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 the 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 that 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 an extended period, Socrates was regarded as somewhat eccentric but generally harmless. However, this perception changed dramatically when he was charged and put on trial. The charges against him were:

1. Impiety

2. Corrupting the

   youth

These allegations were sufficient to bring him to trial and ultimately lead to his demise. He was accused of impiety due to his failure to recognise the deity acknowledged by the state. It is likely that Socrates did believe in deities, but his interpretation of them differed significantly from conventional views. By challenging his own beliefs and those of others, he also questioned the religious customs of his time. Most Athenians and Greeks derived their religious understanding from the narratives presented by Homer and other poets. Although Socrates was raised within this same tradition, he diverged from it and scrutinised it, which greatly offended his contemporaries.

As noted, Athenians adhered to certain customs that honoured the deities recognised by both the state and the wider population. Numerous temples and statues were erected in their honour. Every Athenian citizen was expected to make offerings, participate in rituals, and attend public displays of reverence for the gods. For many Athenians, failure to comply with these customs was believed to provoke the wrath of the gods upon the city. It is likely that Socrates opposed these customs and the narratives perpetuated by poets regarding the gods. Consequently, it is evident that this dissent would have placed him in opposition to the majority, particularly those who were devoutly religious. Holding alternative views on the gods rendered Socrates an adversary of the state. The portrayal of Socrates by Plato and its reflection of the historical Socrates remain uncertain; thus, the distinction becomes ambiguous. However, we can infer that the actual Socrates would have disagreed with the morally questionable stories about the gods. The rationale behind this suggests that the poets provided poor moral guidance to the youth of Athens—an ironic situation, indeed. For instance, the uncontrollable rage of Ares that overrides reason and the deceit of Odysseus illustrate the challenges he would have faced in reconciling with such narratives.

From what has been articulated, we understand that Socrates held a differing view from poets concerning the gods, as well as the customs and rituals associated with honouring them based on these narratives. Socrates perceived these traditions as having a detrimental effect on the Athenians; they prioritised emotion over reason and passion over rationale, ultimately fostering vices rather than wisdom. At first glance, the charge of impiety appears quite valid; however, I contend that it is not. The accusation of failing to recognise the gods acknowledged by the state seems to stem from not adhering to the practices established in Socrates' time. Nevertheless, it is evident that Socrates did believe in the gods, albeit not in the narratives and subsequent customs derived from these stories.

For him, the concept of God represented pure goodness, which starkly contrasts with the vengeful and jealous demeanour portrayed by Homer and others. The gods epitomised the highest wisdom and goodness, from which virtue naturally followed. What honour can be found in the vices depicted by poets concerning the gods? Socrates employed wisdom and reason in his contemplation of the divine; he refrained from attributing human characteristics or flaws to them. The rationale behind this is that the gods are perfect and flawless, eternal and pure goodness. To possess human attributes and be susceptible to vices would contradict the perception of God held by many, including Socrates.

In the Apology, Socrates recounts how a friend of his visited the Oracle of Delphi in upper central Greece. The purpose of his friend's visit was to inquire, "Is there anyone wiser than Socrates?" to which the priestess responded, "There is none wiser." This narrative, which he conveyed to the court, further diminished his popularity.

Regarding the second charge of corrupting the youth, there is a notable irony inherent in this accusation, as previously mentioned. Socrates sought to challenge the customs and stories propagated by the poets concerning the gods, aiming to present them in a more favourable light through the application of wisdom and reason. The charge of corrupting the youth primarily arises from the influence Socrates wielded over the young people of Athens. It is noted in the Apology that Socrates engaged in discussions with individuals of all ages, social standings, and wealth, demonstrating no bias against anyone. Consequently, he attracted a considerable number of followers, including many young individuals.

