under not following the practices established in Socrates’ day. But what we find is that Socrates did believe in the gods, just not in the stories and subsequent customs formed on these stories.

God for him was pure goodness, which is not what you find in the vengeful, jealous demeanor told of Homer and others. The gods were of the highest wisdom and goodness, in which virtue followed. What is honourable in the vices that are betrayed by the poets about the gods? Socrates used wisdom and reason in viewing the gods, he didn’t place human attributes or faults. The reason for this is that the gods are perfect and flawless, eternal and pure goodness. To have human attributes and be prone to vices would contradict how many see god, including Socrates.

Within the Apology, Socrates mentions how a friend of his went to see the Oracle of Delphi in upper central Greece. The purpose of the visit of his friend was to ask, “Is there anyone wiser than Socrates?” to which the priestess replied, “There is none wiser”. This story alone he relayed to the people of the court, which made him more unpopular.

With regards the the second charge, corrupting the youth, as mentioned, there is a certain level of irony based of the last charge as mentioned. Notably, Socrates was trying to subvert the customs and stories told about the gods by the poets and put them in a better light, by use of wisdom and reason. With regards to corrupting the youth, this mostly stemmed from the influence that Socrates had on the youth of Athens. It is noted in the Apology that Socrates would discuss with anyone, young or old alike, rich and poor, and nobody was discriminated against. As such, he gathered many followers, including young people.

Around the time of Socrates’ day, rhetoric was a powerful and influential device to convey stories, opinions, philosophies, religious rights etc, Well, in some ways, Socrates seemed to be somewhat at variance with this also, in that he preferred a dialectic approach, known as the Socratic method. Socrates believed this was a better device in searching for truth, because it allows one to dig deeper and search the inner recesses of their soul to find the truth. In asking questions, opening up a dialectic is a community-driven, social way of finding truth. This, for obvious reasons, is a very attractive means in searching for truth. The youth of Athens liked seeing this and as such would practice this themselves. In developing such a method and being adopted by many youths, it can be used for good or for bad means. For example, some youths may have used it to embarrass and disrespect people. This, for Socrates, was not the goal; truth was the main goal, to which one’s ignorance was laid bare and interrogated. As noted in the Apology, what the youth did with his teachings and methods cannot fairly be attributed to him. The reason for this is that for Socrates, it directly contradicts Socrates’ purpose in his methods and teachings.

So, how did Socrates put ignorance trial?

Well, one could say his being charged and put on trial in the courts is an act of ignorance. The charges we can now see are based on ignorance. To say he was impious is based on following traditions and stories told of gods which don’t share them in a good light. They have every fault and attribute that humans do, which Socrates disagreed with. He did believe in the gods, but how different from the current custom of his time. There is room to suggest that Socrates’ beliefs in the gods are predicated on goodness, wisdom, and reason. whereas the gods which are based on the poets are founded on ignorance, depravity, which the vices to which they are prone. Socrates’ view of the gods are wise and virtuous; the gods of the poets are viewed with having ignorant and full of vice. The people who condemned Socrates to death were probably deeply embedded in the old traditions and sided with a conservative view on the gods.

In some ways, Socrates showed how ignorant the masses are, his condemnation proved this tenfold. Socrates showed how the masses believed in false idols, in such a way that they believed in the wrong stories told about the gods. Elsewhere, in many moments of his life, he would go around Athens and talk to anyone. Through his teachings, methods, and means, he would show how ignorant the person with whom he is conversing with in a particular manner. As such, Socrates accrued many enemies and adversaries along his divine purpose given to him by the god Apollo. He wanted to enlighten the masses and turn to wisdom and virtue, not ignorance and vice. But being concerned with the latter, they ignored the former and killed Socrates. Does this remind you of a certain man?

Allow me to return to the charge of corrupting the youth of Athens. This, as mentioned, was also an act of ignorance, because those who charged him on this account didn’t understand what Socrates did. Socrates, as mentioned, held wisdom, justice, and virtue to be the highest and pinnacle of man’s highest being. of which a life without these is not worth living. Socrates sought to teach this to anyone, including the young, using the Socratic method, of which many were influenced and followed.

