Strauss is talking about Socrates. — Apollodorus

He is talking about Socrates as depicted by Cicero. It is right there in the text if only you would look!

1. Strauss' book is entitled "On Plato's Symposium".

2. The incident of Socrates praying to the Sun is discussed in Chapter 12, "Alcibiades", that discusses Alcibiades' speech about Socrates in the Symposium.

3. Strauss quotes Alcibiades' speech about Socrates:

He conceived a thought there and stood from dawn considering it, and when he couldn't make any progress, he refused to let up but kept on standing considering. It was now already noon, and the soldiers became aware of it, and in amazement one said to another, 'Socrates has been standing there since dawn reflecting.' Finally, some of the Ionians, when it was evening, once they had dined, - it was then summer - brought out their bedding and slept in the cold while keeping watch on him, to see whether he would stand also through the night. He stood till dawn and the sun came up; and then he went away after he had prayed to the sun (220c3-d5)

- L Strauss, On Plato's Symposium, p. 276

4. Strauss only mentions Cicero's Republic and Laws to say that the former is a dialogue in winter when people seek the sun, and the latter in summer when they seek the shade, in order to contrast this with Socrates who seeks the sun in summer "when its light is the strongest and in accordance with that he prays to the sun at the end" and "let us not forget that the sun is a cosmic god" to explain why Socrates prayed to the Sun (p. 277), after which he continues discussing the next Symposium passage (220d5-e7).

5. Nothing to do with Cicero whatsoever except to emphasize Socrates' seeking the Sun in the summer, when the Sun is at its brightest, as opposed to what people normally do. Period.

Why would he mention Cicero if only to say what everyone knows and does in summer and winter?

He says:

That theme [contemplation in summer as distinguished from winter] is known to those who read Cicero's Republic and Laws.

Have you read them? Do you know the meaning of that theme is in them?

Strauss is pointing to Alcibiades' disregard for Socrates' justice and in its place his admiration of his endurance. (274)

He says:

In accordance with that [seeking the sun in summer] he prays to the sun at the end.

Do you know what this means? How is seeking the sun in summer in accordance with his prayer to the sun? Do you understand the connection between custom/law (nomos) and prayer? What do you know about the topic of prayer in the dialogues.

There is a great deal more going on in Strauss's lectures on the Symposium then one can know from taking a couple of statements out of context.

Edit: With regard to the cosmic gods versus the gods of the city look at the charges brought against Socrates.

There is a difference between the power of imagination and imagining that what is imagained is a "domain of being". — Fooloso4

There is also such a thing as lack of imagination.

Yes, but a lack of imagination is not a lack of being.

Strauss discusses Alcibiades' speech about Socrates.

This is why he quotes the Symposium:

He conceived a thought there and stood from dawn considering it, and when he couldn't make any progress, he refused to let up but kept on standing considering. It was now already noon, and the soldiers became aware of it, and in amazement one said to another, 'Socrates has been standing there since dawn reflecting.' Finally, some of the Ionians, when it was evening, once they had dined, - it was then summer - brought out their bedding and slept in the cold while keeping watch on him, to see whether he would stand also through the night. He stood till dawn and the sun came up; and then he went away after he had prayed to the sun (220c3-d5)

The scene with Socrates praying to the Sun is in Plato's Symposium, not in Cicero's Laws.

Strauss' book is about the Symposium. This is why he also mentions the Forms but only to say that Plato's theory of Ideas "sounds like an absolutely absurd doctrine" without even discussing it.

Which, incidentally, demonstrates that he is as unimaginative and clueless, i.e. psychologically and spiritually deficient, as his followers ....

I'll take this as an admittance that you cannot answer the questions raised and don't understand what Strauss is saying, which is not surprising since you have not actually read him.

You do not understand him and yet you think he demonstrates that he is as unimaginative and clueless. This is an example of why knowledge of your ignorance is so important. Shifting blame from where it belongs to someone else.

