Let us begin the story of philosophy with that crucial event in 399 BCE at Athens, Greece. A very old man -- 71 years old -- stood in court, defending himself against charges made by his fellow citizens, and being judged by a jury of five hundred and one peers. This man is Socrates of Athens.

He was accused of evildoing. According to the affidavit, "Socrates acts unjustly, by corrupting the young and believing, not in the gods the city believes in, but in other novel divine forces" (The Apology of Socrates, 24b-c) He allegedly corrupts the youth because he was said to have taught the youth not to readily accept what they have received from their elders and from the authorities, but to question what they inherited and to discover the truth by themselves. He allegedly does not believe in the city's gods because he was said to have questioned what the gods have revealed, testing the truth of their revelation instead of accepting them by faith.

In this defense, Socrates pointed out that the accusations against him are not new. Decades before the trial, he was already accused of evildoing: "Socrates acts unjustly and is excessively curious, investigating things beneath the earth and in the heavens, making the weaker argument stronger, and teaching these same things to others" (Apology 19b-c). What his accusers meant by his wisdom is that he does not accept the truths that everyone already claims to know and accept, but seeks his own truths instead. He thinks so differently that he seems to be walking on air, not rooted to the ground like everyone else, as the comic Aristophanes portrayed Socrates in The Clouds. On top of that, Socrates argues against the others' truths. He tricks them into stating their positions and questions them for a long time until they become confused with their original ideas. But when they ask him for a better idea, Socrates would just say that he doesn't have an idea, much less a better idea, himself. These accusations, however, were not made formally in court but were only done informally in the bar of public opinion--either as a theme in plays, or as a subject of conversations. The origin of these accusations were also not clearly known, so there was no one to whom one can reply; until now.

How did such accusations begin? What caused them to prosper? Why didn't they just disappear like any other rumor but reached the point where Socrates has to defend himself in a court of law? Socrates himself regards these as valid points to consider. He sees these accusations as a question on his character. Thus, he offers his hypothesis on the origin of the legal charges.

I have acquired this reputation, Ateneans, only because of a particular kind of wisdom. What kind of wisdom is this? The particular wisdom that is, perhaps, human wisdom. In fact I probably am wise in that wisdom, and perhaps those men [the Sophists Gorgias of Leontini, Prodicus of Ceos, and Hippias of Ellis] may be wise with a wisdom that is greater than human wisdom. Otherwise I do not know what to say, for I myself have no knowledge of it, and anyone who says so is lying, and is out to slander me. (Apology, 20d-e)

He is facing charges of a capital offense (the penalty is death) in a court of law because of a reputation attributed to him--a reputation of being wise. Although he is open to the possibility that he may be wise, he qualifies his wisdom as that which is only proper to humans. He differentiates human wisdom from another--greater--wisdom that may be possessed by others, the Sophists.

Sophists are contemporaries of Socrates. They are usually foreigners in Athens who claim that they can teach wisdom (in Greek, sophia), thus their name. When a student pays his tuition, these teachers will impart to him what they know. Their basic assumption is that a student is empty when he begins and, depending on how much he pays for instruction, is filled up with knowledge and skills. They usually teach the art of thinking correctly (logic) and the art of speaking well (rhetoric). Their students usually end up very confident and, therefore, victorious in debates and oratories.

Socrates does not consider himself wise in the same way that the Sophists are wise. He does not claim to be able to teach wisdom. He does not ask for payment from students for he does not even claim to teach anything at all. Instead, he just goes to the agora [literally, a marketplace; liberally, any public place where people congregate to see and be seen] and engages in a discussion anyone willing and able. Instead of likening himself to a teacher is who expected to fill up an empty student, Socrates likens himself to a midwife who helps in the birthing process of anyone already pregnant. He does not instruct as the Sophists do, but questions and cross-examines. Students who survive the birthing pains end up as proud parents of ideas. Those who are impatient, lazy or stubborn end up with stillbirths and become angry that all their difficulties have only led to greater confusion than clarity.

If he does not consider himself wise and can point out people who are not only deemed but even claim that they are really wise, then why is Socrates the one facing charges and not the Sophists? To clarify this situation further, Socrates narrates an event early in his life which may be the root of the whole problem. This is the visit of his friend to the oracle of Delphi.

I presume you knew Chaerophon. He was my friend from my youngest years, and a friend of your democracy too, and he joined you in your recent exile and returned along with you. Well, you also know what Chaerophon was like, and how impulsive he was in anything he took on. And in fact he once went to Delphi and dared to consult the oracle about this, and -- as I said, please do not raise a clamour, gentlemen -- yes, he asked if anyone was wiser than me. So the Pythia answered that no one was wiser. And his brother, who is here, will be your witness of this, since the man himself is dead. (Apology 20e-21a)

A Greek island off the coast of Athens, Delphi has a temple for the sun god Apollo. The temple of the god of enlightenment and, therefore, of truth is where the ancient Greeks go when they want to know something. But not everyone can address the gods directly; the ordinary mortal needs the oracle (the Pythia) to mediate. To reach the oracle, one enters through the mouth of a cave with this warning: gnothi seauton, which is Greek for "know yourself." This warning must be heeded by anyone who seeks for answers, because the message this oracle shares from the gods is not a news bulletin, which has a common message for everyone. Nor is the oracle's message like a scientific conclusion, which is consistently true no matter who you are.  Instead, it is more like a horoscope, from which one can read a variety of meanings depending on one's orientation, experience or mindset.

Chaerophon did not pay attention to the warning when he sought an answer to his question. Just like most of his contemporaries, he thought that oracular pronouncements are already clear in themselves and, therefore, can be taken literally and spread to others. He proclaimed to anyone who listens that the god of truth has proclaimed that "Socrates is the wisest." The ones who received the news were equally uncritical: they accepted it as true and passed it on. Among them, Socrates stood out as different.

Now consider my reasons for saying all this, for I am going to set out for you the origin of the slander against me. Indeed when I heard this, I reflected upon it as follows. "What exactly does the god mean, and what on earth is the riddle he poses? For I myself am aware of being wise in nothing great or small, so what precisely does he mean when he says I am the wisest? Of course he cannot be lying, since that is not lawful for him." And I was perplexed for a considerable time as to what precisely he meant. Then, with much reluctance, I turned to a process of enquiry ... (Apology 21b)

Not to take the God's word by faith, but to question what he meant instead is as shocking to the ancient Greeks as it is for today's believers. It is considered blasphemy: How dare one question what God has already proclaimed through a chosen medium? How arrogant for one not to believe by faith alone but to seek to understand by reason? Nevertheless, Socrates did question; sought to understand by reason. Why? He gave more weight to the constant warning on what one should do before one asks one's question to the god and after one receives the god's answer:  "know yourself." The god has said that "No one is wiser than Socrates." But Socrates knows that he is not wise; but he also knows that the god cannot lie nor deceive. Therefore, he cannot just accept the popular interpretation to this divine revelation that "Socrates is the wisest" for  it does not fit all known truths. Could it be that his knowledge of himself is wrong? Could it be that the god spoke in riddles? Could it be that there is another meaning that is not immediately obvious?

to be continued ...