r/Plato

Before we start, this post does not support racism or violence. This is being said in order to hedge my bets. Plato notes in Phaedrus that as long as statements are centered around earnestly, honesty, and the truth it does not matter how foolish you seem. Pirsig continues this line of reasoning and states that good pieces of media are able to “kill intellectual level morals” surrounding a piece. This, in practice, means that effective pieces of propaganda look like shit-posting. Plato notes that evil folks can attempt to do this, but, because they are not centered around the truth, they tend to slip up the longer they go on.

Let’s construct a piece of counter-propaganda. As good practice, I will not link to the original work.

China Pulse published a piece in which they celebrated a child for doing their civic duty by hammering down loose nails within a playground. This is propaganda as it ignores the fact that there should not be loose nails on playground equipment.

Western media is often criticized for ignoring key points of a story in order to sell a broader narrative. When the media is about children, these narratives are framed as heartwarming stories, such as an entire school getting together to pay for a child’s cancer treatment. Because this is the intellectual message we wish to bring to the reader, that can be the title of the piece.

The rest of the post has to have the same writing style as a heartwarming piece of media. This is easy as the original piece of propaganda is framed as a heartwarming story. We can take the original work and change around the words in order to try to key the reader in that this is not actually a heartwarming tale.

The end result is something like this

Heartwarming!
China Pulse reports that a 5-year old got caught on a prodding nail. The boy knows not to alert his parents or his city, but instead grabs a rock and hammers down 20 nails scattered around the playground.
Thank you, little hero!

In a few months I plan to read three sets of translations on Plato's Apology along with Euthyphro and Crito: R.E. Allen, Thomas G. West & Grace Starry West, and then Mark Kremer.  Additionally, I researched and selected three in-depth commentaries.  I plan to start with Socrates on Trial by Brickhouse & Smith which gives a section by section analysis of the Apology.  

The other two commenters appear to have opposing views. Socrates in the Apology by C.D.C. Reeve argues Socrates presents a sincere, serious, non-ironic defense.  The Ironic Defense of Socrates by David Leibowitz argues for an ironic defense where Socrates focuses on philosophical issues rather than building a true, persuasive case to the jurors. Both approaches seem to have their critics.

MY QUESTION:  What is historically, or currently, the predominant view?  And would one generally recommend I start with a non-ironic or ironic interpretation of the Apology on first read?  I can always develop my own separate opinion in time but would like my initial approach to be the traditional or commonly accepted view.

Similar to gaslighting, it can hard to know if someone is arguing sincerity or with (covert) irony if you're not that familiar with the subject or the individual's state of mind. Political speeches in particular can be challenging to tell if the arguments are genuine, even if serious flawed, or if the speaker is being dishonest.  And while an informed, educated audience can get satire, those uninformed or uneducated can take a satirical comment as the truth, as public interviews by The Daily Show repeatedly, and shockingly, demonstrate.

What would be your recommendation on a first read of the Apology?  Should I assume Socrates is making sincere arguments?  Or should I keep an eye out for ironic ones?

Firstly, I believe Plato makes love a ladder, but I believe it is more like a video game character improving his stats ( lazy metaphor, but I can not find a better one). It is not stages for me but categories. It would look like :

Romantic love.

I agree that common love is bad and that the love of the soul should be higher. But it ends at loving another person for their virtue and their affect in your life

Love for humanity.

This is where the love for civilization comes in. There is a love for virtuous ways of life. Virtuous systems that help people. Virtuous laws, etc.

Love for knowledge.

A mathematician loves his work and math. A philosopher finds an idea beautiful

There could be many more categories, but I believe it covers the steps. One person may love mathematics but be so cold emotionally. Am I wrong here ?