Socrates' Trial

652 Words2 Pages

Socrates' Trial

In 399 B.C., Socrates, a seventy year old man, was brought to trial. He faced several accusations of different sorts. Initially, the court had pronounced Socrates guilty. However, because the law had no penalty ordained for his offense, it was required of Socrates to propose his own penalty, or to take the one suggested by Meletos, the death penalty. When the time had come for Socrates to state his defense, he addressed each of the accusations made against him, one by one, in attempt to absolve himself from wrong doing. The first accusation Socrates chose to contest declared that he was a student of natural philosophy. This meant that Socrates was believed to be one who sought to replace mythical explanations of events in the physical universe with rational and scientific explanations. A religious fundamentalist of the ancient world, on the other hand, adamantly opposed this idea. Meletos, the prosecutor of Socrates, was one of these religious fundamentalists who preferred the literal interpretations of Greek mythology over the logical ones. For example, Meletos would interpret a roll of thunder as an outburst of anger from the great god, Zeus, whereas Socrates would explain it meteorologically. Because of these conflicting interpretations, Socrates was charged with impiety against the gods of the city. Meletos declared that Socrates "sought things under the earth and up in the heavens, and made the weaker argument the stronger". To try to use scientific reason to explain any occurrence during this time period was disregarded, as it showed disrespect to the gods and to the Greek religion. Not only was Socrates condemned for this, but for, later, discussing his discoveries, thoughts, and beliefs with others...

... middle of paper ...

...to make its final decision, Socrates was given the death penalty. However, because this man had faced death many times before, he was not fearful of his fate. He believed that it would be good for him because the internal oracle had given no sign of opposition. And so, Socrates was put to death for the violations he had committed. Because Socrates was able to maintain his composure throughout the trial, and was able to truthfully discuss his tactics with the court even though it went against the common practices of the ancient world, I feel that he was a very honorable man. Even at the brink of death, Socrates did not modify his defense to what he thought the court would want to hear. He did not apologize for his way of thinking or for the way he went about doing things, but he, essentially, apologized for the fact that others were unable to understand his virtues.

Open Document