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).” Why does Socrates fear the older charges more than the specific ones he is charged with? Socrates fears the old charges more because of all the false accusers. Socrates says, “And first, I …show more content…
“Are we to say that we are never intentionally to do wrong, or that in one way we ought not to do wrong, or is doing wrong always evil and dishonorable, as I was just now saying, and as has been already acknowledged by us? (Dover p.49)” Socrates’ standard is that he refuses to see justice as an eye for an eye. He believes that logical arguments and persuasion should be the defense of the accused. Socrates believes that since he cannot convince the people who ruled against him that there is no other option then to pay the sentence that he was
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.
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.
The accuser believes that Socrates corrupted the minds of the children by introducing new concepts. Socrates is trying to teach and involve the minds of the youth by getting them to ask questions. It is very important that people are always asking questions about why things are happening. The next question that needs to be addressed is what does not believe in the gods mean? Socrates believes in God, but that is one God that rules the world, not multiple gods who together rule.
First, Socrates claims that a person should not do evil and injure others in any reasons. Disobeying the jury is a way of injuring the country (Crito, p. 7). Although he declines the charge, he believes “no evil can happen to a good man” (Apology, p. 14). This is his fate as a “good man” decided by his country, so he must obey the jury. Second, Socrates will admit the charge of corrupting the youth which he disobeys by escaping from prison. He will be “neither happier nor holier” (Crito, p. 10), so he chooses to obey the
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 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
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 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
Socrates was not guilty as charged; he had done nothing wrong, as seen in the Apology. Not even a priest could tell Socrates what he had done wrong religiously, Euthyphro wasn’t even able to give Socrates a precise definition of piety. It is then questioned by Crito why Socrates would remain to face a penalty for a crime he did not commit. In the Crito, it is explained why, although innocent, Socrates must accept the penalties his peers have set upon him. It is his peers that will interpret and enforce the laws, not the law which will enforce it. Even if the enforcers don’t deserve attention and respect because they have no real knowledge to the situation, Socrates had put himself under their judgment by going to the trial. Therefore, Socrates must respect the decisions made by the masses because the decisions are made to represent the laws, which demand each citizen’s respect.
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.
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
Some of the best sources of information about Socrates' philosophical views are the early dialogues of his student Plato, who tried to provide a faithful picture of the methods and teachings of the great master. The Apology is one of the many-recorded dialogues about Socrates. It is about how Socrates was arrested and charged with corrupting the youth, believing in no god(s) (Atheism) and for being a Sophist. He attended his trial and put up a good argument. I believe that Socrates was wrongfully accused and should not have been sentenced to death. Within the duration of this document, I will be discussing the charges laid against Socrates and how he attempted to refute the charges.
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.
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 ...