Around the time of Socrates, rhetoric was a powerful and influential tool for conveying stories, opinions, philosophies, religious rites, and more. In some respects, Socrates appeared to diverge from this tradition, as he preferred a dialectical approach known as the Socratic method. He believed this method was superior for the pursuit of truth, as it enabled individuals to delve deeper and explore the inner recesses of their souls. By asking questions, the dialectical process fosters a community-driven, social means of discovering truth. This approach is, for obvious reasons, an appealing way to seek truth. The youth of Athens appreciated this method and often engaged in it themselves. However, the development and adoption of such a method by many youths could be employed for both beneficial and detrimental purposes. For instance, some may have used it to embarrass or disrespect others. This, for Socrates, was not the intended goal; rather, the primary objective was the pursuit of truth, which required exposing and interrogating ignorance. As noted in the Apology, the actions of the youth in relation to his teachings and methods cannot fairly be attributed to him, as they directly contradict his purpose.

So, how did Socrates put ignorance on trial?

One could argue that his being charged and put on trial was itself an act of ignorance. The charges against him, upon reflection, are founded on ignorance. To claim he was impious is based on adherence to traditions and narratives about the gods that do not portray them in a favourable light; these deities possess every fault and attribute that humans do, which Socrates contested. While he did believe in the gods, his conception differed significantly from the prevailing customs of his time. It is reasonable to suggest that Socrates’ beliefs about the gods were grounded in goodness, wisdom, and reason, whereas the representations of the gods in poetry are rooted in ignorance and depravity, reflecting the vices to which they are susceptible. Socrates’ view of the gods is characterised by wisdom and virtue, while those of the poets are regarded as ignorant and morally flawed. The individuals who condemned Socrates to death were likely entrenched in old traditions and adhered to a conservative view of the gods.

In many respects, Socrates illuminated the ignorance of the masses; his condemnation underscored this tenfold. He demonstrated how the populace placed their faith in false idols, accepting misguided narratives about the gods. Throughout his life, he traversed Athens, engaging in dialogue with anyone willing to converse. Through his teachings and methods, he revealed the ignorance of those with whom he spoke in a distinctive way. Consequently, Socrates accumulated numerous enemies and adversaries in pursuit of the divine mission bestowed upon him by the god Apollo. His aim was to enlighten the masses and guide them towards wisdom and virtue, rather than ignorance and vice. However, preoccupied with the latter, they disregarded the former and ultimately sentenced Socrates to death. Does this evoke thoughts of a certain individual?

Returning to the charge of corrupting the youth of Athens, as previously mentioned, this accusation stemmed from a profound misunderstanding of Socrates' intentions. He regarded wisdom, justice, and virtue as the highest ideals of human existence, believing that a life devoid of these qualities is not worth living. Socrates sought to impart this understanding to all, including the young, utilising the Socratic method, which influenced many who followed him.

In summary, Socrates revealed how the masses placed excessive importance on matters that hold little value in the grander scheme of life. He demonstrated during the trial and in other contexts that the populace was often swayed by vice and ignorance. This influence permeated various aspects of their lives, including moral beliefs and religious traditions. However, entrenched in such powerful ignorance and vice, they remained oblivious to their own lack of understanding. This dynamic positioned many individuals in opposition to Socrates, where ignorance clashed with vice.

His death, however, exemplified the extreme consequences of ignorance and its pervasive influence across various aspects of life. This form of ignorance was precisely what Socrates warned against and opposed. The antidote to such ignorance—wisdom, justice, and virtue—was taught by Socrates and was to be honoured at all costs, even in the face of death, as demonstrated by his own demise. The death of Socrates signifies ignorance triumphing temporarily over wisdom, yet it ultimately loses the overarching battle. Ignorance prevailed over wisdom, highlighting the ignorance of the masses in condemning a man of such wisdom and virtue. They eradicated a pious, wise, and virtuous individual, favouring the most depraved aspects of human nature. Socrates revered the divine element inherent in all individuals. Had the masses of his time embraced wisdom and virtue as he did, Socrates would not have faced condemnation.