To summarise this point of ignorance on trial, Socrates showed how the masses cared too much for things that hold very little value in the grand scheme of things. He demonstrated in the trial and elsewhere how the masses are under the sway of vice and ignorance. Of which this sway ranged across various aspects of their life, including morals and religious traditions. However, being under such a strong influence of ignorance and vice, they cannot see their ignorance. This brought many people at variance with Socrates, ignorance at odds with vice.

His death, however, showed what ignorance in its full extreme can do and the influence it has spanning various aspects of one’s life. It was this extreme form of ignorance that Socrates warned us about and was at odds with. The antidote to such forms of ignorance, wisdom, justice, and virtue, of which Socrates has taught us and people of his time to honour at all costs, even in the face of death, as demonstrated in his death. The death of Socrates represents ignorance winning the battle over wisdom, but it has lost the war. Ignorance won over wisdom, which shows how ignorant the masses were by condemning such a wise and virtuous man. They destroyed a man who was pious, wise, and virtuous and favoured the most depraved aspects of human nature. Socrates honoured the divine element we all have. Had the masses of his time held wisdom and virtue and held it in the regard he did, Socrates wouldn’t have been condemned.

The issue with Democracy

As mentioned previously, Socrates was at variance with democracy. In some ways, his very trial and execution were indicative of a flawed constitution. The ignorant whims of the mob, lacking true knowledge and wisdom, can and often do prevail over truth and wisdom. Socrates elsewhere noted how, though they are capable of bringing evils upon anyone, they also possess the capacity to bestow the greatest good. However, they are indifferent to reason and wisdom, and normally side with ignorance to the detriment of many, including Socrates. It is here where Socrates sees fault in a democratic society, namely, people’s ignorance and foolishness. The reason this presents an issue is that in a democratic society, anyone can vote. This free rein voting system can influence decisions on law and policies, governance, and who ought to be elected in positions of power. This, for Socrates, creates an unstable system of government because decisions made in aspects just mentioned are not made under wise governance, but rather at the whims of what the masses want, which are influenced by many factors, not under wisdom alone.

Socrates thought this was a problem because the masses are not wise enough to make such important decisions. Being at the mercy of ignorance and vice, they don’t know what they are voting for and why. This can be proven to be detrimental because political leadership and policies are driven and upheld by ignorance. This is nowhere proven in its absolute extreme when we consider the death of Socrates, in which the masses, being ignorant, condemned an innocent, wise, and virtuous man. Lacking in wisdom and virtue, they failed to see this in Socrates. As such, Socrates fell victim to what he deemed at faulty and flawed system that is unstable. Though being a victim of an ignorant mob, he has shown himself to be the victor in showing the issue with a democracy and the ignorance that lies within us. His death symbolised a critique of ignorance and democracy written large.

When one is introduced to ancient Athens, one thing pops up almost immediately, and that is democracy. More specifically, they were the founding fathers of democracy. Ancient Athenians prided themselves on the democratic system that they so cherished. Many of the citizens had the freedom of which they had influence and have a say in how their state is governed. As much as democracy has flaws, it also has a share in some benefits. Corruption is unlikely to occur because democratic rule can prevent this by majority vote; in a dictatorship, for example, this isn’t possible. Furthermore, it promoted a collective contribution in running the state, of which their input mattered. Socrates mainly focused on the main issues of a democratic society. He advocated for a wise leadership, something akin to a monarchy, because again, the masses cannot be trusted in making important decisions, which is the cornerstone of a democracy. It seems the issue Socrates mainly had with a democracy is with the ignorant masses having a strong influence on how a state is run.

Based of this, it appears to me perhaps a compromise between a wise and philosophical monarchy and democracy could’ve been had. A form of constitution that falls between the two, in which a “wise shepherd” could be head of state, which would be enough to satisfy Socrates, but to appease the masses, an element of democracy would remain, though in a limited way. The masses can vote and have a say, granted they are wise and possess high knowledge in these matters. Realistic? Probably not, would Socrates like it? who knows.

