In The Apology, Socrates distinguishes between two sets of accusers. The first were the many people, including Aristophanes, who had shaped public opinion against him since his youth. The second were individuals like Meletus, who brought the immediate charges against him.
Socrates’ distinction between his accusers parallels Frankfurt’s distinction between bullshitters and liars. The first set of accusers, like Aristophanes, spread misconceptions without concern for truth—much like bullshitters, who are indifferent to accuracy. Public opinion was shaped by these narratives, not through deliberate lies but through careless misrepresentation.
The second set of accusers, like Meletus, were more like liars. They knew the truth about Socrates but deliberately distorted it to secure his conviction. Unlike the bullshitter, who disregards truth entirely, the liar must recognize it in order to subvert it.
Of course, this division is somewhat neat, and in reality, there is overlap but thought it was interesting nonetheless & largely how these sort of things still go nowadays.
Socrates is one of my heroes, for sure. One of the most striking things I remember while reading through Plato's corpus was how often and how sincerely he yearns to be proven wrong in order to know the truth. That is all that matters to him.
I would quibble a bit with the distinction between bullshit and lies because ultimately I think it must be a distinction without a difference. That being an inevitable consequence of evil described as privatio boni and therefore being unable to be chosen as evil. I think the problem of akrasia and its answer in a thoroughgoing ethical intellectualism necessarily imply that all of us are confused, in that even if we know we do evil by way of episteme it can't be by way of gnosis or grokking it.
I do need to revisit Lloyd Gersons paper on Plotinus' thought on the problem of akrasia. I haven't yet read the Enneads so no doubt there probably is a more nuanced way to read this. I am but a layman swimming in waters probably too deep for me, but these are my thoughts. Thanks for the wonderful article and congratulations on the new addition to the family! My wife and I are expecting one in January.
In The Apology, Socrates distinguishes between two sets of accusers. The first were the many people, including Aristophanes, who had shaped public opinion against him since his youth. The second were individuals like Meletus, who brought the immediate charges against him.
Socrates’ distinction between his accusers parallels Frankfurt’s distinction between bullshitters and liars. The first set of accusers, like Aristophanes, spread misconceptions without concern for truth—much like bullshitters, who are indifferent to accuracy. Public opinion was shaped by these narratives, not through deliberate lies but through careless misrepresentation.
The second set of accusers, like Meletus, were more like liars. They knew the truth about Socrates but deliberately distorted it to secure his conviction. Unlike the bullshitter, who disregards truth entirely, the liar must recognize it in order to subvert it.
Of course, this division is somewhat neat, and in reality, there is overlap but thought it was interesting nonetheless & largely how these sort of things still go nowadays.
Thanks for a great post!
Socrates is one of my heroes, for sure. One of the most striking things I remember while reading through Plato's corpus was how often and how sincerely he yearns to be proven wrong in order to know the truth. That is all that matters to him.
I would quibble a bit with the distinction between bullshit and lies because ultimately I think it must be a distinction without a difference. That being an inevitable consequence of evil described as privatio boni and therefore being unable to be chosen as evil. I think the problem of akrasia and its answer in a thoroughgoing ethical intellectualism necessarily imply that all of us are confused, in that even if we know we do evil by way of episteme it can't be by way of gnosis or grokking it.
I do need to revisit Lloyd Gersons paper on Plotinus' thought on the problem of akrasia. I haven't yet read the Enneads so no doubt there probably is a more nuanced way to read this. I am but a layman swimming in waters probably too deep for me, but these are my thoughts. Thanks for the wonderful article and congratulations on the new addition to the family! My wife and I are expecting one in January.