preview

Plato's account of Socrates Apology

Better Essays
Plato's account of Socrates' Apology

In Plato's account of Socrates' apology, Socrates is brought to trial on the charges that he corrupted the youth of Athens through his teachings, and that he did not believe in the gods that the state believed in. Throughout the account, the argument against him comes across as unreliable and biased. Therefore, Socrates is innocent of the charges laid against him by Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon due to the facts that the jury consisted of men that already held a biased opinion of him, he does not make a living by corrupting the youth, and the accusation that he created his own deities was never validated.
Socrates enters into his trial acknowledging the fact that he is going up against a jury of men, many of whom already have a biased, negative view towards him. He explains that many of them, though not knowing him personally, feel as though they do based solely on word of mouth, weakening the validity of the trial against him. As Socrates states in the account of his defence; these accusers are numerous, and have been at it a long time, also they spoke to you at an age when you would readily believe them, some of you children and adolescents, and they won their case by default, as there was no defence (Plato qtd. in Melchert 18c).

He accepts the fact that he must defend himself and as he states “attempt to uproot from your minds in so short a time the slander that has resided there so long” (Plato qtd. in Melchert 19a). These are not people who can actually act as witnesses to his wrongdoings, yet they (the audience) have born witness to him not committing the alleged crimes of “walking on air and talking a lot of other nonsense” (Plato qtd. in Melchert 19c). He then addresses first...

... middle of paper ...

..., since I believe in divine beings (Plato qtd in Melchert 27d).

Smith 6
These “new” charges from Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon have clearly stemmed from the older accusations that his first accusers couldn’t fully prove before, and the hearsay that they have all grown up hearing, and therefore should not actually be seen as new charges.
Socrates' accusers clearly have a bias against him from the very beginning, proven by the lack of evidence combined with the fact that he is brought before the jury under false pretences regarding the accusations of corrupting the youth and creating his own deities. This shows that Socrates was indeed charged and wrongly put to death for the simple reason that he had fallen out of favour with the men of Athens and not because he had actually broken any laws.
Get Access