In some ways, Socrates was correct in his critique of a democracy. It can be unstable; the majority, though be ignorant, can vote, which directly impacts the state in various ways. For these reasons, Socrates finds faults with a democracy, which ironically is the system that brought an end to his life. Again, proved the issue with the democracy of his time. I firmly believe a constitution between a monarchy that is wise and virtuous and democracy could’ve been had. The reason is suggesting this is that Socrates mainly found issue with the ignorance of the masses. Socrates advocated for wisdom and virtue as the cornerstone and guiding principles of our lives and in the realm of government, not ignorance and vice, which the masses are governed by. Therefore, a government system based on this can only bring ruin to oneself and others, as well as the state at large.

It has been mentioned by many who critise Socrates’ treatment of democracy and preference for a wise shepherd as something bordering on totalitarianism. I find this objection unsound because Socrates wouldn't restrict freedom from his people; it’s just that under the wise king, wisdom is the cornerstone of a prospering society. In such a prosperous society, people can find freedom and live good lives. The wise king would serve under wisdom and for the betterment of the people. The populace would live better lives because wisdom and virtue would be what they are guided by, which as we have seen, leads to a life worth living.

So was he against democracy? Yes and no.

How it impacts us and what we can learn from it

The death of Socrates has echoed down through the ages thanks to Plato. His death, so beautifully depicted by Plato and Xenophon, serves as a beacon. That beacon is still bright and ever present serving as a constant reminder of wisdom and virtue. In many ways, Socrates perfectly embodied what it’s like and what it costs to be guided by wisdom and virtue. The moral philosophy of Socrates is a life full of examination of both ourselves and others, in which we ought to mould our actions around virtue in all cases. The death of Socrates shows how the world shuns wisdom and virtue in favour of ignorance and vice.

The death of Socrates impacts us today because, in various aspects of our modern life, ignorance is rife, and many unsound opinions are formed. Such prevalence of ignorance, which shows up in various aspects of our lives, can be proven to be a detriment. Ignorance is the very illness and disease that Socrates went to tedious lengths to show us. But as time has elapsed since that fatal day up to the present, ignorance is still very much prevalent in our lives. When one is ignorant, they are living in a dark shadow, void of light and life. When ignorance is so rife about viewing ourselves, others, and the world, it can lead to a very depraved life, one that is not worth living. Ignorance, knowingly or not, is viewed by many as a good; it is a form of comfort that many of us seek; the truth, wisdom, and virtue confront and shatter the illusion of ignorance. It is of no wonder that many shun wisdom and virtue, it is because it puts us in a rather uncomfortable position, which brings us out of our comfort zone, filled with illusions and darkness.

For Socrates, it is only until you step into the radiant light of wisdom, truth, and virtue that one can shatter the darkness of ignorance. Socrates’ life, trial, and death show what it takes to not be fooled by ignorance and ascend to the inner voice of wisdom and virtue. Socrates’ death shows what happens when ignorance is so rife and taken to an extreme. In which forms of ignorance, we believe in false notions and idols, pulled and dragged around by the illusions of falsehood, confused when confronted by the fake mirrors of ignorance. When taken to an extreme, we live a life that is wretched, disconnected, and disenfranchised. We become alienated from ourselves and subsequently become hostile to ourselves and others. As has been shown in history and today, this can lead to wars from within and without. For Socrates, truth, wisdom, and virtue (the soul) are our good, true self. When we sever the connection between ourselves and the soul, we fall into deep ignorance.

Socrates suggested that we ought to listen to the voice of wisdom, reason and be virtuous, because if we don’t, ignorance runs rife and brings to ruin many people and cultures. Wisdom and virtue are the antidote to such an ignorant disease, and if we don’t heed this warning, this can very much happen to ourselves and the society at large. This, which has happened before, can bring an end or at least bring civilization to the brink of collapse. The condemnation and subsequent death of Socrates is what happens when ignorance is the prevailing norm in one’s life and society at large. It leads to one making disastrous decisions, which are informed based on ignorance, causing such issues and strife.

