An analysis of the godly and human wisdom in the Apology by Plato.
This paper analyzes the argument placed by Socrates at the time of his trial for corrupting the youth of Athens and shows how he is arguing for the fallacy of Godly perceptions of wisdom, as is related to the Oracles of Socrates time. The paper alludes to quotes that support the argument that Socrates knows nothing and that the court’s charges placed against him are equally ignorant under God-like wisdom or human wisdom.
`The real meaning behind this text, as will be argued in this study, reveals that Socrates was making sarcastic irony to the court that was judging him. The oracle was asked if Socrates was the wisest man in the world, and it claimed that he was. Socrates ultimately did not believe that he was wise at all, and actually knew very little, as we can presuppose he thought of his accusers. This then is Socrates’ human wisdom: He does not have the belief that he knows things, which he doesn’t know. Socrates says he is wiser than other people only in this respect. We can argue that he does not have the false conceit of impressive knowledge, which the court claims erroneously to have over him.
`Socrates, in his quote, is basically using sarcastic irony to show that if humans know very little in the wisdom they show, then how could humans properly define the ‘Gods’, as being correct in any manner of reasoning. In both cases human beings and Gods do not know wisdom, in Socrates opinion, and they are doomed to be ignorant of wisdom in both God-like and human based forms of this knowledge.”
`Socrates, in his quote, is basically using sarcastic irony to show that if humans know very little in the wisdom they show, then how could humans properly define the ‘Gods’, as being correct in any manner of reasoning. In both cases human beings and Gods do not know wisdom, in Socrates opinion, and they are doomed to be ignorant of wisdom in both God-like and human based forms of this knowledge.”