Two things:
1 — Socrates’ Contradiction
Socrates says we shouldn’t make assumptions about things we don’t know, and then proceeds to make an assumption about something he doesn’t know. He announces we shouldn’t fear death because no one has any idea what happens after, and then he declares it must be one of two possibilities, both of which he thinks are positive.
There are two ways we can interpret this blatant contradiction.
- Socrates is stupid. He doesn’t realize he contradicted himself.
- Socrates deliberately contradicted himself to make a point.
Since Socrates isn’t stupid—after all, we’re still talking about his arguments, more than 2,400 years after his death—let’s go with #2.
Socrates’ point, consistent with his main argument, is don’t assume knowledge where there isn’t any. If you respond “no, Socrates, there’s an afterlife and it’s like _____” you’re providing an example of someone claiming to know something he can’t possibly know. But if you respond “come on Socrates, you can’t know that. Maybe it’s like ______” then you’re embracing the argument he wants you to make.
2 —Fearing the Unknown
Even if Socrates deliberately contradicted himself to make a point, that doesn’t mean his point is correct.
It’s often smart to fear the unknown. Fearing the unknown is a survival mechanism. Taken too far, it can be crippling. But a reasonable amount of fear reduces risk and helps one prepare for the unexpected.
Evolutionarily, animals with some fear of the unknown are more likely to survive than those with none.
The interesting question is whether fear that the gods’ (or God’s) judgment could lead to a negative experience after death is reasonable or not.