One only has to look at our modern life to see how truly ignorant people are, from the everyday man to the high-ranking politicians. Upon closer examination, we can see so clearly what issues have caused. Ignorance is like an axe wound in which we are only putting a plaster (band-aid) over. To stop this bleeding so to speak, we ought to heed Socrates’ warning and assent to truth and virtue. When the bleeding stops, we can bring a cure of wisdom and virtue back into our society, which Socrates, like the Herculean labours, tried to do.

Could we avenge Socrates and perform such labours of our own? Only time will tell.

Was he right in his judgment?

Socrates’ decision to accept his death sentence rather than escape has been a subject of intense philosophical debate. On one hand, his choice exemplifies a profound commitment to his principles, particularly the belief that one should live a virtuous life in accordance with one's values. Socrates famously asserted that "an unexamined life is not worth living," indicating that he prioritised philosophical inquiry and moral integrity over mere survival. In essence, he valued the pursuit of wisdom, virtue, and justice over a mortal life. Suggested elsewhere, he had no interest in leading a normal life. The mission he was commissioned by God was his only interest in life. In the Apology, it is suggested that Socrates may be let off and live freely, but under one condition: that he should give up philosophy. To which Socrates addressed them with the following;

“Gentleman, I am your grateful and devoted servant, but I owe greater obedience to God than to you, and so long as I draw breath and have my faculties, I shall never cease from the practice of philosophy and exhorting you and indicating the truth for everyone I meet.”

I shall go on saying in my usual way;

“My very good friend, you are an Athenian and belong to a city which is the greatest and most famous in the world for its wisdom and strength. Are you not ashamed that you give your attention to acquiring as much money as possible, and similarly with reputation and honour, and give no attention to thought, to truth and understanding, and the perfection of your soul? And if any of you disputes this and professes to care about these things, I shall not let him go or leave him; no, I shall question and examine him and put him to the test; and if it appears that in spite of his profession he has made no real progress towards goodness, I shall reprove him for neglecting what is of supreme importance, and giving his attention to trivialities.”

The last days of Socrates, Plato, Apology, translated by Hugh Tredennice and Harold Tarrant (pp. 55 and 56)

It is shown that in his strong commitment to God and his mission, he wasn’t going to change,

By choosing death, Socrates also rejected the notion of injustice. He believed that escaping would undermine the very convictions he preached regarding the social contract and the duty of the citizen to obey the laws of the state, even when those laws led to an unjust outcome. His willingness to face death rather than compromise his ideals can be seen as an act of ultimate integrity and philosophical consistency, which has inspired countless individuals throughout history. To his last breath, he died fighting for wisdom and truth, which many of his contemporaries didn’t pay any attention to.

Conversely, critics might argue that Socrates' choice was not a pragmatic one. By not attempting to escape, he arguably forfeited the opportunity to continue his philosophical dialogue and teachings, potentially depriving future generations of his insights. In this light, some may view his decision as a defeatist stance, where the value of life, even in the face of injustice, might outweigh the pursuit of virtue. Despite this objection, I believe Socrates was right in choosing death; in choosing life under the proposed means by Crito, it would undermine and contradict the moral and metaphysical teachings of Socrates. Pursuing a life of truth and wisdom is the life of a philosopher; failure to do so, or being deprived of any means of doing this, is a life that is not worth living. Given this, I believe Socrates was right; he gave us all a lesson on what it means to live a good life. Also, he demonstrated the life of a philosopher and the sacrifices that need to be made. His legacy and teaching lived on mainly through Plato, but also others.

In some sense, philosophers may seem alien to this world, but are deeply connected and rooted in it. The philosopher, obsessed with truth and a deep care for others, seeks to shed light and truth on the lives of others. Socrates did this throughout his life and even at his death. The objections to Socrates choosing death are based on Socrates living a life that he thought wasn’t worth living. In a sense he lived a life that he thought was worth it, to which his mission came at a great time. He died as a victim of ignorance; had he chosen to escape, he would have lived a life of injustice, because he disobeyed the laws which are just. Socrates died to show how ignorance of the masses is the problem, not the laws themselves. The laws were just, the ignorant people were not.