Cicero does not discuss Socrates’ praying to the Sun.

Strauss does not discuss Cicero.

In the whole 294-page book, Strauss mentions Cicero only once, when he addresses Socrates' endurance to the heat of summer.

Strauss says:

Cicero's Republic is a dialogue in winter, where they seek the sun, and the Laws is a dialogue in summer, where they seek the shade. Socrates seeks the sun in summer, when it is hardest to bear; he seeks the light of the sun at its strongest. In accordance with that he prays to the sun at the end. Let us not forget that the sun is a cosmic god (p. 277)

Strauss discusses Socrates’ praying to the Sun as related by Alcibiades in Plato’s Symposium.

He DOES NOT discuss Cicero at all.

Strauss also says that "Plato substitutes a natural theology for a civil theology".

In the tenth book of the Laws Plato presents what one might call his theology and also his political doctrine regarding gods. It consists in a substitution of the gods of the cosmos for the gods of the city. The impiety which is to be condemned is the impiety against the gods of the cosmos, but not the impiety against the gods of the city. We can say Plato substitutes a natural theology for a civil theology

Ergo, Strauss says that "the Sun is a cosmic God" and that "Plato has a theology consisting in a substitution of the cosmic Gods for the Gods of the city".

Of course I have read Strauss since I am quoting from his book On Plato's Symposium. He is right on certain issues but on others he displays symptoms of psychological deficiency and unscholarly methodology.

Cicero does not discuss Socrates’ praying to the Sun. — Apollodorus

And you avoid discussing what Cicero does discuss and how it relates to Strauss' discussion. But of course you cannot discuss it because you know nothing about it.

In the whole 294-page book, Strauss mentions Cicero only once, when he addresses Socrates' endurance to the heat of summer. — Apollodorus

Once again:

He says:

That theme [contemplation in summer as distinguished from winter] is known to those who read Cicero's Republic and Laws. — Fooloso4

What is the theme of contemplation in summer as distinguished from winter? What is the connection he is making between Alcibiades story and Cicero?

Strauss also says that "Plato substitutes a natural theology for a civil theology". — Apollodorus

Right, but you fail to understand the significance of this. You do not know what he means when he says that:

In the tenth book of the Laws Plato presents what one might call his theology and also his political doctrine regarding gods. It consists in a substitution of the gods of the cosmos.

He is not saying that Plato believed the sun is a god. The theology of the Laws is not separate his political doctrine in the Laws. Theology was not a matter of personal belief. For the Greeks, and for Strauss as well, the problem of the gods and the problem of the city were part of the same. But the sun is not a god of the city.

In the Apology when Meletus accuses him of declaring the sun a stone (26d) Socrates does not deny it. He points out that Anaxagoras said that, but does not say whether he agreed with him or not. Nowhere does he criticize this. In fact, his criticism of Anaxagoras was not that he did not elevate natural things like the sun to divine status but that natural things cannot be the kind of cause that Socrates sought.

Of course I have read Strauss since I am quoting from his book On Plato's Symposium. — Apollodorus

Bullshit! You searched for statements by and about Strauss so that you could argue against them, found excerpts online, and quote them out of context.

... symptoms of psychological deficiency and unscholarly methodology. — Apollodorus

You are projecting again. Your inability to directly respond to questions I raised shows you have not understood him. The only deficiencies here are your own. Your ignorance of your ignorance is a serious stumbling block.

I think you have some serious psychological issues, not just mere deficiencies.

Cicero does not discuss Socrates' praying to the Sun.

Strauss does not discuss Cicero.

Strauss discusses Socrates' praying to the Sun as related by Alcibiades in Plato's Symposium. His whole book is about the Symposium and is called "On Plato's Symposium".

If you believe that Strauss discusses Cicero, then feel free to quote where he does so. But of course you cannot do that because you are making it up.

I have Strauss' book right in front of me. Name any page and I can quote from it any time.

