Socrates and Plato - Session 09 (13 March 2001)

This is because we want to learn How to argue. What is an argument? Let us first of all revise what is an argument. I said yesterday an argument is a statement of a set of facts first where there are no facts is no argument there must be a set of facts and secondly there must be derivation of implications. What does effect imply? What does affect signify? What does affect mean? And for that purpose I said you can also have the inquiry into why the fact is what it is? Secondly, why could it not be otherwise? Thirdly, what ought to be? Why? What is it not to be? These questions when they are answered along with a set of facts that constitutes an argument. Now we have before us two accusations against Socrates. Now can anybody tell me the first accusation? Yesterday somebody had read to me from page number five. The first accusation Samatha you can read out to me from page number five.

Socrates is guilty of criminal meddling in that he inquires into things below the earth and in the sky and makes the weaker argument defeat the stronger and teaches others to follow his acceptance.

Good. Now tell me if this argument or this accusation is first understood: meddling is a word. What is meddling to meddle Socrates is guilty of criminal meddling criminal meddling. So there is first the word meddling and then there is criminal meddling. What is criminal? Can anybody tell me what is criminal? Yes. There is first of all a word called wrong. But everything that is wrong is not criminal, there are two kinds of wrongs. Civil and Criminal. So we must know the distinction between the two. What is civil wrong? And what is criminal wrong? If I give a promise to you I’ll return this book to you tomorrow and I don't think it is wrong. It's not a criminal wrong. I promise I’ve written this book to you and I don't do it. It is civil wrong, it's not criminal wrong. Now tell me what is the distinction? Now I give another example of criminal wrong. I’ve borrowed the book from you and I’ll tell you and I will give you this book. I took this book from you and tomorrow I’ll return. Instead of returning I sell it. I don't return the book to you. I sell it in the market, get 50 rupees for it and use it for my own purposes. Now this is a criminal wrong because there is actually cheating. The element of cheating is a criminal wrong. You dispossess somebody of somebody with a criminal intention. My intention is to deprive your book and enjoy the benefit of that book. As she rightly said, when you want to hurt somebody when you create a situation in which society is put into some kind of apparel there are many examples in which the most important thing is the intention to hurt somebody to cheat somebody to take advantage and to be enriched by it. Hurt, grievous hurt there is a difference between hurt and grievous hurt. If the teacher slaps a child it is hurt but if he inflicts some pain by a knife it's a grievous hurt.

Both are crimes, slapping the child is a crime and also using a weapon to inflict a grave herd is also a crime but there are differences. The latter one is a bigger crime, the first is a lesser crime. So civil wrong in English is called tort therefore in the system of law there is a law of torts and law of crimes. There are two systems of law. Law of thought and law of crimes. Hurt, grievous hurt, cheating, dishonesty, murder to cause infamy of somebody, libel, conspiracy, unite together with so many people and to put fire on some house with a conspiracy these are all examples of criminal acts. The x by which the whole society is put into some kind of a damage. A personal damage is a tort. A social damage is a crime. If I just don't return the book to you it's a damage but it's a personal damage but if as a result the society comes into the picture, I created the society as a whole take for example committing suicide. Is it a tort or is it a crime? Why because it is only for your personal evil. Isn't it? But It is not so because you are a member of society it is not for you that you live alone so committing suicide is of course no crime because nothing happens thereafter whom will you punish? If suicide is already committed successfully then the person who should have been punished no more exists. So this is the one law in which attempt to commit suicide is an offense. If you make an attempt then you are supposed to have committed a crime because you then remain alive after making an attempt so you are still alive there so you can be told that look you are not by yourself you exist for the whole society. Society expects from you. You can give benefit to the society by committing suicide you are creating a vacuum the good that you could have produced for the society is now prevented. Therefore committing suicide is attempt to commit suicide is a crime.