Ultimately, whether Socrates was right in choosing to die hinges on one's interpretation of virtue, duty, and the value of life itself. His choice encapsulates the tension between philosophical ideals and mundane realities, continuing to resonate in moral and ethical discussions to this day.

Was he just one of many martyrs?

The question of whether Socrates can be considered a martyr is complex and multifaceted, inviting exploration into the nature of martyrdom, the political and philosophical context of his life, and the implications of his trial and death.

A martyr is typically understood as someone who suffers persecution or death for their beliefs, often in the context of religious or ideological convictions. Socrates, who lived in Athens from 469 to 399 BCE, remains an emblematic figure of philosophical inquiry and ethical dedication. He was charged with impiety and corrupting the youth of Athens, which culminated in his trial and subsequent execution by hemlock poisoning. At the heart of the debate lies Socrates' unwavering commitment to his principles, particularly the pursuit of truth and the importance of questioning societal norms. To which, as we have seen, brought an end to his life.

Socrates' choice to accept his fate rather than escape when offered a way out signals a profound adherence to his philosophical tenets—he believed that it was better to suffer injustice than to commit it. This resolve mirrors the classic image of a martyr, who sacrifices their life for a greater cause. His final dialogues, as recorded by Plato, illustrate his unwavering stance on morality and the integrity of the soul, reinforcing the idea that he viewed death not as an end, but rather as a transition to a possibly more enlightened state. He placed much more emphasis on the soul than on his life and encouraged others to do the same.

In many ways, Socrates is one of the two ultimate martyrs of Western history. His unwavering adherence to wisdom and virtue, and encouraging others to be the same, was a divine mission he couldn’t abandon, even in the face of death. As such, he chose death and to be a martyr rather than escape injustice and fail in his mission. Socrates serves as the perfect example of one who strongly adheres to truth over ignorance. Death of an ignorant and unjust life, lacking wisdom and virtue.

However, to classify Socrates strictly as a martyr also requires careful consideration of the socio-political landscape of Athens at the time. His trial can be interpreted as a reflection of the tensions within Athenian democracy, particularly in the shadow of the Peloponnesian War and the subsequent oligarchic takeover. In this context, Socrates' perceived indictment against the established order of thought and governance could position him not solely as a martyr for intellectual freedom but as a scapegoat representing broader societal conflicts.

It has been shown that when ignorance is prevalent in a society that is democratic society, bad decisions are made on these grounds that have disastrous consequences. During the life of Socrates, he saw a extreme forms of democracy and imperialism can do to a society. Socrates thought that Athens should pride itself on wisdom and virtue, not ignorance and conquest. Seeing as though Socrates held strongly to this belief, he came into odds with the political establishment of his time. They blamed Socrates for the inner conflict that arose in Athens at that time, between democratic and oligarchic factions vying for power.

Moreover, while Socrates' death catalysed the development of Western philosophical thought, his fate did not lead to the immediate establishment of a movement or religious following in his name, as seen in the cases of other martyrs. Instead, his influence emerged posthumously through the works of his students, particularly Plato. This separation from conventional martyrdom raises critical questions about the nature of his sacrifice and the extent of its ideological reach.

In summary, while one can argue that Socrates embodies many characteristics of a martyr through his philosophical convictions and the moral integrity he maintained in the face of death, the broader context of his trial and the philosophical legacy that followed complicate this categorisation. His life and death serve as a profound exemplar of the struggle for truth, perhaps fitting him into a unique niche between philosopher and martyr, rather than fully conforming to either label. Though this is an interesting point, I believe he embodies perfectly what a philosopher is. The truth of his being a martyr can be found when one reads between the lines regarding his death. Socrates may not have consciously chosen to be a martyr, but with the context of his beliefs and commitment to truth and wisdom, and his culture of the time. We can look back on that and say, in rather an indirect way, Socrates was a martyr, even though he didn’t say he was. Since his death, many of his teachings through some of his contemporaries and others have survived, ironically through the written word. Needless to say, we have learnt a lot from this man and will continue to do so.