What Strauss does say is this:

Cicero's Republic is a dialogue in winter, where they seek the sun, and the Laws is a dialogue in summer, where they seek the shade. Socrates seeks the sun in summer, when it is hardest to bear; he seeks the light of the sun at its strongest. In accordance with that he prays to the sun at the end. Let us not forget that the sun is a cosmic god (p. 277)

Prove that he doesn't say that if you can .... :grin:

I think the following samples should more than suffice to show that you are talking nonsense, as usual.

p. 1 "This course will be on Plato's political philosophy"

p. 10 "... is higher than desire."

p. 20 "[acknowl-] edges this special obligation."

p.30 "[Tape change]"

p. 40 "[prin-] ciples are not human."

p. 50 "What he says is this:"

p. 60 "labor is man's bisexuality."

p. 70 "[Ro-] mans - and the younger generation"

p. 80 "in particular."

p. 90 "erotic contact,"

p. 100 "hot, bitter to sweet"

p. 110 "[com-] pelled to admit such a fantastic art as divination:"

p. 120 "[Aritoph-] anes will link up the hierarchy of erotes,"

p. 130 "able to treat many ordinary men,"

p. 140 "Aristophanes' Hephaestus doesn't address gods but mortals."

p. 150 "[[undertand-] ing of what is really going on in the Aristophanean comedies."

p. 160 "flowers signifies the beauty of his complexion,"

p. 170 "[quest-] ion: did the knights not have clean shirts with them on their trips?"

p. 180 "this is only a confirmation of what we all felt,"

p. 190 "declaration: This and this only truly ..."

p. 200 "and above all there is something connecting the two realms"

p. 210 "the basis for these gods is destroyed ..."

p. 220 "The case of eros is the subject."

p. 230 "Long after Plato the attempt was made ..."

p. 240 "[dis-] cussion of Phaedrus in the very beginning."

p. 250 "higher that another thing ..."

p. 260 "the sober."

p. 270 "So that was the first attempt."

p. 280 "basis of what we have learned from Diotima?"

p. 288 (final page and line) "If there are no further questions I terminate this session and this course."

Followed by INDEX that starts with "Achilles" and ends with "Zeus".

Strauss does not discuss Cicero. — Apollodorus

Once again, he says:

That theme is known to those of you who have read Cicero's Republic and Laws. Cicero's Republic is a dialogue in winter where they seek the sun, and the Laws a dialogue in summer where they seek the shade.

Strangely, you go on to quote this but still this he is not discussing Cicero.

If his point was simply that people normally seek the shade is summer he would not have brought up Cicero.

He brings him up in response to his question:

What could that [contemplation is summer as distinguished from winter] possibly mean?

Can you answer that question?

Strauss' lecture were very popular. They were attended by professors and grad students from various departments including classics, and including those who had read Cicero's Republic and Laws. He is saying something to them that others might not understand. Do not fault him for your lack of understanding.

I have Strauss' book right in front of me. Name any page and I can quote from it any time. — Apollodorus

Good to hear that you have finally gotten around to at least obtaining one of his books, but perhaps you can get your money back. Since you do not understand him, it is of no value to you.

Prove that he doesn't say that if you can .... — Apollodorus

Prove it to you? I brought it to your attention! https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/581017

He says:

That theme [contemplation in summer as distinguished from winter] is known to those who read Cicero's Republic and Laws. — Fooloso4

This discussion started with your claim that:

Strauss admit that the Sun is a God and that Plato has a theology involving cosmic Gods like the Sun: — Apollodorus

I assume you mean that Strauss admits that the sun is a god and not that Strauss admits that the sun is a god. In either case you have misunderstood him.

He says:

Plato substitutes a natural theology for a civil theology (38)

Compare this to the charges brought against Socrates regarding the gods of the city.

If the sun is a god then it is a god without intellect.

Taking things out of content and not thinking things through leads to serious misunderstanding.