You may say criminal wrong. That's true, it is criminal wrong. Actually the word tort comes from French Tour. So the law of tort is a civil wrong if I break a contract I have contracted that I shall build this house in 50 000 rupees and then I don't build it in 50 000 rupees contract is broken. Isn't that a crime? It is only a loss to me so it's a tort. Breaking a law in which you personally get damaged the one who commits the breakage of a contract he's not sent to the jail he's fine. But he's not sent to jail. But if it is proved that the contractor has deliberately designed to take the contract and cheated you, if cheating comes into the picture then it is a crime because cheating spreads in the whole society there is a criminal intention. So now you see the argument which is here against Socrates is he is guilty of criminal meddling, that is to say if I meddling your affairs it is bad but it is criminal meddling. I have the intention of misleading you. I have the intention of spoiling your mind and the whole society then ultimately become misguided that is called criminal meddling. If I simply come to your house and say how are you? I say fine then I go on asking who has come as visitors to your house. How often does he come? What is his father like? What is his mother like? It's called meddling. It may be wrong. It may be tort. But if I have intentions that by finding out by questioning you I want to discursive you. I want to corrupt your mind then it is called criminal meddling. Now Socrates is now guilty according to the accusation that he is guilty of criminal meddling.

Now then further we see what he says, what is his argument, criminal meddling in that …. He inquires into things below the earth and sky. Now what does it mean? He inquires into earth and sky which means that something that is not legitimate he is inquiring into and rouses people to inquire into things which they should not inquire into. Inquire means questioning, to question what is beyond the sky, what is below the earth which you cannot normally see and which only religion answers, only religion has answered already, so you have no right to question again according to the accusers and if you inquire into this question, you’re you are inquiring into the gods, questioning the gods. So as Tobean rightly said it has the implication that you are breaking the religion and breaking the religion is criminal. Alright then farther… and makes the weaker argument defeat the stronger. Now this is another, it is criminal because you know that argument is weak and yet you show how it can meet, how it can defeat a stronger argument. That means you have a falsehood on your side, it’s a weaker argument, your argument is stronger so truth is on your side and yet you succeed in showing that this is better than the other one, you’re spoiling the minds of people. You’re showing that the falsehood can win against the truth and then you tell the other people that you also follow the same example. Not only you but you ask others also. Now this is the argument. So we repeat now—Socrates is guilty of criminal meddling in that he inquires into the sky and into what is below the earth and he shows the weaker argument can defeat the stronger argument and then he asks the other people to follow his example. Now this is the argument now see how Socrates is answering this argument. You have now read his argument quite well; you only want the gist of that argument. We shall try to bring out the basic argument.

Now he points out that this is an argument which is very difficult to refute. You can argue against anybody, anyone of us can be taken to a court of law and you can argue about that person and say: He is doing criminal meddling and he shows that which is false to be true and he asks other people to follow. Now how would you argue, supposing you are in the box, you have never done this kind of thing at all, you know it very well but somebody comes and accuses you; how would you refute this argument? You think of it then you will see the value of Socratic argument. You would normally say: let somebody who has been mistakenly brought here, isn’t it? You would say if this accusation is valid somebody should come here before the court and should say that well here is what I have done, here I have misled somebody and I am asking other people to follow it. You would do that isn’t it, and then the court would be obliged to ask the prosecutor, kindly bring some such witnesses. Now suppose there are many people who have been hurt by you and they want to see that you are punished and they all join together and many people come to the court and tell you: yes, it is true. Then what do you do? You know that they are all wrong. Now the position of Socrates was of that kind. There were many people who were prepared to say to the court: it is true. Now what is the way in which you can argue?

Now if you read Socratic argument, you’ll find first of all Socrates says: I admit that this argument is very difficult for me to refute, he says very clearly and he says the reason is twofold. First of all I don’t even know those people who have made this accusation; I don’t even know these people because this kind of argument has been made to many people when they were young children. Their fathers used to tell their children: Look, there is Socrates who’s called a very wise man but he is capable of showing what is not true to be true and he inquires into the sun and the moon, inquires into the sky and what is below the earth, don’t go near him because he will spoil you. So from childhood this story has been told to many children and children normally take for granted what is told to them by their parents is true. So this story is now going on in the whole place. Now if these children who have now become quite big men, if they are all brought together into the court as witnesses they will say: yes, we have heard it, it is true. Now their parents, who are their parents, Socrates doesn’t even know which parents have poisoned their children in this way. So he says my task is very difficult, I don’t even know my accusers. I don’t know those people who have poisoned their children’s minds from their childhood, who have now become big men by now, they will confirm the accusation because they have been told from their childhood. So they believe it to be true, they will say my parents have said something must have happened to them, so they are saying something that is true. So he says my task is very difficult. So Socrates says, his argument is—you kindly consult the many people who are here, at least they have come into my personal contact, ask them: Have I ever spoken of this, have I ever misled them? If you have any report in your mind, kindly tell your neighbours who are sitting here, kindly tell them, no, no this is not true. This is the only argument he can make. There is no other argument. He said just see, ask anybody here who has come in my contact and ask them whether this is true or not, this is one set of arguments in this.