The Issue with Democracy

As previously mentioned, Socrates was at odds with democracy. In some respects, his trial and execution served as a manifestation of a flawed system. The ignorant whims of the mob, lacking true knowledge and wisdom, can and often do overshadow truth and understanding. Socrates noted that while they are capable of inflicting harm upon anyone, they also have the ability to confer great good. However, they are indifferent to reason and wisdom, typically siding with ignorance to the detriment of many, including Socrates. It is here that Socrates identifies a critical flaw in a democratic society, namely, the ignorance and foolishness of the populace. This presents a significant issue because, in a democratic society, anyone can vote. This unrestricted voting system can influence decisions regarding laws and policies, governance, and the selection of individuals for positions of power. For Socrates, this creates an unstable governmental system, as decisions in these areas are not made under wise governance but rather at the whim of what the masses desire, influenced by various factors rather than by wisdom alone.

Socrates viewed this as a significant problem, as the masses often lack the wisdom necessary to make such crucial decisions. Subject to ignorance and vice, they are unaware of what they are voting for and the reasons behind it. This can be detrimental, as political leadership and policies are frequently influenced and sustained by ignorance. This is exemplified in the extreme case of Socrates’ death, where the masses, in their ignorance, condemned an innocent, wise, and virtuous man. Lacking both wisdom and virtue, they failed to recognise these qualities in Socrates. Consequently, he became a victim of what he considered a faulty and unstable system. Despite being the target of an ignorant mob, Socrates emerged as a victor in exposing the inherent issues within democracy and the ignorance that resides within society. His death symbolised a critique of ignorance and democracy at large.

When one is introduced to ancient Athens, democracy is often the most prominent aspect that emerges. More specifically, the Athenians are regarded as the founding fathers of democracy. Ancient Athenians took great pride in the democratic system they cherished. Many citizens enjoyed the freedom to influence and participate in the governance of their state. While democracy has its flaws, it also offers several benefits. Corruption is less likely to occur, as democratic rule allows for prevention through majority vote; this is not possible in a dictatorship, for example. Furthermore, it fosters collective participation in the administration of the state, ensuring that citizens' input is valued. Socrates primarily focused on the fundamental issues within a democratic society. He advocated for wise leadership, akin to a monarchy, as he believed that the masses cannot be trusted to make critical decisions, which is the cornerstone of democracy. It appears that Socrates’ primary concern with democracy was the significant influence of the uninformed masses on how the state is governed.

Based on this, it seems that a compromise between a wise and philosophical monarchy and democracy could potentially have been reached. A form of constitution that lies between the two, in which a “wise shepherd” could serve as head of state, would satisfy Socrates while still allowing for an element of democracy, albeit in a limited capacity, to appease the masses. The populace could vote and have a say, provided they possess wisdom and knowledge in these matters. Is this realistic? Probably not. Would Socrates approve? It is uncertain.

In some respects, Socrates was correct in his critique of democracy. It can be unstable; the majority, despite their ignorance, can vote, which directly impacts the state in various ways. For these reasons, Socrates identified faults in democracy, which ironically is the system that ultimately led to his demise. This highlights the issues with the democracy of his time. I firmly believe a constitution that balances a wise and virtuous monarchy with democratic elements could have been established. I propose this because Socrates primarily took issue with the ignorance of the masses. He advocated for wisdom and virtue as the cornerstones and guiding principles of our lives and governance, rather than ignorance and vice, which often govern the masses. Consequently, a government system based on ignorance can only lead to ruin for individuals and the state at large.

Many critics of Socrates’ treatment of democracy and his preference for a wise shepherd argue that it borders on totalitarianism. I find this objection unconvincing, as Socrates would not seek to restrict freedom for his people; rather, under a wise king, wisdom would be the foundation of a prosperous society. In such a society, individuals could find freedom and lead fulfilling lives. The wise king would serve with wisdom as the guiding principle, aimed at the betterment of the populace. The community would thrive under the guidance of wisdom and virtue, which, as we have observed, leads to a life worth living.

So, was he against democracy? The answer is both yes and no.

