It follows that Socrates was the prototypical agnostic. — Olivier5

His defense in the Apology was his "human wisdom" his knowledge of his ignorance. He also said that the oracle proclaimed that no one was wiser than Socrates. That is, no one has knowledge of such things.

It follows that Socrates was the prototypical agnostic. — Olivier5

His defense in the Apology was his "human wisdom" his knowledge of his ignorance. — Fooloso4

It is logically possible that Socrates was an agnostic.

As to his "ignorance", it says nothing about his religious beliefs and even less about those of Plato.

Yes, the power of doubt.

This raises the question of what Plato is up to when he has Socrates tell stories of transcendent knowledge. Platonists take these stories to be revealed truth, but Socrates says they are him opinion, not things he knows. So on the one hand we have Socratic skepticism and on the other a mythology posing as truth.

The solution of this seeming contradiction could be as simple as Plato putting words in Socrates' mouth.

Another solution would be that Socrates, while doubting, had a sort of hunch that the good was beyond the gods and all that.

The solution of this seeming contradiction could be as simple as Plato putting words in Socrates' mouth. — Olivier5

The question is why Socrates? If this is Plato's images of the truth then why not put them in the mouth of a stranger? After all, a stranger plays a role in some of the dialogues that Socrates does in others. Putting them in Socrates' mouth seems to undermine the truth of the claims, making them simply opinions.

Another solution would be that Socrates, while doubting, had a sort of hunch that the good was beyond the gods and all that. — Olivier5

Socratic philosophy is oriented around the question of the good. It is what is sought for. This orientation is, however, necessarily a human orientation. That is, the question of the good is the question of the human good. Although we find in the dialogues metaphysical speculation, it is serious play not science. The activity itself, when done in the right way, is seen as good. It is inspirational and aspirational. It is eidetic.

So on the one hand we have Socratic skepticism and on the other a mythology posing as truth. — Fooloso4

Skepticism does not equal atheism, either in Socrates' or Plato's case.

So, skepticism may be another "mythology posing as truth".

"So far, you have presented zero evidence for your claim that the Euthyphro or any other dialogue teaches "atheism".
— Apollodorus

That's because I never said that they do. You have a distorted view of what the Socratic teaching is — Fooloso4

You have already admitted that the dialogues do not teach atheism.

If all Socrates does is ask questions and express opinions, then it cannot be inferred from this that Plato was an atheist.

You seem to be cherry-picking Socrates statements and ignore those where he speaks of the soul's immortality or God in positive terms that do not sound like skepticism and even less like atheism.

You are not simply stating that "Socrates is a skeptic". You are saying he is telling myths or lies, therefore anyone who believes in the metaphysical realities discussed by Socrates is a believer in myths or lies.

But you have not demonstrated that this is the case, or even that Socrates is a skeptic. Gerson and other scholars do not believe that Socrates' position, or that of Plato, constitutes skepticism.

The question is why Socrates? If this is Plato's images of the truth then why not put them in the mouth of a stranger? — Fooloso4

What I gathered from my superficial reading on the subject is the conventional wisdom that Plato went through 'phases' or 'periods' like Picasso. At the begining he was following upon Socrates rather closely, but progressively he took some distance from his master, as he developed his own ideas. This would be reflected in his dialogues, where the figure of Socrates is prominent in dialogues classified as early, and in later dialogues he tended to be replaced by 'the stranger' (that is to say Plato himself, since he was a stranger in the strange land of Sicily at this point).

Socratic philosophy is oriented around the question of the good. It is what is sought for. This orientation is, however, necessarily a human orientation. That is, the question of the good is the question of the human good. — Fooloso4

The trick is that we know of Socrates through Plato and a few others but not directly. Like Jesus, Socrates could have written a book, but he chose not to, and so we know of his thoughts and deeds only through others.