There is now a second set of arguments, what is that second set? He himself proposes to inquire into the following. He says: if you are, there are many people who will now tell me Socrates if you are so innocent and that this accusation is completely baseless then how has this complaint come about at all? Kindly explain, if something is completely wrong then I should explain why it has come about? So the second set of arguments of Socrates is the answer to this question. He himself raises this question and then he himself answers this question. He says my friends, you will ask me if I am so innocent. How is it that so many people have made this argument, this accusation against you? What have you done in your life that these accusations are running about, something must be there behind it? So he explains why this accusation has come about. Now can anybody tell me how he explains? Right, if you read now once again, he starts answering the question he says: The origin of this accusation is God himself. It so happened that a friend of his went to Delphi and in the temple a priestess was asked the question? Is there anybody wiser than Socrates? This was the question and the priestess said: no. meaning thereby that Socrates is the wisest. This is the beginning of the whole trouble. The priestess or the oracle in Delphi said that Socrates is the wisest man in the whole world. So he said when I heard this I was taken aback. He said I believed that God cannot be wrong, what God says is right but I do not agree with it because I know that I am not the wisest, there are so many wise people around how can I be wisest, I know of my own limitations, I know how wrong I am. So I thought that this is the one time when God is wrong, I did not believe it but not to believe in God’s word is a very irresponsible thing, I wanted to believe but I could not believe. So what did I do? I had to carry out an investigation; I had to find out what is the truth behind God’s words? It was my duty to find out because I could not rest aside. I could not say what the oracle has said is right because I really did not believe in it and yet not to believe in God would be a crime. I believe in God, I would like to respect God’s words; so I had no alternative but to make inquiry, to find out whether it is really true? Now you tell me what is wrong in this? Then he says in my investigation I met three kinds of people whom I thought were very wise people. Now what are the three categories of people that he met, you remember? He first met politicians, second he met poets and third he met craftsmen. So he says: when I met the politicians and people believed that he was very wise and he himself believed that he was still wiser, such a man I met first. People thought that he was wise and he himself thought he was wiser such a man I met, I selected one man who surely would be wiser than me in any case because people believed that he was wise and he himself believed he was wiser. So I met him and after investigating, after questioning him I found that he did not know at all. My conclusion was that he did not know, nor did I know, not that I knew and he did not know. The only difference was that he did not know but believed that he knew, on my part I did not know and I knew that I do not know; it’s the only difference between the two so in the scale who is better? I found that I was better because where I did not know; I knew that I did not know whereas that man did not know and he knew so in the state of the truth I was certainly better. So I came to the conclusion that this man who is supposed to be wise, who believes himself to be wiser is certainly not wise but in comparison to him at least I was wiser. This was my conclusion. Then I went to another politician and the same result, he claimed that he knew whereas he did not know. Then I told him frankly you claim to know but you don’t know. Now very few people would like to take the truth, if somebody is told: you don’t know and you claim that you know so they became my enemies. Then I went to poets because poets are supposed to be inspired, very learned almost like gods. That is what all poets claim to be, they write with inspiration. So I went to them and I said: here is your poem, can you explain this poem to me but they could not explain what they had written themselves. So I came to the conclusion that they are like those people who are inspired so well that they don’t know what they write. So I concluded I was certainly better than them. Then I went to a craftsman. What did the craftsman do? But when I began to ask other questions they did not know the answers but yet they pretended they knew the answers and they thought they had the answers. So while they were good in their own profession they held views about other things about which they had no knowledge, so that was their fault. So I told them what was their fault? But came to the conclusion that what God wants to say is only this: that wisdom only belongs to God.