How it impacts us and what we can learn from it

The death of Socrates has resonated through the ages, largely due to the writings of Plato. His demise, vividly portrayed by both Plato and Xenophon, serves as a beacon—one that remains bright and ever-present, offering a constant reminder of wisdom and virtue. In many respects, Socrates epitomised the essence and the cost of being guided by these principles. His moral philosophy advocates a life of introspection, urging us to shape our actions around virtue in all circumstances. The death of Socrates exemplifies how society often rejects wisdom and virtue in favour of ignorance and vice.

The impact of Socrates' death is still felt today, as ignorance persists in various facets of modern life, leading to the formation of many unsound opinions. This prevalence of ignorance, which manifests in numerous areas, can be shown to be detrimental. Ignorance is the very affliction that Socrates endeavoured to expose. Despite the passage of time since that fateful day, ignorance remains pervasive in our lives. Those who are ignorant live in a shadowy realm, devoid of light and vitality. When ignorance prevails in our perceptions of ourselves, others, and the world, it can result in a profoundly depraved existence—one that lacks worth. Many, whether knowingly or unknowingly, regard ignorance as a virtue; it offers a form of comfort that many seek. In contrast, truth, wisdom, and virtue challenge and dismantle the illusion of ignorance. It is therefore unsurprising that many individuals turn away from wisdom and virtue, as these ideals often place us in uncomfortable positions, leading us out of our comfort zones, which are filled with illusions and darkness.

For Socrates, it is only by stepping into the radiant light of wisdom, truth, and virtue that one can shatter the darkness of ignorance. Socrates’ life, trial, and death illustrate the importance of not being deceived by ignorance and of ascending to the inner voice of wisdom and virtue. His death exemplifies the consequences of rampant ignorance taken to an extreme. In various forms of ignorance, we cling to false notions and idols, being pulled and dragged by the illusions of falsehood, and we become confused when confronted by the distorted reflections of ignorance. When taken to an extreme, this leads to a life that is wretched, disconnected, and disenfranchised. We become alienated from ourselves and, as a result, may become hostile towards both ourselves and others. As has been demonstrated throughout history and continues to be evident today, this can lead to conflicts, both internal and external. For Socrates, truth, wisdom, and virtue (the soul) represent our authentic selves. When we sever the connection between ourselves and the soul, we descend into profound ignorance.

Socrates suggested that we ought to listen to the voice of wisdom, reason, and virtue, for if we do not, ignorance prevails and brings ruin to many individuals and cultures. Wisdom and virtue serve as the antidote to this ignorance, and if we disregard this warning, such consequences could befall ourselves and society at large. This historical pattern has the potential to bring about an end or, at the very least, to push civilisation to the brink of collapse. The condemnation and subsequent death of Socrates illustrate what occurs when ignorance becomes the prevailing norm in one’s life and in society. It leads to disastrous decisions based on ignorance, resulting in significant problems and strife.

One need only observe our modern society to recognise the extent of the ignorance pervasive among individuals, from the average person to high-ranking politicians. Upon closer examination, the issues arising from this ignorance become starkly apparent. Ignorance is akin to an axe wound, with superficial bandages applied to treat it. To effectively address this 'bleeding,' we must heed Socrates’ warning and commit to truth and virtue. Once the bleeding stops, we can restore a cure of wisdom and virtue to our society, a goal Socrates endeavoured to achieve, akin to Herculean labours.

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

Was He Right in His Judgement?

Socrates’ decision to accept his death sentence rather than escape has been the 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. Essentially, he valued the pursuit of wisdom, virtue, and justice over mortal life. It has been suggested elsewhere that he had no interest in leading a conventional life; his divine mission was his sole focus. In the Apology, it is suggested that Socrates may be released and allowed to live freely, but under one condition: that he should give up philosophy. To this, Socrates responded:

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

I shall continue in my usual manner:

“My very good friend, you are an Athenian and belong to a city that 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 to reputation and honour, while neglecting thought, truth, understanding, and the perfection of your soul? If any of you dispute this and profess to care about these matters, I shall not let him go or leave him; no, I shall question and examine him and put him to the test. If it appears that, in spite of his profession, he has made no real progress towards goodness, I shall reproach him for neglecting what is of supreme importance and giving his attention to trivialities.”

