Socrates was a dialectical troll
29 August 2024
Socrates faced two charges at his trial in 399 BCE: corrupting the youth of Athens, and impiety. The first charge alleged that Socrates had a pernicious influence on the young men of Athens. His habit of questioning established norms and encouraging critical thinking was supposed to have led the youth astray, thereby undermining the social fabric and stability of Athens.
The second charge — impiety (Greek: asebeia, ἀσέβεια) — alleged that Socrates did not believe in the traditional gods of Athens and had introduced foreign or strange deities to the city. This was a reference to his famous daimonion, which is sometimes mistranslated as an “inner voice”, as if it were a kind of schizophrenic hallucination. Socrates described this daimonion as a guiding spiritual force that would never tell him to do anything in particular but would now and again warn him against doing certain things. In so doing, he played into the hands of his accusers, who mischievously used his words against him, taking advantage of his habit of referring to this daimonion to build a spurious case that he was intent on propagating a new and highly unorthodox religious belief system.
Both charges were trumped up to provide a veneer of legitimacy for what was really a brazen attempt to get rid of a troublemaker. What really bugged his accusers had nothing to do with corrupting the youth or messing around with religion. The real reason for their animus against him was much more straightforward–Socrates was a massive troll.
What is trolling?
Trolling is a term that originated on the internet to describe the act of deliberately provoking or upsetting people, often by posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or off-topic messages in online communities like forums, social media platforms, or comment sections. The goal of trolling is usually to elicit strong emotional responses, either to cause disruption or simply for the troll’s amusement.
Trolling is often taken to imply bad faith, but this is not always the case. It is important to distinguish between different kinds of trolling:
- Bad faith trolling: This is the most common form of trolling. The troll acts with the intent to deceive, offend, or manipulate others, with no constructive purpose. For instance, someone might post deliberately false information in a discussion to confuse people or provoke heated arguments.
- Playful or satirical trolling: In some cases, trolling can be done with a humorous or satirical intent. For example, someone might engage in light-hearted trolling by posting exaggerated or obviously absurd statements to poke fun at a situation. While it may still be perceived by some people as disruptive, the intent is playful rather than malicious.
- Dialectical trolling: Sometimes, what might be perceived as trolling could be a form of dialectics (Greek: διαλεκτική, dialektikḗ). A person might use trolling tactics to expose hypocrisy or provoke thought about a particular issue. However, this still walks a fine line and can easily be perceived as bad faith, especially if it involves deception or harm.
In summary, while trolling often involves bad faith, it does not always do so. When determining whether a particular instance of trolling is harmful or simply provocative in a more neutral or even constructive way, it is important to take into account the context, intent, and impact of the trolling behaviour.
Socrates the troll
Socrates engaged in both playful and dialectical forms of trolling, and the anger that Socrates aroused in some of his critics may have been due to their assumption that he was acting in bad faith. In other words, they mistook his playful and dialectical trolling for bad faith trolling.
Take the playful trolling first. Socrates often engages in a method known as elenchus (ἔλεγχος, sometimes translated as “the Socratic method”), where he asks a series of probing questions to expose contradictions in his interlocutors’ beliefs. His manner can sometimes be playful, as he feigns ignorance or pretends not to understand, pushing his opponents into logical traps. This can be seen as a form of playful trolling because it involves leading others to question their own positions, often in a way that could be perceived as teasing or mocking, though with a constructive goal.
The verbal jousting that Socrates engages in, however, often serves a deeper purpose: to challenge societal norms, expose ignorance, and provoke critical thinking. In dialogues like the Euthyphro, for example, Socrates questions religious and moral assumptions, leading his interlocutor into confusion. This can be seen as a form of dialetical trolling that serves as social commentary, aiming to reveal deeper truths or encourage self-examination, rather than merely to disrupt.
Needless to say, this didn’t always go down well, especially with the less intelligent among his interlocutors. Some of Socrates’ critics, particularly his accusers at his trial, seem to accuse him of trolling in the bad faith sense. The nuances of the Socratic method seem lost on them, and they misconstrue his playfulness as deliberately provocative, deceptive, and harmful to the social order.