If I say that Socrates is the wisest god, I only want to say we like Socrates because he knows that he doesn’t know and that is wisdom. So I came to this conclusion and I went spreading this idea ‘be humble, don’t believe that you know, when you do not know as a result so many people began to hate Socrates, very angry with Socrates and they begin to tell their children: Don’t go near Socrates, he is meddling, he inquires into the earth and above the sky and he can show you a false argument to be true argument, or a weaker argument to be stronger argument. This is the kind of poison that began to pour in the children’s minds and the children believed it. Now they have become big men and they believe in this acquisition, not only that this is only one series of events but he says I still continue to teach people and when I teach people my method of argument is such that it reveals the falsehood of the people. I ask questions and they answer and I show them: look their answers are pretentious, they pretend to have knowledge but they don’t have knowledge and when I argue in the market place there are so many young people around me and they feel it very amusing; here is Socrates challenging this man and proving that he is wrong and young people are very much amused. So these young people also begin to challenge other young people in the same way this is what is happening. I am doing my duty because I want to teach people to be humble but young people around them also begin to take the same kind of a practice which is also good because they also want to get rid of the pretensions of the people. As a result the number of enemies has become very great, it is continuing all the time, more and more enemies are created so this is his argument. And he says: now you call anybody among this whole audience and ask them if this is not true? Then there is a third argument.

This practice of weaker to be shown as stronger, there is an argument: he can show the weaker argument to be stronger or weaker argument to defeat the stronger argument. He said: look, as a matter of fact there are people who have professions. It’s a fact that in Athens there are some people who have taken it as a profession and he gives examples of these people. If you read his argument you’ll find some examples. So there are people who teach students, they claim to be teachers of human beings. It’s a very difficult task to be a teacher and then to be a teacher of a human being is a very difficult task. But there are people in Athens who believe that they are teachers and they are teachers of human beings and they have mesmerised many people to such an extent that many parents send their children to them saying: please teach my children; and give enormous amount of money, they charge fees so there are people in Athens like that, it is true. And I will give examples of these people but I tell you frankly that I am not one of them. I don’t charge anybody any fee at all, it’s a fact that I live in poverty that’s the proof. If I were to charge fees for my teaching I would have been a very rich man now but I am not a rich man. It is these people who believe that they can teach but as I know I cannot teach anybody, I am only arguing, I am only questioning, I don’t teach anybody. I am only questioning so that the pretensions of the people are washed out, that’s all, and this the third set of the argument.

This is how he thinks that he has now nothing more to say, I don’t know whether he proved his point or not but this is the utmost that he could argue. Now you can think about whether he could argue better or not? This book ’Apology’ is read by so many people that the reason is that the accusation is very difficult to refute and the best argument that he could put forward is put forward here and people when they think as how to meet this kind of acquisition they find nothing better could have been said, successful or not successful, ultimately you will be defeated because people will not be convinced by these arguments. But could there have been a better argument than what he argued? And people who read this dialogue feel that Socrates did his best, he spoke all that he could have said in the best possible manner but this is the substance of his argument.

The first argument is—he does not know the accusers because they are not there. They have put the wrong idea in the minds of the children and then they will all say that the acquisition is correct because they have heard from their parents and they believe in their parents. Then he himself says that I cannot therefore argue against them because I don’t know how to argue but if you ask the question as to how this kind of accusation has come about then I can tell you the story. He said that God is at the root of the whole problem, he spoke that I am the wisest. So I inquired whether I am wisest or not and came to the conclusion that I was wisest in this sense and then he said that I was taken for my profession the task of telling people that they should be honest, they should be truthful, they should not pretend, they should admit that they when they don’t know when they really don’t know. And the young people who are around me all the time, they also take on the same kind of task. So my enemies have multiplied. Now second accusation, this is the first accusation, All right.

