I will briefly explain what the Socratic method is and then proceed to dive deeper into the role of this method in “The Apology.” I will provide answers and support my answers to the following questions. What is the Socratic method? How did Socrates use the Socratic method in his defense? And, why did Socrates use this method? These questions will help to distinguish the importance of the Socratic method and the role it plays. Firstly, the Socratic method is an argumentative conversation between individuals. It is used by asking and answering numerous questions. This method exposes any presumptions a person has and stimulates one’s critical thinking. Therefore, it will provide clear answers. “The most powerful feature of this method is that instead of simply being given information, the pupils discover for themselves their own ignorance and are skillfully led to discover the truth on their own” (text). …show more content…
He immediately states that he will use “common, everyday speech” and not “flowery language...decked out with fine words and phrases,” (Apology). This proves that his defense will have a casual and conversational structure. This method is heavily based on conversing. Furthermore, Socrates fully exercises the socratic method when he starts a series of intense questions. Socrates best exemplifies the questioning nature of the socratic method when he refutes Meletus. Socrates makes Meletus aware of his own ignorance by examining his contradicting accusation about Socrates both believing, and not believing in the gods. For example, he asks “Did ever man, Meletus, believe in the existence of human things, and not of human beings?”
Socrates insistence on finding the truly wise people pitches him against Euthyphro and Meletus. Euthyphro is religious by all means necessary. He even makes prophecies and has a firm claim on the fact that he is wise. He brings a murder charge against his father. On the other hand, Meletus is the man responsible fro bringing charges against Socrates with an aim of having him executed. Meletus, having been cross-examined by Socrates, is put to utmost shame for his lack of a firm grip on facts that are required of him (Desjardins 33). When questioning Euthyphro, Socrates makes an effort to truly find out from this religious man what holiness is. After engaging him for a while, Euthyphro is frustrated and leaves the conversation an angry man. This way of throwing doubt on someone’s beliefs is what Socrates’ signature way of argument became.
Socrates begins to argue with Meletus about his previous statement and, what seems to become, more and more agitated with the fact that Meletus goes back and forth with his argument for the simple fact that he wants Socrates to face the death penalty, which is evident on several occasions throughout Plato’s apology. Also, throughout Plato’s version of The Apology, he also makes sure that it is known that his first charges arose from general prejudices that surrounded him over the years.
Plato's The Apology is an account of the speech. Socrates makes at the trial in which he is charged with not recognizing the gods recognized by the state, inventing new gods, and corrupting the youth of Athens. For the most part, Socrates speaks in a very plain, conversational manner. He explains that he has no experience with the law courts and that he will instead speak in the manner to which he is accustomed with honesty and directness. Socrates then proceeds to interrogate Meletus, the man primarily responsible for bringing Socrates before the jury. He strongly attacks Meletus for wasting the court¡¦s time on such absurd charges. He then argues that if he corrupted the young he did so unknowingly since Socrates believes that one never deliberately acts wrongly. If Socrates neither did not corrupt the young nor did so unknowingly, then in both cases he should not be brought to trial. The other charge is the charge of impiety. This is when Socrates finds an inconsistency in Meletus¡¦ belief that Socrates is impious. If he didn¡¦t believe in any gods then it would be inconsistent to say that he believed in spiritual things, as gods are a form of a spiritual thing. He continues to argue against the charges, often asking and answering his own questions as if he were speaking in a conversation with one of his friends. He says that once a man has found his passion in life it would be wrong of him to take into account the risk of life or death that such a passion might involve.
In his work Socrates’ Apology to the Jury, Xenophon produces an account of the Socratic deliberation –and indeed the logic that seemed to inform that deliberation- over his trial. Specifically, Xenophon, provides his readers with an ambivalent justification of Socrates’ chosen rhetoric during his trial, namely his “boastful manner of speaking” or megalegoria (Patch, footnote 2). Indeed, instead of choosing to deliver a speech that would gain him the jury’s sympathy and the city’s acquittal, Socrates proceeds to deliver a speech that is characterized mainly by its ironic arrogance. Xenophon goes so far as to provide his readers with a kind of statement of purpose that frames Socrates’ megalegoric speech; Socrates had, in the words of Xenophon,
Plato’s “Defense of Socrates” follows the trial of Socrates for charges of corruption of the youth. His accuser, Meletus, claims he is doing so by teaching the youth of Athens of a separate spirituality from that which was widely accepted.
After reading “The Apology of Socrates”, I feel very strongly that Socrates was innocent in the allegations against him. “The Apology of Socrates” was written by Plato, Socrates most trusted pupil, who in fact wrote everything for Socrates. Numerous times in his defense, Socrates points out ways that what he is being accused of is false. The point of this paper is to show how Socrates did this, and to explain how he proved his innocence by using these quotes. He uses a lot of questions to the accusers to prove his points and is very skilled in speech and knowledge. This essay’s purpose is to explain why I think Socrates was innocent, and how he proves that in his speech.
