Bonus:
Summary: Socrates tricks Meletus into feeding the troll and proves nothing.
Commentary: Plato switches into a dialogue-esque mode for a bit, then into wall of text. I'm kind of surprised neither of the versions I'm looking at edited in quotations marks, paragraph breaks, etc.
The crux of this section is Socrates doing his Socratic method thing to prove... absolutely nothing.
But now please to answer the next question: Can a man believe in spiritual and divine agencies, and not in spirits or demigods?
He cannot.
I am glad that I have extracted that answer, by the assistance of the court; nevertheless you swear in the indictment that I teach and believe in divine or spiritual agencies (new or old, no matter for that); at any rate, I believe in spiritual agencies, as you say and swear in the affidavit; but if I believe in divine beings, I must believe in spirits or demigods; - is not that true? Yes, that is true, for I may assume that your silence gives assent to that. Now what are spirits or demigods? are they not either gods or the sons of gods? Is that true?
Yes, that is true.
But this is just the ingenious riddle of which I was speaking: the demigods or spirits are gods, and you say first that I don't believe in gods, and then again that I do believe in gods; that is, if I believe in demigods. For if the demigods are the illegitimate sons of gods, whether by the Nymphs or by any other mothers, as is thought, that, as all men will allow, necessarily implies the existence of their parents. You might as well affirm the existence of mules, and deny that of horses and asses. Such nonsense, Meletus, could only have been intended by you as a trial of me. You have put this into the indictment because you had nothing real of which to accuse me. But no one who has a particle of understanding will ever be convinced by you that the same man can believe in divine and superhuman things, and yet not believe that there are gods and demigods and heroes.
I have said enough in answer to the charge of Meletus: any elaborate defence is unnecessary; but as I was saying before, I certainly have many enemies, and this is what will be my destruction if I am destroyed; of that I am certain; - not Meletus, nor yet Anytus, but the envy and detraction of the world, which has been the death of many good men, and will probably be the death of many more; there is no danger of my being the last of them.
Rule #1. Never give him a straight answer.
It's not clear why Meletus answers simply to the negative to Socrates's initial question. Why can't a man believe in spiritual/divine categories X and Y and not believe in P and Q? Why not flat out tell Socrates you're not here to explain his beliefs to the others?
Rule #2. Don't let him move on after "proving" something that he hasn't.
Proving that you believe in demigods doesn't prove that you believe in the gods of Athens. You might believe in other gods. You might believe in demigods without believe they aren't the bastards of the gods. Who the hell knows! Socrates doesn't specify, and "proves" his point by saying he does it.
I don't know what Meletus's actual obligations were under Athenian law. Did he have to submit to Socrates's questions? Could he be interviewed but refuse to give answers? Can he question/accuse Socrates himself besides just giving awkward answers that Socrates can twist in whatever way?
Either way, he comes across as an idiot here, as Socrates uses him as an unwitting prop in his non-proof.
No comments:
Post a Comment