Socrates Defense Essay

1102 Words5 Pages
Socrates will be praised for his wisdom and contributions to western thinking for a very long time. Some of his ideas prevail today among philosophers, and his thinking has shaped modern science. Perhaps we should throw out the book, considering his botched defense. Socrates claims to know nothing and we should take his word for it. 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…show more content…
It would make sense to say someone who knows nothing is not wise. Following that same reasoning, the wisest man alive should surely know something, and that is in fact the case with Socrates. Socrates plans on kicking the tires of this theory with a testable and repeatable process. “I went to one of those who had the character of being wise, think that there, if anywhere, I should confute to the oracle, and show in answer to the response that This man is wiser than I,” and that is exactly what he does. Socrates then went to all men who thought themselves wise, and upon speaking with each of these wise men he discovered an issue with their claim. The mistake Socrates makes here has nothing to with his theory or with the practice he used in testing his hypothesis. Socrates makes a blunder in his defense - the problem is that the men before him are entirely aware what he did, because they are the type of men, and possible they very same men Socrates fought with and told them they know nothing.These men fancy to know what they do not according to Socrates: Lawyers, Politicians, Poets, Artisans – essentially every type of person who might have the afternoon off to see this trail, or maybe even serve as judges. An action any attorney would advise against, shortly after finishing his opening argument Socrates ridicules everyone in Athens who claims to know something. Socrates is on trial…show more content…
He makes a good case in saying he believes in gods and does so in a very logical way, again by leading the prosecution to agree with him. The problem with his argument is that he needed to believe in the common Greek gods to escape prosecution, not just gods and their powers. Socrates proves he is no Atheist by speaking of supernatural forces that must be the work of gods, his critical mistake is one line. “you assert, then, that I do believe and teach things relating to demons, whether they be new or old,” Socrates wasn’t on trial for Atheism, he was on trial for impiety, for not keeping the gods of the state. Socrates proves himself guilty in this moment. He strongly suggests that he does not keep the Greek Pantheon by referring to them as old gods and his, as new. It seems like Socrates was counting on the judges not paying close attention to a man they believe twists words and arguments. It seems as if Socrates wanted very badly to avoid directly acknowledging Greek gods even if it would save his
Open Document