Socrates begins his argument by stating his whole journey to find out if others have wisdom is because he believes in the Gods. He says, “I shall
Ultimately, Socrates found the oracle’s declaration to be irrefutable. Socrates also came to the realization that human wisdom is worthless and that only “the god” possesses genuine wisdom. In obedience to the god, Socrates has made it his duty to prove to those, who believe to be wise, to see otherwise (23b). Socrates’ critical evaluation of these individuals exposed their ignorance and, as a result, he began to receive a great deal of hostility and enemies (23a).
During this essay, the trail of Socrates found in the Apology of Plato will be reviewed. What will be looked at during this review is how well Socrates rebuts the charges made against him. We will also talk about if Socrates made the right decision to not escape prison with Crito. Socrates was a very intelligent man; this is why this review is so critical. In Plato’s Apology, it seems that overall Socrates did an effective job using the 3 acts of the mind.
In the opening of The Apology, Socrates informed the jurors how he intends to address them, what they should pay attention to in his remarks, and what he sees as his greatest obstacle in gaining an acquittal. How does he intend to address the jury? Socrates’ approach towards addressing the jury is way different than what you would see a normal defendant doing. Socrates does not stand in front of the jury and beg that he doesn’t get charged. Instead, Socrates believes that you shouldn’t have to cry and beg for the right to live in court if the defendant has done nothing wrong. The first thing that he says when speaking to the jury was to basically hear him out, and listen to even if he started to talk in his language of habit. He then said they should excuse that because he is seventy years old and has never appeared in court. “I must beg of you to grant me one favor, If you hear me using the same words in my defense which I have been in habit of using, and which most of you may have heard in the agora, and at the table of the money-changers, or anywhere else, I would ask you to not be surprised at this, and bot to interrupt me (Dover p. 19).”
There are times in every mans life where our actions and beliefs collide—these collisions are known as contradictions. There are endless instances in which we are so determined to make a point that we resort to using absurd overstatements, demeaning language, and false accusations in our arguments. This tendency to contradict ourselves often questions our character and morals. Similarly, in The Trial of Socrates (Plato’s Apology), Meletus’ fallacies in reason and his eventual mistake of contradicting himself will clear the accusations placed on Socrates. In this paper, I will argue that Socrates is not guilty of corrupting the youth with the idea of not believing in the Gods but of teaching the youth to think for themselves by looking to new divinities.
In his examination of Meletus, Socrates makes three main points: 1) Meletus has accused Socrates of being the only corrupter, while everyone else improves the youth. Socrates then uses an analogy: a horse trainer is to horses as an improver is to the youth. The point is that there is only one improver, not many. 2) If Socrates corrupts the youth, either it is intentional or unintentional. No one would corrupt his neighbor intentionally, because he would harm himself in the process. If the corruption was unintentional, then the court is not the place to resolve the problem. The other possibility is that he does not corrupt them at all. 3) In frustration, Meletus accuses Socrates of being "a complete atheist," at the same time he claims Socrates teaches new gods. Thus, Meletus contradicts himself. Socrates argues that fear of death is foolish, because it is not known if death is a good or an evil, thus there is no reason to fear death.
The Socratic dialogue begins of Socrates recounting a conversation he had with a number of people at the house of Cephalus. Returning to Athens from Piraeus, where they had been attending a religious festival, Socrates and Glaucon are intercepted by Cephalus, who playfully forces them to come to his father’s house. Socrates begins by asking t...
Socrates was also put on trial for being an Atheist. In the argument Socrates has with Meletus, Socrates gets Meletus to admit that Socrates is Atheist and theist. Considering that both of these practices are totally incompatible, and Meletus admits to both of theses, maybe Meletus does not really understand what he is accusing Socrates of. I understand that back then; not believing in religion was considered a crime but to actually sentence someone to death for being different is totally uncalled for.
Socrates starts his defense by addressing the jury and telling them that his accusers had a prepared speech, while Socrates' speech will be completely improvised. Socrates continued to further disassociate himself from the opponents by telling the jury to forgive him for his conversational tone in his speech, for that's how he best speaks. He also asks the jury to keep an open mind and not concentrate on how his defense is delivered, but the substance of his defense. Socrates tells the jury that he is not a sophist. Sophists were known for charging fees for their work, and Socrates does not charge a fee for his words. His next decides to cross-examine Meletus. Basically Socrates turns the tables on his accuser and accuses Meletus of "dealing frivolously with serious matters." Socrates says that the youth he supposedly corrupts follows him around on their own free will, because the young men enjoy hearing people and things being questioned. In this line of questioning of Meletus, Socrates makes him look very contradictory to his statements in his affidavit. Socrates then moves on to the second part of his defense. Moving on to the second charge that he does not believe in the Gods accepted ...