After reciting that part of the narrative, Socrates concludes that well, maybe the Pythian, the priestess, had a point. Because perhaps I'm wiser than others to this small extent, that is that these others take themselves to have knowledge, they take themselves to have wisdom about these important matters in life but I don't. I'm aware of my ignorance with this, whereas others are not. So he tells his audience: I withdrew and thought to myself, "I'm wiser than this man for example, this politician who claims to know about how to run a state in a just manner. It's likely that neither of us knows anything worthwhile, but he thinks he knows something when he does not, whereas when I do not know, neither do I think I know. So I'm likely to be wiser than he is to the small extent that I do not think I know what I do not in fact know." Let's stand back for just a moment and ask ourselves, what does that teach us about wisdom? It seems to me one can be knowledgeable but still behave foolishly. One can have a great deal of information at one's fingertips but not know how to apply it in a way that is useful, expedient, prudent, or helpful. But one can't be wise and behave foolishly. It seems to me the concept of wisdom is connected up with the idea of acting in a way that is more or less beneficial, or more or less prudent, or more or less reasonable. Notice even a prodigy, someone who's young and extremely brilliant at mathematics or music for example, could still act foolishly, that is could still act unwisely. One who takes himself to be knowledgeable, for example Croesus, is apt to act foolishly, while one who acknowledges his limitations or her limitations is less likely to do that for the reason that they'll be aware of the fact, for example that there are multiple ways to interpret the words of a pronouncement, there are multiple ways of understanding a concept or a theory, and until we get clear on precisely which is the best justified one, we should try to remain as neutral as possible, until it's time to act, until it's time to make a decision. So the idea is that Socrates may have a point in suggesting that insofar as he's equally ignorant as anybody else except for the slight difference, that he's aware of his ignorance while others are not, and that awareness makes him slightly wiser than others, to that extent he's got an edge over his fellow Athenians. So he's now stated his overall point of view. He thinks he's not more knowledgeable than others except for this little bit he's aware of the fact that he doesn't have knowledge of answers to these important questions, but that he thinks also makes him a bit wiser than others with a distinction between knowledge and wisdom now. He thinks he's a bit wiser than others because he thinks he's less likely to act imprudently because he doesn't have these presumptions, this hubris that makes him think that he knows what he's talking about. So now, he calls in Miletus, one of his accusers, and he says, "Welcome, Miletus. You say that I corrupt the youth of Athens, and that I don't believe in the Gods of our city but rather in other Gods." He's going to proceed to question Miletus. This is a good example of Socratic method where, as we've mentioned before, Socratic method is that method of trying to get somebody to come to a realization without telling them anything at all. The purest form of Socratic method would be one in which you didn't make any statements at all. Socrates calls up Miletus and asks him, "Well, who improves the youth of this city or any other?" Miletus answers rather snarkily, "Everyone but you." Socrates replies, "Well, okay. Who improves horses?" Miletus answers, "Horse trainers improve horses. Other people who don't have expertise about horses presume they don't." Socrates says, "Right. We can agree on that one. What about this, do the wicked harm and do the good people benefit others? Do wicked people harm other people, and good people benefit other people?" Miletus says, "Yes. I think that's the case." Next question. "Would anyone will to be harmed, that is set out to do themselves harm?" Miletus thinks not. Socrates next asks him, "Well, are you suggesting that insofar as I like everybody else will not will to be harmed, but that I nevertheless I'm one who hurts others by corrupting the youth. Are you suggesting that I corrupt the youth deliberately?" Miletus says, "Yes. I certainly am." Socrates replies essentially by showing that Miletus can't be consistent here, because if he thinks that Socrates is deliberately corrupting the youth, Socrates points out I must be also at least putting myself at risk of harming myself too because I hang out with these youth. I've got this entourage of young men who spend a great deal of time with me. So if I'm corrupting them, I'm probably going to be corrupting myself as well. No one would wish to do such a thing. So the idea that I'm corrupting the youth wouldn't make any sense. But Miletus does that give him a satisfactory answer to that charge that Miletus is being incoherent. Socrates has to continue the discussion on his own essentially. But he points out that if I really am corrupting youth, then I risk harming myself, which doesn't seem like particularly coherent thing to do. He continues on, and pointing out that, "Look, I could get myself off these charges probably by calling in my family and friends, and begging for mercy in front of this jury. I could ask for your forgiveness and promise never to go around Athens talking about these philosophical questions again." But he says, "That would not make a whole lot of sense for me. I'm not sure that it would still be worth continuing my life in such a situation because it's so important for me to engage in this kind of dialogue with others, I could go off to another city-state and just keep my mouth shut. But that wouldn't be a particularly worthwhile form of existence." He also points out, "To fear death is to think when self-wise when one is not. You might think that I'm afraid of being put to death, but in fact I'm not. For the reason that, if I were afraid of being put to death I would thereby be presuming that I have some idea what that would be like, what the experience of death would actually be like. But I have no idea. I don't claim to have an idea. Somebody who is afraid of death seems to be presuming that they have some sense of what that would come to." He also points out that he takes himself to be something like a gadfly on the noble steed that is Athens, that is to say he suggests that Athens, one of the or if not, the leading city-state in ancient Greece at the time is like a beautiful and strikingly elegant steed, that's the metaphor that he uses. Socrates describes himself as a gadfly buzzing around it, trying to provoke and to know it, in order to make it more active and less lethargic. After making these remarks, the jury votes and decides to give him a verdict as well as the sentence. The verdict is guilty. The sentence is death. Socrates seems unperturbed by this result and formulates his equanimity by saying, "Well, the unexamined life is not worth living for men. So I happen to be not so upset with my fate because the other option would be to cease engaging in self-examination, and that would be worth nothing to me."