At his trial, Socrates rebutted these charges by, in effect, claiming that he only ever trolled in the second and third senses of the term rather than the first. When Socrates famously refers to himself as a “gadfly” sent by the gods to sting Athens into action, for example, he is essentially arguing that his trolling serves a higher purpose. His questioning is not meant to deceive or harm, but to awaken, challenge, and improve the moral and intellectual life of Athens. He acknowledges that his methods might be uncomfortable or irritating, much like a gadfly’s bite, but he insists that such methods are necessary for the health and vigour of public debate. Socrates defends his approach as a form of constructive provocation (trolling in the third sense), rather than mere mischief or malice (trolling in the first sense).
Socratic irony
Irony features heavily in the Socratic dialogues, to the extent that Socratic irony has become a term of art. Socratic irony involves the deliberate pretence of ignorance or humility about one’s own knowledge. Despite being deeply knowledgeable and skilled in argument, Socrates often presents himself as someone who knows nothing and is simply seeking to learn from others. This stance is ironic because, in reality, Socrates is using this pose of ignorance to subtly guide the conversation and expose the flaws in his interlocutors’ reasoning.
By claiming ignorance, Socrates puts his interlocutors off guard and tempts them to express their views more freely. It leads them to feel confident–even overconfident– in their own knowledge and engage more enthusiastically in the discussion, thinking they are instructing Socrates, rather than the other way round.
The use of irony also allows Socrates to ask seemingly simple or naive questions that lead his interlocutors to expose the contradictions or inadequacies in their own arguments. By pretending not to understand or know the answers, Socrates pushes his interlocutors to clarify their positions, which often leads to them to recognise their own confusion or ignorance.
When Socrates uses irony, he subtly encourages his interlocutors to reflect on their own beliefs. By making them believe that they are educating him, he actually leads them into deeper self-examination. When they eventually realise that their beliefs are not as solid as they first thought, the effect can be disconcerting, but it also opens the door to genuine philosophical inquiry and the search for truth.
Socratic irony also serves to challenge the perceived authority or expertise of those he engages with. By questioning the assumptions and knowledge of people who consider themselves wise, Socrates demonstrates that true wisdom comes from recognizing one’s own limitations. This approach is dialectical because it involves questioning established views and seeking a deeper understanding, rather than accepting things at face value.
Through his ironic pose, Socrates models an attitude of philosophical humility, which is central to the dialectical method. He shows that even the most basic concepts — like justice, virtue, or piety — are complex and difficult to define. This humility invites others into a shared process of inquiry, rather than positioning Socrates as a superior figure dispensing knowledge.
In the Apology, for example, when Socrates is defending himself against the charges brought by Meletus, he famously claims that he knows nothing except the fact of his own ignorance. This statement is ironic because Socrates is, in fact, deeply aware of the complexity of the issues at hand, but by professing ignorance, he draws out the inconsistencies in his accusers’ arguments and demonstrates that their supposed knowledge is shallow.
Socratic irony is, therefore, not just a rhetorical trick; it is integral to Socrates’ dialectical method. It allows him to engage others in a way that encourages open dialogue, exposes faulty reasoning, and promotes self-awareness. The interplay between irony and dialectic is what makes Socrates’ approach to philosophy so powerful and enduring. By pretending to be ignorant, Socrates creates a space for genuine philosophical inquiry, where assumptions can be questioned, and deeper truths can be sought.
Sarcasm and mockery
Socrates’ use of irony extends at times to sarcasm and mockery, often as a way to critique or subtly undermine the ideas and assumptions of his interlocutors.
Take sarcasm first. Sarcasm is a form of verbal irony where someone says the opposite of what they mean, typically to highlight the absurdity or foolishness of the other person’s position. Socrates’ use of sarcasm serves to expose flaws in reasoning and to provoke deeper reflection.
For example, when Socrates encounters Euthyphro, in the dialogue named after him, outside the courthouse, Socrates sarcastically praises Euthyphro for his superior knowledge of piety, saying:
It is indeed most important, my admirable Euthyphro, that I should become your disciple, and, before the trial with Meletus comes on, challenge him and say that I have always had a great interest in these matters, and now, far more so, as I claim to know the truth about them through Euthyphro, a claim which Meletus may laugh at if he likes.
Here, Socrates implies that Euthyphro’s certainty about piety is laughable, subtly mocking Euthyphro’s self-assuredness before going on to expose the weaknesses in his definitions of piety in the rest of their conversation.