Now comes the second accusation: What is the second accusation? Socrates is corrupting the minds of young people and did not believe in the gods of the state, recognised by the state but he invents his own gods. This is the second argument. Now how to deal with this argument? If anybody says that you are corrupting the young people, how do you prove that you are not corrupting the young people? One way would be to bring all the people whom you are teaching isn't. Let all the people come to the court of law and let them say: Socrates is our teacher but he is not corrupting us. Judge will say: you don’t think you are corrupted by Socrates but you are. How will you answer this question? You think you are not being corrupted but we believe you are being corrupted, it’s a very difficult thing to refute, you can see that. Just as the first set of arguments was very difficult, this also is very difficult. So now Socrates goes into reverse, you will see the kind of argument that he puts forward. He says: Tell me, I may be corrupting, grant. Tell me who is not corrupting, who is the benevolent man in the whole state, who is not corrupting? It’s a very clever question. If the answer says that here is one man who is not corrupting then the answer would be: Alright, then others are corrupting, if this one man is not corrupting others are corrupting then why don’t you bring them to the court of law, why do you bring me alone? Do you see the cleverness of the argument? He puts a question: Tell me who is benefactor, who is benefitting the young people, who is not corrupting the young people, he asks this question again and again. So tell me. So Meletus who has to answer the question because he is arguing on behalf of the accusation so he asks Meletus: You argue that I am corrupting the young people I am repeating for your sake now the second argument the second accusation is that Socrates is corrupting the minds of young people and that he does not believe in the gods recognized by the state and invents his own gods this is the second accusation. Now Socrates wants to refute the first part. I am not corrupting the young people. How to prove? So he reverses the question and says tell me who is not corrupting the young people. Now Meletus is not able to answer this question first of all, so Socrates says: answer, answer the question; I may be corrupting but who is not corrupting tell me. Because he knows that if he shows one person who is not corrupting then it would prove that others are corrupting, if others are corrupting then why are they not brought to the court of law, only I am brought before the court of law. That is the stance he takes and Meletus understands the question quite well so he does not answer the questions. So he is pressed so Meletus answers afterwards when pressed, a very clever answer. “Laws do not corrupt the young people, he doesn’t say who, he changes ‘what’ not 'who', what does not corrupt he does not answer the question 'who' is not corrupting? He answers that laws are not corrupting. Socrates understands the answer quite well he says: no, no, my question is not ‘what’ my question is 'who' is not corrupting, who is not corrupting give me the name who is not corrupting? So ultimately Meletus says: Members of the jury are not corrupting, so Socrates then goes farther and says: Only they or others also? So ultimately he goes on asking questions until he says: All people in Athens are beneficial to the people, to the young people…..

Then Socrates laughs at him and says: Oh! You mean to say all are benefitting the young people, I am the only one who is corrupting, he showed the absurdity of the question then he tries to show can this answer be true? When Meletus says that all are beneficial to the young people and only Socrates is the only one corrupting, he says: Can it be true at all in the very nature of it, so he goes to analogy—think of horses. If you are asked the question: who trains horses well? Will you answer the question by saying that all are good trainers, only one or two are exceptions? Will you answer the question like that—the answer will be quite absurd because normally those who can train are fewer in the nature of things. So this is his answer.

Now comes the second question, second aspect of the accusation, what is the second? He is inventing his own gods and does not believe in the gods of the state. So first of all he says: My dear friend there is one man in our country, who really does not believe in God or gods of the state. Are you not mistaken in thinking that I am that man? Maybe you are mistaken. I am that man who does not believe in God or gods of the state and he gives the name of that man, he says it is Anaxagoras. There is one man whose name is Anaxagoras and it is well known; children don’t need to come to me to find out his answers because he is very well–known. So I am not the one who is propagating the idea that I don’t believe in the gods of the state so maybe that I am correcting your mistake. This accusation would be correct if I were Anaxagoras but I am not Anaxagoras, I am Socrates. Then the second argument that he puts forward is ‘I believe at least in divine things, divine activities, that is very well known that I always speak of divine activities. If I believe in divine activities can I deny gods, can there be music without musicians, if I believe in music there must be a musician, I can’t deny the musician. If I accept music, I cannot deny the musician. So if I accept divine activities I can’t deny gods there must be gods, so your accusation is wrong. If you believe that I believe in gods at all even though they have been invented by me but you agree I believe in gods and these gods are doing divine activities therefore they are gods and they may be children of those gods whom you believe, maybe we don’t believe but can it be. Can there be children of gods without their parents? So it only proves that I believe in gods, I believe in divine activities and therefore I believe in gods. Then Meletus says: But I claim that you don’t believe in God at all, not that you believe in one God, one set of gods and not the other set of gods. So Meletus says my argument is: you don’t believe in God at all. So Socrates says: now you are saying self–contradicting yourself, on the one hand you say I believe in gods that was your first statement and now you say that I don’t believe in God at all, this is the sum and substance of his argument. The rest of the dialogue which we shall read is concerned with other aspects not the main accusations. These two accusations which I discussed just now have been answered by him to the best of his ability or anybody’s ability. The questions are of such a kind that you cannot answer better than this. That is why ’Apology’ has been praised so much in the world. But this is when you don’t have any kind of substance and yet you are asked to defend yourself this is the best defence that could be given. Plato has written the dialogue so convincingly that if there was a real impartial hearer he would have been convinced but because accusers had a political motive this is not written here, why was the accusation brought against Socrates? Because Socrates was disliked by many people as he explains himself since he was making people aware that they do not know what they claim that they know but there was another reason.