Well, as your statement below proves to be a lie, I'm afraid you stand exposed as a liar. And not for the first time.

Bullshit! You searched for statements by and about Strauss so that you could argue against them, found excerpts online, and quote them out of context. — Fooloso4

If you believe that Strauss discusses Cicero, then feel free to quote where he does so. But of course you cannot do that because you are making it up.

Strauss does not discuss Cicero, period. He discusses Socrates' praying to the Sun as related by Alcibiades in Plato's Symposium.

And anyway, Socrates could not have acted according to what Cicero says as he lived centuries before Cicero, another fact that seems to have escaped you! :rofl:

Is English your first language? Not believing you does not make me a liar.

From Dictionary.com:

Discuss:
to consider or examine by argument, comment, etc.

Strauss comments in order that those who know Cicero's dialogues will consider what the story Alcibiades means. He does not spell it out, but he says enough that those who know will make the connection.

Socrates could not have acted according to what Cicero says — Apollodorus

First, what is at issue here is not a matter of how Cicero said Socrates acted. Second, it is not Alcibiades who says who how Socrates acted. Strauss points out that what is told is not even by someone who was there to hear what Alcibiades said. The dialogue is a work of fiction. But neither works of history or of fiction are bound by an author being alive at the time he writes about. Third, Cicero often discusses Socrates, referring to the works of Plato and Xenophon. The fact that he was not alive is no more relevant than the fact that we were not alive to discuss Socrates.

There are now several issues that you have ignored in your attempt to discredit me and Strauss. If you would address them you might begin to see that there is so much more here than you are aware of, beginning with what theology is for Plato and how it cannot be understood apart from political considerations.

Not believing you does not make me a liar. — Fooloso4

The issue is not your belief which is totally irrelevant. The issue is your statement to the effect that I “search for statements by and about Strauss so that I can argue against them.”

It was not a “belief” but an emphatic assertion, emphasized by invectives and exclamation mark. And since it turned out to be a blatant lie as I actually have Strauss’ book in front of me, that makes you a liar, does it not?

Even if it was a “belief”, it was a false belief, which illustrates how your Straussian mind operates.

You are also a liar because of the following facts:

First you claimed that Strauss is talking about Socrates as depicted by Cicero.

Then you cited some mysterious “great deal more in Strauss’ lectures on the Symposium”.

Then you cited a mysterious “connection he is making between Alcibiades’ story and Cicero”.

Then you claimed that “Strauss’ lectures were very popular”.

Then you mentioned a mysterious “theme of contemplation in summer”.

And finally, you came up with a novel definition of “discuss” that amounts to an admission that Strauss does not discuss Cicero, which of course he doesn’t. And Cicero does not discuss Socrates’ preference for praying to the Sun in summer.

So, basically, the BS is entirely yours and you are full of it, no offence intended. :smile:

If anyone is reading this and is interested, I will tie some things together in order to make sense of all this.

Strauss introduces Cicero in order to make sense of the the theme of the difference between contemplation in the summer and winter. It is a theme in Cicero's own works entitled after Plato's own, Republic and Laws as well as those of Plato.

In his lectures on Cicero Strauss quotes him:

“Socrates was the first who called philosophy down from heaven, and placed it in cities, and even introduced it into the houses, and compelled it to investigate, regarding life, manners and good and bad things. Socrates’ manifold way of disputing, and the variety of subject matters, and the magnitude of mind consecrated this way of disputing to writings and thus produced a variety of dissenting philosophical schools. Out of those schools (the relevant philosophical schools), we, Cicero, have followed that school particularly, or that manner particularly, which we believe Socrates had used (namely, the dialogical) in order to conceal our opinion, in order to liberate others from error, and in order to seek in every disputation what is most similar to the truth (alt, translation: what is most probable).” Tuscan Disputations V. 6.10-11

Socrates concern was not with heavenly things, not the sun or gods or whether the sun is a god, but with the human things, both public and private, which includes what is said about the gods.

