Socrates And Socratic Ignorance

Socrates is one of the greatest philosophers of all time and has managed to maintain relevance throughout the centuries. The experience that most individuals have with Socrates is through the works of Plato, who largely relies on Socrates as a character to elaborate a greater concept. Throughout the works of Plato, Socrates is seen denying having knowledge of anything and eventually the character explaining a concept reaching a new conclusion through the explanation. In a nutshell, that is the Socratic method. The Socratic method is consistent with Socrates asking an initial question and then asking for deeper interpretations of whatever response the initial question entails. Many individuals can find themselves intimidated by Socrates and

his methods, but the work of Gregory Vlastos seeks to define the various aspects of the Socratic method. In order to fully understand the Socratic Method, it is important to understand the references made to Socratic ignorance in Plato’s Apology, as well as understanding Vlastos’ perspective.
Socrates is infamous for being a smart man that claimed to know nothing. As Plato tells various stories of the adventures that Socrates has had, it is important to realize that Socrates believes that he knows nothing of worth (21d Plato). Socrates mentions his lack of worthy knowledge in Plato’s Apology, which takes place during the trial of Socrates. The trial of Socrates was held because it was believed that Socrates was corrupting the youth and had generally angered the Gods. The oracle of Delphi confirmed that Socrates was the wisest among men (Plato 21a). In stating that he knows nothing, Socrates is also proving that he is wise for acknowledging that he knows nothing. The paradox itself can be very confusing when attempting to understand that Socrates is wise because he does not think he is wise. While trying to understand the paradox, I briefly considered that maintaining a degree of humility is an important aspect when gaining information because it does not allow pride to become a barrier. There are many issues with the fact that Socrates claims to know nothing because in other stories told by Plato, Socrates has knowledge on some aspects although he may deem them unworthy of being considered knowledge.
While Socratic ignorance is displayed in the fact that Socrates does not believe he knows anything of value, Socratic ignorance also appears in a less formal way during the counterargument.

Socrates goes through his counterargument in his typical method of feigning lack of knowledge on a subject, while then proceeding to pick the argument apart with specific questions, but in the case with Meletus, Socrates is merely trying to embarrass Meletus (Plato 24c). Throughout the counterargument, Socrates tries to prove that his efforts as one man are not the downfall of the youth because many individuals are responsible for the quality of the youth (Plato 24e). It can be confusing to follow the logic of Socrates considering that he is stating that he knows nothing valuable, but is also stating that he is not valuable because he is not a strong enough factor in the lives of the youth. Socrates previously states that the youth follow him out of their own desire, but then makes the statement that he is not important enough to have any effect on their lives (Plato 23c & 25b). The most difficult aspect of understanding Socrates is that within his false ignorance is also a strong sense of irony, which can be difficult to interpret for the average individual. It can be difficult to take Socrates seriously considering that he makes excellent arguments, but also claims to know

nothing.
In Plato’s Apology, Socrates is being sarcastic and ironic because he does not necessarily care to fear for his fate. Socrates states that fearing death because of the unknown is foolish because we have no knowledge of what we fear (Plato 40e). Socrates was arrogant throughout his trial to the point of stating that a good meal would be a worthy punishment for the charges placed against him (Plato 36d). Part of what makes Socrates difficult to decipher is that he is very arrogant in his interactions with people, but also tends to feign ignorance as a tactic to gain information. Socrates tends to be very mercurial and only through thorough understanding it is possible to decipher when Socrates is being arrogant and when he is actually using his philosophical method.
Within Socrates’ Disavowal of Knowledge, Vlastos does great work deciphering arguments made by Socrates and noting inconsistencies. Vlastos notices that Socrates states that he knows nothing but has also previously states that virtue “is” knowledge, and thus if he has no knowledge lacks virtue leading to a wasted life (Vlastos 6). I think that it is interesting to see that Vlastos is both willing to remark that Socrates would have wasted his life by not knowing anything, but is also very adamant about proving that Socrates did not waste his life. There are many aspects to consider when attempting to compare Plato’s Apology to his other works exhibiting Socrates because, despite his arrogance, Socrates was on trial and could have simply said anything to avoid being charged. Despite the awareness of the possible desperation held by Socrates, Vlastos continues to establish the fact that Socrates does have knowledge through mentioning the countless times Socrates displays his knowledge in arguments with others. It is important to remember that Socrates’ main form of gaining information is through debate.
The first case that Vlastos makes to prove that Socrates is intelligent stems from a discussion in Protagoras, where Socrates is correcting individuals on how doing a wrong action without knowledge is equivalent to ignorance, which Vlastos believes proves that Socrates had to have known something before correcting others (Vlastos 9). I think it is interesting to note the logic used by Vlastos because I would not have considered that in order to Socrates to explain the error in the ways of others that he would have needed some prior knowledge on the subject. Although logical arguments could be made to understand how Socrates could have inferred his comments, it is much more likely that Socrates does know concepts that are valuable.
In another section, Vlastos seeks to define ‘know’ and ‘knowledge’ which is an essential component to attempting to decipher Socrates.

Typically, ‘know’ means understanding and accurately being able to parrot facts and even being aware of wear to receive more information on a topic (Vlastos 11). ‘Knowledge’ is having a very high level of certainty in a concept to the point where the amount of certainty would leave it incapable of error (Vlastos 13). The differences between ‘know’ and ‘knowledge’ make understanding Socrates’ argument of not knowing anything easier to decipher. Socrates does make points in arguments, which can be attributed to ‘know’, but for many of his other arguments the amount of inference and deductive reasoning that is used would lead one to assume that Socrates has knowledge. Another aspect to note when seeking to understand Socrates is that uncertainty does not inhibit him, but does exhilarate him because it allows him to continue with his preferred method of work (Vlastos 20). Through understanding the differences between the types of knowledge that exists it is easier to comprehend that Socrates was on a quest for knowledge and that Socratic ignorance is an important tool when attempting to reach certainty on concepts. When discussing concepts of knowledge, it is worthy to note that epistemology is still debating upon the factors of

knowing.
Vlastos has assisted in deciphering Socrates through his work. Vlastos makes many excellent points when noting that Socrates tends to be inconsistent when it comes to his definitions and interpretations of knowledge. The question that plagued me from Plato’s Apology was why Socrates would be so willing to say that he knew nothing when in reality he spent most of his life attempting to gain more knowledge. Vlastos states that the reason that Socrates does not argue much in Plato’s Apology is because he is a moralist in that work and he does not need to care about epistemological issues (Vlastos 28). While it seems simple to believe that it is no longer the problem of Socrates because he has chosen to be a moralist, it is important to attempt to understand that moral reasoning does not inherently have a right or wrong because moralism is too individualized, so through understanding the requisite of knowledge that involves having certainty in concepts it is possible to decipher that moralism cannot be knowledge.
Within Plato’s Apology, Socrates states that he has no knowledge and through the work of Gregory Vlastos there is relevant information to support the idea that Socrates does have knowledge, but not epistemological knowledge. Vlastos establishes that Socrates does have knowledge of concepts by noting previous adventures depicted by Plato, but also defines the forms of knowledge that can exist. Vlastos also accurately confirms the idea that Socrates holds his knowledge to a moralist standard rather than to epistemological standards, which gives a different perspective on the overall type of knowledge available. When speaking about knowledge there is no right or wrong answer because knowledge tends to be subjective depending on the type of knowledge and the standard that it is held to.