He was a friend of Aristocrats. There was a group of people in Greece or in Athens who were called Aristocrats, who were different from Democrats,—Democrats and Aristocrats there was a conflict in Greece between these two classes. Aristocrats believed that government should be governed by refined people, by Aristocrats. Aristocrats are really refined people, competent people whereas Democrats believed that the government should be governed by the people. Now this is a very important distinction; throughout the history of the world this debate has continued, who should govern the people? Now you think of this question: who should govern the people? If you have a right to govern the question is whether you should have the right to govern, who should have the right to govern? Socrates used to answer the question in the following way—if you want to make a shoe to whom should you go to—the shoemaker, evidently, why, because he knows how to make the shoes. Similarly if you ask the question who should govern? Answer should be—those who know how to govern, isn’t it? That was his answer.

Now who knows how to govern the people, those who are refined people, those who are very well educated people, those who know what is human nature, how to improve human nature, those who know everything, really know they should know that these are the people in this capacity, others are in another capacity, others other capacity. So he was therefore a friend of Aristocrats. Now the present government that is to say the present government of that time when Socrates was brought to the court of law that government was a Democratic government,—Meletus, Anytus, Lycon all of them were Democrats and they were the rulers and since Socrates was meddling into their affairs all the time therefore they wanted to get rid of Socrates. Therefore they brought forward accusations against Socrates and put him to trial and main Democrats were in the compound and at that time the system was ‘majority rule should decide’. If majorities of people think that Socrates is guilty—he is guilty and then the majority of the people decide what should be the punishment. So ultimately what happened was when his whole argument was over the judges referred to all the people and said: Tell us whether Socrates is guilty or not? Now not that all people agreed that he was guilty as Socrates says: if thirty more people had to favour me, I would have been proved to be not guilty. So he was proved to be guilty only by a majority of thirty people but the majority was in the favour of guilty—this was the verdict. Thereafter Socrates made a further speech when he was declared to be guilty, we shall read that whole speech. It is very interesting and after that again people were asked—what punishment should be given and this time a larger majority said: death punishment therefore Socrates was put to death.

In the course of this argument which is now going to be read here, Socrates speaks about himself, explains to people why he is doing what he is doing and the whole character of Socrates is delineated in these passages. These therefore are not arguments against accusations in the whole chapter therefore we must distinguish two parts. Until now we were only reading the accusations and the answers to accusations now he speaks about himself and explains his own life. It is for what is written now that Socrates has become so famous. What was the man and to understand what he writes, now what he speaks you must understand one little more thing, the procedure that was followed at that time in the court of law. Procedure was that you should cry based on punishment then people would say: Alright, and give lesser punishment for you or you should bring your wife or children they should plead with the people: Please! Spare my father, spare my husband then people might be kind and say alright we will not punish you much or you pay a big fine, big amount of money then you are excused or you should say: Look if you find me to be uncomfortable don’t kill me, I am ready to be exiled, send me out of this town, I will go elsewhere then also a lesser punishment could be given.

Now Socrates says why he does not want any one of these remedies; this is the character of the man. He could have escaped death that if any one of this things he could have done, he says: No, I won’t stoop so low, I have a command of God, I will do my duty as I am doing now, don’t think I will stop meddling with the people because it’s my duty to God. He has given me the task even if death comes, so what? I am not afraid of death. He gives an example—yesterday, he gave an example of Achilles, when he was told that after killing Hector he will be killed himself. He said: So what, I would have got rid of one villain from the earth, afterwards doesn’t matter even if I die, doesn’t matter. He said: when I was in the war you liked me very much because I stood in the war and I was ready to be killed and I didn’t fear death therefore you praised me very much. So today also I don’t fear death because death may be a very great blessing, who knows? Then he answers as we will read tomorrow, why he doesn’t want his children to come, his wife to come to beg for mercy. He will explain why he doesn't want exile; so these are the interesting aspects of his character which are revealed in the next part of the dialogue.