"To conceal our opinion" is what is at issue here. Socrates opinion about the gods is concealed because of his concern for the city and philosophy. This is the theme Strauss is pointing to regarding summer and winter. As with Socrates' contemplation during a military campaign, Cicero relates a story of a military campaign in the winter where a few soldiers gather in a meadow for a discussion:

A sunny place, surely. In summer they would seek the shade. Now this is the symbolism which Plato has used in the Laws. In the Laws the discussion is taking place on the hottest day of the year, the longest day of the year, a very hot day, and they seek the shade. Here they seek the sun. Now what is the meaning of that symbolism, the seeking of the shade and the seeking of the sun? It is not difficult to guess—because Cicero’s Laws, which we shall read afterwards, are a summer discussion. This is a winter discussion.

... We seek light, we seek knowledge; shade, we seek obscurity.

In Cicero's Laws:

Atticus suggests that they go to an island in the river there, and they sit down there. It is a hot day, the longest day in the year; they seek the shade and they find that shade on an island. And you understood this [is an] island of contemplation.

Plato's Laws too takes place on an island.

There is a connection made in both Plato's and Cicero's Laws between law (nomos, authoritative custom) and obscurity. As Strauss points out, the first word of Plato's Laws is "God". The laws that found a city must deal with the gods, but the gods of the city are not the cosmic gods. What Socrates says about the gods, that is, his theology, is determined by what he thinks is best for the city. But the participants in Plato's Laws are from different cities, and so, the problem of which gods is of central importance. A cosmic god who is impartial is the answer.

A few other points:

The theme of the active versus the contemplative life. In both Alcibiades story and Cicero's there is a contemplative pause within a setting of military action. Socrates prayer to the sun is not theological , not a matter of what is said, but of something done with the Ionians but not the Athenians watching.

Strauss points out that the Symposium is the only Platonic dialogue explicitly devoted to a god. It is, he adds, "of course", a Socratic dialogue. Eros was generally regarded as a god, but Socrates denies that Eros is a god. The reason has to do with eros' connection to the human.

What is going on here is not evidence that Socrates or Plato believed in a cosmic god. What is at issue is, as Cicero correctly points out, philosophy brought down from the heavens to the city, a concern with human rather than heavenly things, or, rather, a concern for heavenly things in so far as they were related to human things, for example, justice rather than piety.

Also while searching for info on him, I found an article on philosophical counselling. — Wayfarer

Are you familiar with Alain de Botton?
His Consolations of Philosophy was quite famous.

Some think that dialectic is a method that leads to knowledge of the Forms. But how can someone know this unless they have completed the journey? That it does is something we are told not something we have experienced. It is a matter of opinion. Dialectic leads to knowledge of our ignorance. It leads us to see that philosophical inquiry leads to aporia. — Fooloso4

Not under the Socratic method.

Inherent in the Socratic method is the inequality of the teacher and the student, and the student's submission to the teacher.

There is also such a thing as lack of imagination. — Wayfarer

But then again, it's possible to be so open-minded that one's brain falls out.

And, having read one dialogue that allegedly leaves the reader in a state of "aporia", why read another dialogue that leaves the reader in the same "aporetic" condition?

What I fail to see is how additional aporia can resolve the initial aporia.

Or is the intention to maximize the aporetic state until all reasoning ability has been suspended? — Apollodorus

Perhaps not deliberately. This is also how the practice of koans works. Namely, contemplating a koan is supposed to bring one's mind to a halt, from whence on one can "see things as they really are".

But nor should they claim that other people's personal experience is just imagination. — Apollodorus

But there is still an issue of power. Defining what is real for another person is an act of power.
It's not possible to do away with issues of power in interpersonal interactions of any kind, not even in philosophy.

We should trust the experts, simply because we have nothing else to go on when it comes to making judgements in fields where we have little or no expertise.