Socrates and Jesus Christ - their similarities

A depiction of Christ

Though Socrates was seen as a martyr, I can also think of another, that is, Jesus Christ. It would seem rather strange to connect the two, but they both share many similarities. To name two quickly, they were both martyrs and were put to death due to ignorance. Where Socrates is the pinnacle of a philosophical man, falling prey to ignorance. Jesus Christ was the pinnacle of religious thought, and he, too, was put to death on the grounds of ignorance. Both were religious men, and both thought that morals and caring more for the spiritual aspect of man were indicative of a good life. They both conveyed this rather differently, but they nonetheless shared a common interest. Socrates thought men to concern themselves with wisdom, justice, and virtue, Jesus Christ taught about the spirit of man and what god is. Both men wanted to invoke the divine within us, but ignorance was the prevailing means of thought, which shunned their teachings. Socrates and Jesus confronted the social norms and customs of their respective times; in doing so, they paid the price of their lives.

Socrates and Jesus stand as pivotal figures in the landscape of Western thought, each marking significant shifts in philosophical and theological discourse. Though separated by time and culture—Socrates in classical Greece and Jesus in first-century Judea—both left indelible impacts on the course of human understanding.

Socrates, often deemed the father of Western philosophy, is best known for his method of inquiry that emphasised dialectic and critical questioning. His approach was rooted in the Socratic method, which aimed not to impart knowledge but to provoke deep reflection and self-examination among his interlocutors. This pursuit of wisdom is captured in his assertion that “the unexamined life is not worth living.” He challenged his contemporaries to scrutinise their beliefs and values, fostering a culture of philosophical inquiry that extended beyond mere rhetoric into the realm of ethics and morality using dialectic.

In contrast, Jesus, a central figure in Christianity, conveyed profound teachings that emphasised love, compassion, and forgiveness. His parables served as vehicles for moral instruction, highlighting the importance of humility and selflessness. Unlike Socrates, who engaged in dialogues primarily with the elite of Athenian society, Jesus reached out to the marginalised and downtrodden, presenting a vision of the Kingdom of God that inverted social hierarchies and offered hope to the disenfranchised. Jesus said things such as;

“I and the father are one, no one comes to the father except through me”

John 10:30

“Except a man be born again, for he cannot see the kingdom of God”

John 3:3

“The kingdom of heaven is within you.”

Luke 17:21

“Many of the good work from the father I have shown thee, for of which of these do you stone me?” they replied, “for a good work not, but for blasphemy, because you man, say you are god.” Jesus replies, “Is it not written in your law that I said you are gods?”

John 10:34

Let’s reflect on such statements for a moment. Jesus questioned the religious norms of his time. He led a spiritual life and aimed to express that to others as shown above. Jesus tried to invoke the divinity within man, which the Jewish authorities didn’t allow, and as such, he paid the price of his life. At a glance, these few teachings do seem absurd to a religious and normal person, but to a spiritual person, this is a common thing they all say. It’s just that, owing to ignorance of this at the time of Christ, they were condemned to death, like they did with Socrates, but for different reasons, but on similar grounds, namely ignorance. Jesus, from my perspective, was a mystical and spiritual person who tried to enlighten man, much like the Buddha. For a more spiritual interpretation of Jesus, Alan Watts spoke in depth about the meaning behind Christ’s teachings.

Both figures grappled with existential questions concerning virtue, the nature of the good life, and the pursuit of truth. Socrates’ relentless questioning often led him to a stark conclusion about the dangers of ignorance, while Jesus conveyed a message that proposed a radical shift in how individuals relate to one another and the divine. Moreover, both embodied a life of integrity and conviction, ultimately leading to their martyrdom—Socrates through forced hemlock consumption and Jesus through crucifixion. The philosophical legacy of Socrates has provided a foundation for critical thought and ethics, influencing countless philosophers from Plato to contemporary thinkers. Similarly, the teachings of Jesus have shaped moral frameworks and cultural values across centuries, leading to significant theological explorations about the nature of God and humanity.