This composite picture has some contradictions that you highlighted. It could be that the reports by Plato are inaccurate, or it could be that Socrates himself harboured some contradictions.

It is telling that you do not have enough confidence in your own arguments to let them stand, or fall, as the case may be.

It is telling that you do not have enough confidence in your own arguments to let them stand, or fall, as the case may be. — Fooloso4

Not at all. I am simply pointing out the inconsistencies in your claims. Isn't this what Socrates does and what philosophical discussion is about?

"In the course of recounting his conversations with others, Socrates says something enigmatic: “About myself I knew that I know nothing” (22d; cf. Fine 2008). The context of the dialogue allows us to read this pronouncement as unproblematical. Socrates knows that he does not know about important things. Interpreted in this manner, Socrates does not appear to be a skeptic in the sense that he would profess to know nothing. Even though some readers (ancient and modern) found such an extreme statement in the Apology, a more plausible reading suggests that Socrates advocates the importance of critically examining one’s own and others’ views on important matters, precisely because one does not know about them (Vogt 2012a, ch. 1). Such examination is the only way to find out."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-ancient/#SkeIdeEarClaGre

The fact that Socrates appears to have some skeptical tendencies does not make him, and even less Plato, a skeptic.

So, it seems that you are buying too much into the "Socratic skepticism" idea and end up constructing and believing your own mythology which you assume to be the "truth".

What I gathered from my superficial reading on the subject is the conventional wisdom that Plato went through 'phases' or 'periods' like Picasso. — Olivier5

There are noticeable differences between the earlier and later dialogues, but the question of whether his thinking is marked by different periods is complex. For example, a later dialogue, Parmenides, is about Socrates as a young man. Parmenides is critical of the Forms. It remains an open question whether the Forms survive the attack, and if so, how they were altered. Theories of Plato's development based on theories of the chronology of when the dialogues were written should be considered in light of the dramatic chronology that Plato provides. In other words, if there was a change in his view of the Forms, the dramatic chronology suggests it is a change that informed Socratic philosophy from near the beginning of Socrates' own development.

in later dialogues he tended to be replaced by 'the stranger' ( — Olivier5

The stranger appears in some but not all the later dialogues. The question of who the stranger is is related to the question of who philosopher is. There is no dialogue "Philosopher", but the question is taken up in the Sophist and Statesman. The philosopher is in some ways like them, but in what way he is unique is never resolved.

Here is a nice summary: "The Real Name of the Stranger: The Meaning of Plato's Statesman"

https://voegelinview.com/real-name-stranger-meaning-platos-statesman/

In the dialogue we find Socrates, the Stranger, and "young Socrates".

It could be that the reports by Plato are inaccurate, or it could be that Socrates himself harboured some contradictions. — Olivier5

In the Second Letter Plato says:

"No writing of Plato exists or ever will exist, but those now said to be his are those of a Socrates become beautiful and new".

The dialogues are not reports. Plato distances the man Socrates from the person created in the dialogues. In addition, he distances himself from what is said in the dialogues.

Just the other day I found this website

https://voegelinview.com/

and have referred to it couple of times already. It contains some very good essays. For anyone interested in the question of Plato and Platonism, "Plato's Critique of Platonism"

https://voegelinview.com/plato-s-critique-of-platonism-pt-1/

From these claims, the specter of a metaphysically and politically totalizing Platonism takes its shape. Now, totalization is simple; so it should be simple to present. And yet most commentators find the composition of the Eleatic dialogues – especially the Statesman – as anything but simple. They are inexplicably turgid, baffling, and even impenetrable. In my view, it is right to find elements of what has come to be known as Platonism in the Eleatic dialogues, but it is wrong to attribute them to Plato. On the contrary: in the Sophist and Statesman, Plato is presenting an explicit critique of Platonism, or more precisely a critique of those aspects of Eleatic or Megarian philosophy that have become identified with Platonism – in the modern period certainly since Hegel did so, but among the ancients as well.