What's the alternative? Trust no one? — Janus

No. But desist from making many judgments to begin with.
Obviously, this wil make one unpopular in certain circles where having a lot of definitive opinions is required. But realistically, there are rather few things that one actually needs to have a definitive opinion about.

On the other hand if someone wants to question everything and think for themselves, they will be obviously happier if they do that, no?

Because philosophers are known for being such a happy bunch!

Not under the Socratic method.

Inherent in the Socratic method is the inequality of the teacher and the student, and the student's submission to the teacher. — baker

Although dialectic is depicted in the Republic as a way out of hypothesis of the Forms to knowledge of the Forms, Socrates famously says that he knows that he does not know. He did not gain knowledge of the Forms through dialectic.

You are at it again, aren't you?

Cicero’s Laws that Strauss refers to as being “in summer where they seek the shade,” mentions Socrates exactly three times:

And therefore did Socrates deservedly execrate the man who first drew a distinction between the law of nature and the law of morals, for he justly conceived that this error is the source of most human vices (1.33).
—I think we should seek the boundaries which Socrates has laid down in relation to this question, and abide by them (1.56).
For I have never found water much colder than this, although I have seen a great number of rivers;—and I can hardly bear my foot in it when I wish to do what Socrates did in Plato’s Phædrus (2.6)

The Republic, which Strauss refers to as being “a dialogue in winter, where they seek the sun,” mentions Socrates six times, at 1.15, 1.16, 2.3, 2.22, 2.51, 3.5.

There is no connection whatsoever between the above instances and Alcibiades’ account of Socrates praying to the Sun in summer as discussed by Strauss in his Symposium lectures.

The island scene in Laws 2.1-2, is in summer, where they seek the shade, as stated by Strauss, which is why he contrasts this with Socrates’ seeking the Sun in summer. For Socrates, the light of the Sun (who is a God) symbolizes the light of knowledge and truth as he states in Plato’s Republic:

“Which one can you name of the divinities in heaven as the author and cause of this, whose light makes our vision see best and visible things to be seen?” “Why, the one that you too and other people mean for your question evidently refers to the Sun.” “Is not this, then, the relation of vision to that divinity?” (Rep 508a).
“This [the Sun], then, you must understand that I meant by the offspring of the Good which the Good begot to stand in a proportion with itself: as the Good is in the intelligible region to reason and the objects of reason, so is this [the Sun] in the visible world to vision and the objects of vision.” (Rep 508b - c ).

Therefore the Sun in Plato is a deity as stated by Strauss, and so is the Good. The Sun is the supreme God in the realm of sensibles and its creator, the Good or the One, is the supreme deity in the intelligible world. This is the core of Plato's theology.

As Strauss himself admits in Introductory Remarks:

We find something which is almost explicitly called the theology in the second book of the Republic

To recap. First, Socrates cannot have any connection with Cicero, for the simple reason that he lived centuries before Cicero.

Second, Strauss does not connect Socrates’ praying to the Sun in Plato’s Symposium with Atticus and Marcus’ contemplating in summer in Cicero’s Laws. He contrasts the former with the latter as Socrates contemplates in the sun whereas Atticus and Marcus contemplate in the shade:

Contemplation in summer distinguished from winter. What could that possibly mean? That theme is known to those of you who have read Cicero’s Republic and Laws. Cicero’s Republic is a dialogue in winter, where they seek the sun, and the Laws is a dialogue in summer, where they seek the shade. Socrates seeks the sun in summer, when it is hardest to bear; he seeks the light of the sun at its strongest. In accordance with that he prays to the sun at the end. Let us not forget that the sun is a cosmic god (p. 277)

Third, even if Strauss did make some connection between Alcibiades’ account of Socrates praying to the Sun to some other scene in Plato, he torpedoes his own connection by claiming (without adducing any evidence) that Alcibiades’ story is fiction.

If you claim that (1) A is connected to B and (2) A never took place (i.e., A doesn’t exist), then you have nothing to connect to B, and therefore no connection!