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

This illustrates that, in his unwavering commitment to God and his mission, he was not prepared to change. By choosing death, Socrates also rejected the notion of injustice. He believed that escaping would undermine the very convictions he espoused 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 fought for wisdom and truth, which many of his contemporaries disregarded.

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 correct in choosing death; opting for life under the proposed means by Crito would undermine and contradict the moral and metaphysical teachings of Socrates. Pursuing a life of truth and wisdom is the essence of a philosopher; failing to do so, or being deprived of any means to do so, constitutes a life not worth living. Given this, I maintain that Socrates was right; he imparted a valuable lesson on what it means to live a good life. Furthermore, he exemplified the life of a philosopher and the sacrifices that must be made. His legacy and teachings have endured, primarily through Plato but also through others.

In some respects, philosophers may appear alien to this world; however, they are profoundly connected and rooted within it. The philosopher, driven by an obsession with truth and a deep concern for others, seeks to illuminate and reveal truth in the lives of those around them. Socrates exemplified this throughout his life and even at his death. The objections to Socrates' choice of death stem from the belief that he lived a life he deemed unworthy. In a sense, he lived a life he considered valuable, with his mission arriving at a pivotal moment. He died as a victim of ignorance; had he chosen to escape, he would have lived a life of injustice by disobeying laws that were, in fact, just. Socrates' death illustrates that the ignorance of the masses is the real issue, not the laws themselves. The laws were just; the ignorant individuals were not.

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

Was he merely one of many martyrs?

The question of whether Socrates can be regarded as 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 within 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, culminating 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, which ultimately led to his demise.

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 steadfast 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 greater 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, along with his encouragement for others to embody these qualities, represented a divine mission he could not abandon, even in the face of death. As such, he chose death and martyrdom rather than escape injustice and fail in his mission. Socrates serves as a perfect example of one who strongly upholds truth over ignorance: the death of an ignorant and unjust life, lacking wisdom and virtue.

However, to classify Socrates strictly as a martyr 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 positions him not solely as a martyr for intellectual freedom, but also as a scapegoat representing broader societal conflicts.

Research has demonstrated that when ignorance is prevalent in a democratic society, poor decisions are made that can have disastrous consequences. During his lifetime, Socrates witnessed the effects of extreme forms of democracy and imperialism on society. He believed that Athens should pride itself on wisdom and virtue, rather than ignorance and conquest. Given Socrates' strong adherence to this belief, he found himself at odds with the political establishment of his time, which blamed him for the inner conflict that arose in Athens between the 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 distinction 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 placing him in a unique niche between philosopher and martyr, rather than fully conforming to either label. Although this is an interesting point, I believe he perfectly embodies what a philosopher is. The truth of his status as 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 considering his beliefs, commitment to truth and wisdom, and the culture of his time, we can reflect on this and assert that, in a rather indirect way, Socrates was a martyr, even though he did not claim to be one. Since his death, many of his teachings, conveyed through some of his contemporaries and others, have survived, ironically through the written word. Needless to say, we have learned a great deal from this man and will continue to do so.

Socrates and Jesus Christ - their similarities

A depiction of Christ

Though Socrates is often regarded as a martyr, one might also consider Jesus Christ in this context. While it may seem unusual to draw a connection between the two, they share numerous similarities. To highlight two key aspects, both were martyrs who were executed due to ignorance. Socrates represents the pinnacle of philosophical thought, ultimately succumbing to ignorance, while Jesus Christ epitomises religious contemplation, also facing death on account of ignorance. Both were devout individuals who believed that a focus on morals and the spiritual dimension of humanity was essential for a good life. Although they expressed these ideas in different ways, they nonetheless shared a common objective. Socrates advocated for a preoccupation with wisdom, justice, and virtue, whereas Jesus Christ taught about the essence of humanity and the nature of God. Both sought to awaken the divine within us, yet ignorance prevailed as the dominant mindset, which rejected their teachings. Socrates and Jesus challenged the social norms and customs of their respective eras, ultimately paying the highest price for their convictions.

