Socrates was one of the wisest people to walk the earth, and he didn’t even know it. His questioning, reasoning, and expertise in the Apology convey the amount of wisdom he endowed. Through his statements, Socrates sounds like he contradicted himself, but rather, both statements made about obeying law and breaking the law are correct. Socrates said that he would obey the commands of the city, only if the commands were just. He should not be on trial, because he did nothing to invoke injustice upon himself. He committed no crime; therefore, he will continue practicing philosophy no matter what the consequence.
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;
Socrates was a well-known philosopher in Ancient Greek who was named the father of Western philosophy. Yet, the counselors and state jurors did not believe that Socrates was the knowledgeable man that the city of Athens claims that he is. Therefore, the state accused Socrates for depraving the youth of Athens, as well as creating new gods that were not recognized by the state. In the Apology, one can understand that it was not much of an apology or an acknowledgment of offense. Later on, Socrates is sentenced to death and later writes Crito, where his friend Crito endeavors to convince Socrates to escape his jail cell. Yet, Socrates’ actions in Crito are not so consistent with the dialogue that is found in the Apology.
Socrates knew that the jury was prejudiced against him from the start and addressed it immediately. In his opening statement, of the prosecutors he stated, "but of their many falsehoods, the one which astonished me most was when they said that I was a clever speaker, and that you must be careful not to let me mislead you."(15) That is an effective statement to taint a rebuttal before it can be presented. Also, Socrates addressed the fact that he has been accused of this treachery for years. These accusations are more formidable because they were first introduced to the jury when they were young and impressionable, but more importantly because Socrates has been unable to defend himself. He could not defend his position because the accusations have been informal and the accusers remain anonymous. "He investigates things in the air and under the earth, and that he teaches people to disbelieve in the gods, and to make the weaker argument appear stronger."(19) These are the stock accusations given to all philosophers. Socrates was no fool and knew that he would not be able to change these
In the Apology, Socrates is on trial and is faced with four accusations from his accusers. Two were old accusations, and the other two were new accusations. Socrates, started with the old accusations first because they have been circling around for a long time, he states,"They got hold of most of you from childhood; they spoke to you at that age when you would most readily be them, they say there's a man called Socrates, a "wise" man, thinker about things in the heavens, and investigator of all things below the earth, and someone Who makes the weaker argument the stronger, those who hear believe those who investigates such things do not acknowledge the gods either"(Apology 22). These old accusations, have been told from generations which would not only cloud their judgment on him. But, also persuade them to believe it's true.
Throughout the readings of The Apology of Socrates and Crito I have found that Socrates was not a normal philosopher. It is the philosopher's intention to question everything, but Socrates' approach was different then most other philosophers. From one side of the road, Socrates can be seen as an insensitive, arrogant man. He did indeed undermine the laws so they fit his ideals, leave his family, and disregard the people's values. 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, in his conviction from the Athenian jury, was both innocent and guilty as charged. In Plato’s Five Dialogues, accounts of events ranging from just prior to Socrates’ entry into the courthouse up until his mouthful of hemlock, both points are represented. Socrates’ in dealing with moral law was not guilty of the crimes he was accused of by Meletus. Socrates was only guilty as charged because his peers had concluded him as such. The laws didn’t find Socrates guilty; Socrates was guilty because his jurors enforced the laws. The law couldn’t enforce itself. Socrates was accused of corrupting Athens’ youth, not believing in the gods of the city and creating his own gods. In the Euthyphro, Socrates defends himself against the blasphemous charges outside the courthouse to a priest Euthyphro. Socrates looks to the priest to tell him what exactly is pious so that he may educate himself as to why he would be perceived as impious. Found in the Apology, another of Plato’s Five Dialogues, Socrates aims to defend his principles to the five hundred and one person jury. Finally, the Crito, an account of Socrates’ final discussion with his good friend Crito, Socrates is offered an opportunity to escape the prison and his death sentence. As is known, Socrates rejected the suggestion. It is in the Euthyphro and the Apology that it can be deduced that Socrates is not guilty as charged, he had done nothing wrong and he properly defended himself. However, in the Crito, it is shown that Socrates is guilty only in the interpretation and enforcement of Athens’ laws through the court system and its jurors. Socrates’ accusations of being blasphemous are also seen as being treasonous.
