Socrates did a poor job in defending his own life in court, so why should we use his tools and devices to this day in our persuasive arguments? It seems clear that Socrates did nearly everything in his power to have himself executed. Going through his arguments there are many glaring issues, had contemporary individuals been his jury, his fate would not likely change. While some argue, he had no intention of getting
Thus, Socrates seems to have conjured up a new kind of divinity, thereby making him guilty of Meletus' third charge. Although neither depiction of Socrates is entirely accurate, they each illustrate some guilt on Socrates' part. The Aristophanic Socrates is completely guilty while the Platonic Socrates is only guilty on one account. In both works, he probably did not deserve to be condemned to death but more so in Plato's work it seems that Socrates has wrongfully been put to death. For an argument can be made that not only was Socrates not guilty of the charges, (at least most of them), but that his pursuit of morality and his view of the gods was invaluable to the society at large.
41). The fact that Socrates mentions the gods and believes he was performing good acts in the gods' name shows the false accusations in the charges of impiety. His guilty charge was made on false evidence, but because Socrates refused to stand up for himself and deny his beliefs of his philosophical lifestyle he was found guilty. The second issue Socrates was found guilt was because he behaved arrogantly defended his innonoces, and philosophical views the entire trial. He truly believed he was meant to live a philosophical li... ... middle of paper ... ...t of Socrates charges were due to Meletus accusing Socrates of his various crimes.
Socrates interprets this statement as indicating any such purported wisdom is simply his own knowledge that he was not wise. Socrates claims to have been bemused by this statement, since he always claimed that he knew nothing. He understood himself as an example of an average man, which was used by the oracle, to be somewhat better than the others, because he only knows, that he don’t know anything. Socrates went on a “divine mission” to solve the paradox and to clarify the meaning of the Oracles’ words. He systematically interrogated the politicians, poets and craftsman.
He believed in himself and of his words and he thought that his mere word was enough to stand up in court. I think the downfall of his case was when he said that the oracle told his companion that Socrates was the wisest of men. Socrates did challenge what the oracle said by questioning others but they looked at it as if he was cocky and insinuating that Socrates thought he was a god. The commentary of this reading states that Socrates was found guilty. If I were a member of the court, I would have voted innocent purely on the contents of his speech.
On the other side he can be seen as an ingenious man who questioned what many thought was the unquestionable. As he can be criticized for disregarding the many's ideals he can also be applauded for rising above the daily ways of popular thought. He questioned the laws that he thought were wrong and, to his death, never backed down in what he believed in. People may see that as stupidity or as heroism, the beauty of it is that either way people saw it, Socrates wouldn't care. Socrates lived in a political system.
Socrates maintains that he is not like other philosohers. He is a free-thinker, and his beliefs are those of private and intimate thoughts of Gods. Socrates also states that he is not a teacher, however he was not at all happy with the analogy, but took it as a compliment and used it in his defense. He used these accusations to his advantage by saying that he never charged charged anyone for believing or listening to them. The combination of these arguments should have cleared Socrates of the charge of heresy.
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.
Despite all the knowledge he held, Socrates considered himself to be ignorant because he knew there were things he could learn from. He brought this to the oracle and was shown that what he considered a lack of wisdom, the oracle called his greatest strength. Through acknowledging that he can improve and learn, no matter how intelligent he is, he is wise. While... ... middle of paper ... ...eks will face. Their goal in placing him on trial was not to destroy Socrates but rather to destroy Philosophy and free thinking, an impossible task.
Socrates saw the law being a general father figure for society. Socrates believes in unselfishness, democracy, and how public opinion does not matter. Crito believes he will be seen in the public eye as a bad friend because he did not help Socrates escape. In believing he is a bad friend, he is being selfish, defying the government, and adhering to public opinion. For instance, Crito says he has rich friends that will help Socrates leaves Athens.