In examining the contrasting yet complementary legacies of Socrates and Jesus, one finds a rich tapestry of inquiry into the human condition. Socrates encourages the pursuit of knowledge and self-awareness, while Jesus invites a transformative relationship with others and the divine. Together, they invite us to contemplate our beliefs and actions deeply, urging a continual reevaluation of what it means to lead a virtuous life. Through their teachings, we are challenged to consider not only the structure of our thoughts but the compassion with which we extend ourselves to others.

Socrates and Jesus, two seminal figures in the history of thought and spirituality, share several noteworthy similarities despite their distinct cultural and historical contexts. Both are recognised primarily through the accounts of others, leaving us with a somewhat fragmented understanding of their teachings and lives.

One of the most significant parallels lies in their methods of teaching. Socrates is famed for his dialectical method, often referred to as the Socratic Method, which involves questioning and dialogue to stimulate critical thinking and illuminate ideas. Similarly, Jesus employed parables and questions in his teachings, encouraging his followers to reflect deeply on moral and spiritual matters. Both figures valued dialogue as a means of exploring truth, demonstrating a commitment to engaging with their audiences rather than merely imparting authoritarian doctrine, which was so prevalent in their respective times.

In terms of their philosophical and ethical frameworks, both Socrates and Jesus espoused ideals of virtue, righteousness, and self-examination. Socrates famously stated that "the unexamined life is not worth living," promoting the importance of introspection and ethical living. Jesus emphasised similar themes of inner morality and authenticity, urging his followers to examine their hearts and actions concerning love and compassion.

Another significant similarity is their roles as social critics. Socrates challenged the norms and values of Athenian society, often questioning the status quo and the integrity of its leaders. Jesus, likewise, critiqued the religious and social establishments of his time, advocating for the marginalised and speaking out against hypocrisy within institutional religion. Both figures faced opposition and martyrdom for their roles as disruptors, illustrating their commitment to truth over conformity.

Moreover, both Socrates and Jesus are associated with the idea of a higher purpose beyond mere existence. Socrates sought a life of virtue aligned with the pursuit of wisdom and knowledge, believing that such a life was sacred. Jesus framed his mission within the context of God's kingdom, emphasising eternal significance and the transformative power of love and forgiveness. This quest for a higher understanding of existence places both figures within the realm of philosophical inquiry and spiritual aspiration.

Their legacies endure not only in their contributions to philosophy and theology but also in the manner they inspired subsequent generations to question, explore, and seek truth. The similarities between Socrates and Jesus illuminate a shared pursuit of wisdom and moral integrity that transcends cultural boundaries, inviting ongoing reflection on the nature of truth and the human experience. As mentioned, Socrates placed much emphasis on wisdom and virtue, and caring for the soul. In doing so, he confronted many social norms of his time, which were direct aversions to the lives of many in that time. Jesus questioned the religious norms of his time and preached to people a different way of seeing religion. Jesus advocated for spirituality, not dogmatic religious thought.

The deaths of Jesus and Socrates, while occurring in different cultural and historical contexts, share profound philosophical implications and serve as pivotal moments that invite reflection on morality, justice, and the nature of the human experience. Socrates, an Athenian philosopher, faced execution for allegedly corrupting the youth and impiety. His trial and subsequent death exemplify the tension between individual conscience and societal norms. Socrates maintained that it is better to suffer injustice than to commit it. His calm demeanour in the face of death highlights his commitment to his philosophical principles, embracing the idea of the immortal soul and the pursuit of truth.

Similarly, Jesus' crucifixion embodies a profound moral and theological message. Charged with blasphemy and political insurrection, His death is interpreted by Christians as a voluntary sacrifice for the sins of humanity. Though Jesus’s teaching and death are viewed differently through the lens of spirituality. Like Socrates, Jesus faced a trial where the verdict was predetermined by societal pressures and the prevailing political climate. His teachings on love, forgiveness, and the Kingdom of God reflect a challenge to the status quo, echoing Socratic themes of virtue and the essence of true justice.