His assumptions are just sheer thoughts that contain no authentic result. So why was he guilty for just trying to understand? The approach Socrates character and tone set out during the trial, presumably irritated the jury which consisted of 500 people, vexing them to make him blameworthy. In that sense, his arguments were successful in trying to get out his message, but unsuccessful in getting the reaction he hoped for. In conclusion, Socrates defended himself reasonably and knowledgably of all charges that were against him. But his demeanor, actions, and tone against the 500 jurors motivated them to dish out a guilty verdict and denounce him to an unpleasant death. However, to base the verdict on the actions, demeanor and tone of Socrates is most definitely inequitable. Socrates carried out a strong defense argument which held no deceit, which makes the verdict of these 500 jurors unjust, because he died for the wrong
Socrates starts by speaking of his first accusers. He speaks of the men that they talked to about his impiety and says that those that they persuaded in that Socrates is impious, that they themselves do not believe in gods (18c2). He tells the court of how long they have been accusing him of impiety. He states that they spoke to others when they were at an impressionable age (18c5). These two reasons alone should have been good enough to refute the first accusers of how they were wrong about him but Socrates went on. He leaves the first accusers alone because since they accused him a long time ago it was not relevant in the current case and began to refute the second accusers. Socrates vindicates his innocence by stating that the many have heard what he has taught in public and that many of those that he taught were present in the court that day.
The Apology is Socrates' defense at his trial. As the dialogue begins, Socrates notes that his accusers have cautioned the jury against Socrates' eloquence, according to Socrates, the difference between him and his accusers is that Socrates speaks the truth. Socrates distinguished two groups of accusers: the earlier and the later accusers. The earlier group is the hardest to defend against, since they do not appear in court. He is all so accused of being a Sophist: that he is a teacher and takes money for his teaching. He attempts to explain why he has attracted such a reputation. The oracle was asked if anyone was wiser than Socrates was. The answer was no, there was no man wiser. Socrates cannot believe this oracle, so he sets out to disprove it by finding someone who is wiser. He goes to a politician, who is thought wise by him self and others. Socrates does not think this man to be wise and tells him so. As a consequence, the politician hated Socrates, as did others who heard the questioning. "I am better off, because while he knows nothing but thinks that he knows, I neither know nor think that I know" (Socrates). He questioned politicians, poets, and artisans. He finds that the poets do not write from wisdom, but by genius and inspiration. Meletus charges Socrates with being "a doer of evil, and corrupter of the youth, and he does not believe in the gods of the State, and has other new divinities of his own."
Socrates attempts to defend himself with various arguments that he presents to the courts. He begins his defense by admonishing the jury to pay close attention to the accusations brought by his accusers. They urge the jury to be careful not to be deceived by Socrates accomplished speech. Socrates reasons that if his accusers thought him to be an accomplished speaker, then they must believe he speaks the truth and would be able to sway the jury to his side. Socrates does not consider himself to be an eloquent speaker but he does admit that he is truthful. Socrates asks the jurors to listen carefully and determine whether or not he is telling the truth. Socrates admitted to the jury that he was not an accomplished speaker so his accusers have started off with a false statement against him. He wants the jury to pay attention to what he is saying and not how he says it, to determine whether he is telling the truth.
On trial, with his life at stake, Socrates keeps his cool and defends his way of life as unassailably just. But he doesn’t justify the accusations at all. Socrates is not discussing and dismantling any one particular claim so much as he is laying out the method behind these
In the “normal” world many individuals would not use a trial to reaffirm their ideals or philosophy particularly if they life was on the line. In that analysis, I disagree with you because even that is seems a wrongful action for the “normal” world it was a normal behavior that goes in accordance with who was Socrates and what his philosophical ideas where. Socrates Apology was more than a reaffirmation of Socrates believes and views in my opinion it was an alibi to prove his innocence. In general, Socrates actions should be an inspiration to fight for what is Good and to him that was Virtue. For than we can say that Socrates was defending his
Throughout the events of the trial, both sides were quite hypocritical, although Socrates willingly became hypocritical in order to expose the hypocrisy of the government. Throughout the trial, Socrates did not deny the accusations exactly , because he actually wanted to be convicted. We can also see this in Socrates’ dialogues with his accusers. He made them talk and answer his questions which most of them were not exactly questions. His questions were as if they were answers. These are all the proofs of what he wanted to do in the trial.
A. Under trial for corrupting youth and not worshiping the Gods in Athens, Socrates takes an attitude that many might interpret as pompous during his trial. Rather than apologise, as Plato’s dialogue title Apology suggests, Socrates explains why he is right and those who accused him are mistaken. He speaks in a plain manner, as if the jury is just another of his followers. Socrates first cites the profit at Delphi for why he behaves in ways that lead to him being under scrutiny of the law. He explains that his friend, Chaerephon, went to ask the oracle if anyone is wiser than Socrates and the oracle responded no (21a). Socrates then explains his interpretation of this being that he is wise in knowing that he does not know certain things, where