Again, in the Apology Socrates recounts how the oracle at Delphi had proclaimed that no one was wiser than Socrates. He recounts his attempts to disprove this by questioning politicians, poets, and craftsmen in an attempt to find someone wiser than himself, remarking sarcastically:
I found that the men most in repute were all but the most foolish; and that some inferior men were really wiser and better.
In caustically observing that those who are regarded by most Athenians as wise are actually the least wise of the citizens, Socrates challenges the conventional respect given to those with high social status or reputation.
Likewise, in the Gorgias Socrates sarcastically remarks:
You’re a lucky man, Gorgias, if you can make a virtue of persuasion, and not merely a skill. For it’s no small matter if you can teach people to speak truth and justice as well as to persuade.
Here, the sarcasm lies in suggesting that anyone could transform persuasion into a virtue rather than merely a skill, since for Socrates it could never be virtuous to persuade someone to accept whatever one claim one may wish to advance, regardless of the truth or justice of what one is claiming. This sarcasm underlines Socrates’ scepticism about the moral value of rhetoric as practised by the sophists.
Socrates also uses mockery in his dialogues, often to highlight the absurdity or pretentiousness of his interlocutors’ claims. His mockery is usually subtle and delivered in a manner that can be both humorous and cutting, aimed at exposing the weaknesses in other peoples’ arguments or beliefs.
For example, in the Apology Socrates defends himself against the charge of corrupting the youth of Athens by mockingly suggesting that it would be absurd to believe that he, alone, could corrupt the youth while everyone else in Athens improves them:
I should be in a pitiable state, if I did not realise that this sort of corruption, as I am accused of, would inevitably lead to the corruption of myself, too. So much for that. But in any case, gentlemen of Athens, it seems to me, and I think it will to you also, that Meletus is altogether frivolous, having brought this suit in a spirit of sheer frivolity, and having done nothing but make a parade of his seriousness.
Here Socrates mocks the idea that he, as a single individual, could be responsible for corrupting all the youth of Athens while everyone else benefits them. He ridicules the seriousness of the charges brought against him, suggesting that, in accusing him of corrupting the youth, Meletus has frivolous motives rather than acting out of genuine concern for the public good.
Or take the Euthydemus, where Socrates engages with two sophists, Euthydemus and Dionysodorus, who claim to teach the art of winning arguments, and exposes the ridiculous nature of their supposed wisdom and logical skills. At one point, Socrates mockingly praises their ability to “teach”:
Wonderful! My dear Crito, what I say about the power of these philosophers is quite true. If they can really make a man a skillful speaker in all matters, it is indeed a great gift to be able to teach others.
This cutting remark highlights the absurdity of their claims. The mockery exposes the superficial nature of their so-called wisdom, as they focus more on winning arguments than on the pursuit of truth.
Socrates’ use of sarcasm and mockery thus serves as a tool to critique the pretensions and absurdities of those who claim to possess knowledge or authority without genuine understanding. By mocking such claims, Socrates encourages deeper reflection and challenges his interlocutors (and the audience) to reconsider their assumptions. His mockery, like his sarcasm and irony, is a strategic part of his dialectical method, designed to provoke thought and reveal the limitations of conventional wisdom. It is an extension of his broader approach to questioning and challenging established norms. Through sarcasm and mockery, Socrates highlights the absurdity or inconsistency in his interlocutors’ claims, often prompting them to rethink their positions. His sarcasm is typically subtle, layered within his dialogue, and serves as a tool to deepen the philosophical inquiry.
The death of Socrates
It was inevitable that, by continuing to employ dialectical trolling at his trial, Socrates would fail to convince the jury, who unsurprisingly found him guilty. When asked to propose his own punishment, Socrates suggested that he should be rewarded rather than punished, a further bit of trolling that likely irritated the jury even more. Afterwards, he offered to pay a fine, but the jury ultimately sentenced him to death by drinking hemlock, a poison. The sentence was carried out shortly after the trial, and the death of Socrates would become one of the most famous moments in the history of Western philosophy.
One can draw several morals from this story. One is that nobody likes a smartass. Another is that a true philosopher doesn’t really care whether anyone likes him. But perhaps the most important is that trolling can be a vital tool in the armoury of the dialectician.
I learned the art of trolling from social media, mainly by engaging in juvenile spats with adolescents. By means of this arduous apprenticeship, I have become an expert troll. Unlike Socrates, I didn’t corrupt the youth–they corrupted me!
This article is dedicated to my student, Lucy.
