Question

Proofread my analysis of Plato's Apology?

Answer 1

Instructions were to write a detailed and coherent essay defending the provided thesis statement.

Socrates: The Wisest Fool
Given Socrates’ statement, toward the beginning of the Apology, that he gained his reputation by “a sort of wisdom” that he calls “human wisdom” (par. 8), and, given that he does assert in several other places that he is reputed to be a “wise man” whom people think of as knowing things that others do not, one might imagine that this phrase “human wisdom” could therefore be applied to anyone who has achieved a certain level of knowledge. However, taking into account Socrates’ persistent claims about his own lack of knowledge as well as the fact that the only other places in the dialogue that he ever admits to having any wisdom at all are moments in which he is also claiming to be ignorant, Socrates’ apparent admission that he has the kind of wisdom that his reputation suggests would appear to be either self-contradictory or ironic.
Near the beginning on the Apology, just after his conversation with Callias about Evenus of Paros, Socrates mentions “Men of Athens, this reputation of mine has come of a certain sort of wisdom. What kind of wisdom? It is perhaps such wisdom as could be called human wisdom, for to that extent I am inclined to believe that I may be wise; whereas the persons of whom I was just speaking seem to have a sort of superhuman wisdom, for I don’t know how else to describe it, because I do not have it myself; and whoever says that I do speaks falsely and is attacking my character” (par. 8). Stating that his “reputation” comes from “a certain sort of wisdom” implies that Socrates had a reputation of being wise, or at least personifying an attribute directly linked to wisdom. This claim would also imply that Socrates is claiming that he actually has that certain sort of wisdom in order for it to be a source of his reputation. By asking “what kind of wisdom?” we may gather that there must be more than one “kind of wisdom”. Socrates separates wisdom into two categories, “human wisdom” and “superhuman wisdom”. The use of the word “superhuman” would suggest that this form of wisdom is above the capabilities of normal human reach; however, it is attainable by Socrates claim that the “persons of whom I was just speaking” seem to have such wisdom. It is interesting to point out that Socrates actually finds any accusation of himself owning any “super human wisdom” as an attack on his character. As a whole we may gather from this passage that Socrates has a reputation derived from a “human wisdom” that he admits to have, while denying any association with “superhuman” wisdom.
Just after Socrates goes to the poets about a third of the way into the Apology, Socrates recounts, “At last I went to the craftsmen, for I was conscious that I knew nothing at all, as I may say, and I was sure that they knew many fine things; and in this I was not mistaken, for they did know many things of which I was ignorant, and in this they certainly were wiser than I was” (par. 12). Socrates makes a point that the craftsman “knew many fine things” while Socrates himself was “ignorant” of the same things. Because the craftsman knew things that others did not, Socrates admits that they were wiser. Thus, we may infer that a common definition of at least one kind of wisdom is to know things that others do not.
This same kind of wisdom is spoken of by the oracle in the beginning of the Apology just after Socrates outlines “human wisdom” and “superhuman wisdom” when Socrates explains, “Well, Chaerephon, as you know, was very impetuous in all his doings, and he went to Delphi and boldly asked the oracle to tell him whether--and, as I said, I must beg you not to interrupt—he asked the oracle to tell him whether there was anyone wiser than I was, and the Pythian priestess answered that there was no man wiser. Chaerephon is dead himself, but his brother, who is in court, will confirm the truth of this story” (par. 9). Here the oracle himself attested to the fact that there was “no man wiser than” Socrates; this means that the oracle reputed Socrates as having a degree of wisdom equal to or greater than other men. From our earlier definition of wisdom, we may deduct that Socrates had a reputation for knowing things that others did not.
Directly after Socrates attempts to refute the oracles claim by questioning the politicians, Socrates concludes, “So I left him, saying to myself as I went away: Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really fine or good, I am wiser than he is—for he knows nothing and thinks that he knows something, whereas I neither know anything nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to slightly wiser than he is. Then I went to another who seemed even wiser and my conclusion was exactly the same” (par. 10). Socrates again admits to being “slightly wiser” in this passage, yet qualifies the wisdom. While the politician is relatively unwise because he “knows nothing and thinks that he knows something”, Socrates’ relative wisdom is based in that he does not think that he knows anything. When we remember that only kind of wisdom that Socrates attributes to himself is “human wisdom” we must conclude that the same wisdom he professes now is “human wisdom”. Therefore, “human wisdom” may be defined as knowing that one is ignorant when ignorance is truly the case or admitting one’s own ignorance.
Just after Socrates visits the poets and the craftsman with similar results, he states “But the truth, men of Athens, is most likely that only the god is wise; and in this oracle he means to say that the wisdom of men is of little or no value [compared to that of the gods]. He is not speaking of Socrates per se; he is only using my name as an example, as if to say, ‘He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing” (par. 13). Socrates separates the two kinds of wisdom here once more. On the one hand we have “the wisdom of men”, while on the other we have “that of the gods”. This would compare to Socrates’ earlier distinction of “human wisdom” and “superhuman wisdom”. Socrates proposes that only the gods have true wisdom, while the wisdom of men is “of little or no value”. This would support the idea that men (particularly Socrates) know nothing. While the last phrase in the passage above is a claim that Socrates has relative knowledge among men, the claim is undercut by saying that this relative wisdom “is in truth worth nothing”. This falls in line with Socrates’ admittance to ignorance even when he claims to have wisdom, which appears to be self-contradictory or ironic.

Answer 2

This is great and you described human wisdom so well great jobi like this piece