From the book
Alcibiades II
Plato · Diotimos Editions · 2026
Browse this book’s lexicon →Orientation
At a Glance
- The wordThis thematic heading gathers the conjunction of ignorance, failure to notice and the mistaken judgement that harmful objects are good.
- In Alcibiades IIOedipus is initially an imperfect model because he consciously asks harm in anger.
- In this editionAt 143a Burnet prints hosōn kakōn, how many bad things, from a correction, where B and T read how great a bad thing.
- A place to readThe initial risk combines unnoticed error with possible divine fulfilment.
Meaning
This thematic heading gathers the conjunction of ignorance, failure to notice and the mistaken judgement that harmful objects are good. The problem is not simply having no information: it is confidently turning a false valuation into a request for the worst things for oneself.
Use in the book
Oedipus is initially an imperfect model because he consciously asks harm in anger. Socrates clarifies that people can be calm and believe themselves to be seeking good while reproducing a harmful result. Alcibiades’ appetite for dominion is introduced precisely as such a sincere attraction to an apparent benefit. The danger belongs to ordinary practical judgement, not only to exceptional disturbance.
At 143a–143b Alcibiades draws the sweeping conclusion that ignorance causes many human harms and, at its extreme, makes people pray for the worst things. Socrates then qualifies the general denunciation: some ignorance, for some people in particular conditions, is beneficial. The would-be killer saved by failing to recognize the victim is the crucial counterexample. The discussion of dangerous prayer therefore does not warrant the simple rule that every increase of knowledge is always an improvement.
The qualification leads to a hierarchy. What is unconditionally damaging in the examples is ignorance of the best; particular skills, information and possessions require direction by knowledge of benefit. Prayer is one application of that more general problem. Knowing how to address a god or how to acquire an object does not tell one whether acquiring it is good.
The final warning repeats the opening form and makes Alcibiades its subject. The remedy is not merely to remember examples of unlucky tyrants and parents but to learn how to distinguish good from bad. The concluding willingness to wait records progress in recognizing that need, not proof that the mist has already been removed.
Places to read
- 138bThe initial risk combines unnoticed error with possible divine fulfilment.
- 141a–141cA sincere desire for apparent good replaces Oedipus’ consciously harmful request.
- 143a–143e2Alcibiades condemns ignorance, and Socrates distinguishes ignorance of the best from other ignorance.
- 148a–148b2The divine offer is reconsidered after the knowledge argument.
- 150c–150eAlcibiades’ own prayer remains unsafe until educational preparation.
Translation in this edition
At 143a Burnet prints hosōn kakōn, how many bad things, from a correction, where B and T read how great a bad thing. The translation preserves the epistemic family ignorance and be ignorant even when recognition is at issue. This entry’s title is thematic and should not be mistaken for an independent Greek phrase.