But I admit that Strauss does appear to have the occasional schizoaffective or delusional episode induced, no doubt, by his compulsive Maimonidean esotericism (as do some of his disciples) ….. :grin:

Yes, I was given some of Alain Du Bouton's books as gifts. I like him, he's a original thinker and very good writer. Jules Evans is another contemporary philosopher. Anyone who can break through and become recognised as a philosopher in popular culture, as distinct from the ivory tower, deserves respect in my mind, provided they're not spouting something morally objectionable.

it's possible to be so open-minded that one's brain falls out. — baker

No kidding.

Your petty small mindedness is something that neither Plato or anyone else can fix for you, so live in the bliss of your ignorance of your ignorance. Perhaps one day you will come to know yourself well enough to recognize how impoverished both your understanding and attitude are. If it is ever to happen the former will follow from the latter.

No. But desist from making many judgments to begin with.
Obviously, this wil make one unpopular in certain circles where having a lot of definitive opinions is required. But realistically, there are rather few things that one actually needs to have a definitive opinion about. — baker

I don't disagree: I try to avoid making judgements, and having opinions, about as many things as possible. Most of the time when I have an opinion it is the opinion that we are not warranted in having an opinion. But when it comes to a potentially life or death decision such as whether to be vaccinated or not in a pandemic, I think a judgement to form the basis for action is called for. And in such a situation one really has nothing better to go by than the current medical advice.

Because philosophers are known for being such a happy bunch! — baker

Are you claiming that they are known to be an unhappy bunch? Can you cite a list of examples that will make up the majority of philosophers? Or is that just a caricature based on a few notable malcontents?

But there is still an issue of power. Defining what is real for another person is an act of power.
It's not possible to do away with issues of power in interpersonal interactions of any kind, not even in philosophy. — baker

Power is a problem only when it is misused. This is why it is important for all philosophers, beginners and experienced, to place themselves in the proper power context vis-a-vis one another.

This is why, traditionally, the cultivation of virtues is a preparatory stage to philosophy proper.

Socrates opinion about the gods is concealed because of his concern for the city and philosophy. — Fooloso4

I would amend this statement by striking from it the consecutive words, “the city and”. Socrates considered philosophy the highest way of life, and natural; he did not, however, consider the city natural, nor did he believe there was any natural consonance between the philosopher and the city. Indeed the city and the philosopher are natural enemies; the latter founded on convention, the former born to dissolve that convention in order to get at the truth.

The reason Socrates conceals his true beliefs about the gods is because he wishes to avoid persecution by the city. This is the source of his irony. He wants that his hearers believe he believes as they do, while subtly expressing doubt through his questioning, to elicit those of his audience who might rise above the conventional opinion of the citizenry.

Correction: change my “former” and “latter” for each other.

He wants that his hearers believe he believes as they do ... — Leghorn

I agree. Socrates has respect for the conventional. His civic piety requires a demonstration of piety toward the gods.

... while subtly expressing doubt through his questioning, to elicit those of his audience who might rise above the conventional opinion of the citizenry. — Leghorn

This is the other side of it. When one follows the arguments, his theology, what he said about gods, leads to questioning the gods. He does this, in part, by seeming to defend the gods. If the gods are good then they cannot do what the poets say they do. Talk of the gods is displaced by talk of the just, noble, and good.

Socrates' examination of the just, noble, and good exposes a tension between convention and philosophy. The assumption of the city is that the conventional is the good. The city is hostile to philosophy because it regards it as a threat to its conventions.

In the Republic and elsewhere Socrates argues that philosophy is not a threat but the greatest good for the city. On the one hand, with justice understood as minding your own business, the just city protects the self-interests of the philosopher. On the other, although the city may be hostile to philosophy, the philosopher is not hostile to the city. She recognizes the need to protect philosophy from the city, but also recognizes an obligation to it.