Socrates and Jesus are pivotal figures in the landscape of Western thought, each marking significant shifts in philosophical and theological discourse. Despite their separation by time and culture—Socrates in classical Greece and Jesus in first-century Judea—both left indelible imprints on the trajectory of human understanding.

Socrates, often regarded as 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 sought not to impart knowledge but to provoke deep reflection and self-examination among his interlocutors. This pursuit of wisdom is encapsulated 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 transcended mere rhetoric and entered the realm of ethics and morality.

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 primarily engaged in dialogues 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 articulated ideas 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, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

John 3:3

“The kingdom of heaven is within you.”

Luke 17:21

“Many of the good works 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 us reflect on these 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 demonstrated above. Jesus sought to invoke the divinity within humanity, which the Jewish authorities did not permit, ultimately leading to the sacrifice of his life. At first glance, these teachings may appear absurd to a religious or conventional individual; however, to a spiritual person, they represent a common understanding. Due to the ignorance prevalent at the time of Christ, similar to what Socrates faced, he was condemned to death, albeit for different reasons, yet on analogous grounds—namely, ignorance. Jesus, from my perspective, was a mystical and spiritual figure who endeavoured to enlighten humanity, much like the Buddha. For a more spiritual interpretation of Jesus, Alan Watts spoke extensively 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 proposing 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 consumption of hemlock 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 prompt us to contemplate our beliefs and actions deeply, urging a continual re-evaluation 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 also 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 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 in relation to 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 in which 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, 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 during that period. 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's 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 teachings 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, viewed through the lens of spirituality, is seen as a form of spiritual enlightenment and final birth. The manner in which each man approaches death—Socrates with philosophical acceptance and Jesus with spiritual submission—invites a 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 serve as beacons of truth and wisdom and illustrate the high cost of confronting 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 the 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 believed that a life of wisdom and virtue was the best life one could live, and that a life of ignorance was not worth living. Socrates’ death epitomises what it means to live a life in pursuit of wisdom and virtue, and the lessons he imparts to mankind.

Furthermore, his death signifies the prevalence of ignorance 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 the principles of his mission. He valued wisdom, virtue, and justice above his life, which, had he escaped, would have been a dishonourable and unjust existence.

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 significant personal cost. His choice to die was an act of defiance against ignorance and injustice. Socrates remained steadfast in the pursuit of wisdom and truth, rather than conforming to the darkness of ignorance that pervaded much of society. Had he chosen otherwise, he would have condemned his soul to darkness and forfeited any meaningful existence.

Ultimately, the legacy of Socrates is evident in the ongoing quest for knowledge, wisdom, and the courage to uphold 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 only to reflect on the philosopher’s life and choices but also to consider the implications these have for contemporary discussions regarding ethics, justice, and individual rights within society. The spirit of Socrates, along with his teachings and methods, endures centuries later and will continue to do so for many more. The death of Socrates serves as a warning of what has occurred and could occur if ignorance permeates one's soul and society at large. Such a prevalence of ignorance plunges both individuals and society into darkness until a gadfly, like Socrates or Jesus, enlightens the masses through wisdom, guiding them towards the light of being and truth. Both Socrates and Jesus, among others, sought to enlighten humanity and encourage individuals to live and speak from the eternal divinity within. They endeavoured to do so in times when people favoured ignorance, choosing darkness over light, ignorance over wisdom, and vice over virtue.

Is this situation any different today? If another gadfly, akin to Christ or Socrates, were to emerge and continue the same mission, would we listen? Or would we respond with hostility and resentment, rejecting their challenge to our ignorance?

Only time will tell; however, I suspect that the outcome will remain the same. Such is the nature of human ignorance.