Both figures resisted the corruptions of their societies, leading to their deaths as a form of martyrdom. Socrates’ death prompts contemplation on the importance of philosophical inquiry and ethical living, while Jesus’ crucifixion extends these themes into the realms of faith and redemption. Furthermore, Jesus’ death again through the lens of spirituality is seen as a form of spiritual enlightenment and final birth. The way each man approaches death—Socrates with philosophical acceptance and Jesus with spiritual submission—invites deeper exploration of the relationship between the self, morality, and the divine.

In a broader sense, both deaths serve as catalysts for philosophical and religious movements that continue to impact Western thought. Socratic dialogues encourage individuals to seek wisdom through questioning, while Christian teachings promote a transformative understanding of love and sacrifice. The intersections of their legacies create a dialogue that resonates through the ages, urging societies to reflect on the values of justice, truth, and the human condition. Thus, the deaths of Jesus and Socrates stand not only as pivotal historical events but also as enduring symbols of the quest for meaning in life and death. Both of which serves as a beacon for truth and wisdom and how costly it can be in the face of pure ignorance.

Final thoughts

As mentioned previously, the death of Socrates marks a pivotal moment in the history of philosophy and Western thought, encapsulating the fundamental tensions between individual conscience and societal norms. Socrates' choice to accept his drinking of hemlock, despite having the opportunity to escape, exemplifies his commitment to his principles and the pursuit of truth. He viewed death not as an evil, but as a potential passage to a greater understanding. He thought that a life of wisdom and virtue was the best life one can live, and that of ignorance one that is not worth living. Socrates’ death is the pinnacle of what it means to live a life in the pursuit of wisdom and virtue, and what he can teach mankind.

Furthermore, his death signifies how ignorance is prevalent in the lives of many and how it is often preferred over truth and wisdom. Socrates, sent on a mission by God, never abandoned his post, but rather stood firm in his missions principles. Socrates valued such wisdom, virtue, and justice over his life, which, had he escaped, would have been a dishonorable and unjust life.

In the dialogues of Plato, particularly in "Phaedo," Socrates articulates his views on the immortality of the soul, suggesting that death is merely a transition rather than an end. This perspective invites reflection on the nature of existence and the ethical obligations of the individual in the face of unjust authority. Socrates’ death serves as a powerful testament to the idea that fostering critical thought and questioning established norms can lead to personal and societal transformation, often at great personal cost. Socrates’ choosing to die was an act of defiance against ignorance and injustice. Socrates held firm in light of wisdom and truth, rather than conforming to the darkness of ignorance that much of society was in. Had he done so, he would have put his soul in darkness and would have lacked any life.

Ultimately, the legacy of Socrates is felt in the ongoing quest for knowledge, wisdom, and the courage to stand by one's convictions. His willingness to engage in philosophical dialogue, even in the face of mortality, inspires subsequent generations to examine their beliefs and the structures that govern societal behaviour. In contemplating the death of Socrates, one is encouraged not just to reflect on the philosopher’s life and choices but also to consider the implications these have on contemporary discussions regarding ethics, justice, and individual rights within society. The spirit of Socrates and his teachings and methods remain with us centuries later and will continue to do so for many more. The death of Socrates demonstrates a warning of what has and can happen if ignorance is so rife throughout one’s soul and society at times. Such prevalence of ignorance plunges oneself and society into darkness, until a gadfly like Socrates and Jesus enlightens the masses through wisdom and bring them up to the light of being and truth. Both Socrates and Jesus, and many more, wanted to enlighten and have people live and speak from the eternal divinity within. But they tried to do so in times when people favoured ignorance. Favoured darkness over light, ignorance over wisdom, vice over virtue.

Is this any different today? Suppose another gadfly like Christ and Socrates were to come along and continue the same mission, would we listen? Or will we meet them with hostility and resentment because they expose our ignorance?

Only time will tell, but I suspect it will be the same. Such is the nature of human ignorance.