The Trial of Socrates The trial of Socrates is an excellent source of events during the period in which Socrates lived and died. Athens was a democratic city with much pride in their freedom. Especially their freedom of speech. Socrates was a political philosopher who did not agree with these freedoms provided by the Athenic democracy. However, it is his trial in which both the democracy of Athens and Socrates himself show their hypocrisy. It is this hypocrisy that makes the trial and death of Socrates quite ironic. Athens, the city in which Socrates resided, was a free democratic city that was governed by all citizens in a fair democracy as seen in apology. It was said to be an association of free men with no single leader or king. The town prided itself on the freedom of its citizens and, especially, its freedom of speech. Most all citizens prided themselves on these views, although they respected the views of other people because of their own freedom of speech. This was the society in which Socrates lived. Socrates was a philosopher who believed that only those who are wise should rule the people. In other words, the people are not capable of government participation because they do not have the knowledge According to this philosophy; democracy is not a capable government. Other than his time spent fighting for Athens, Socrates rarely took part in any democratic actions. He spent most of his life preaching his philosophical views Socrates had many pupils to his preaching, although he denied being a teacher of philosophy. He proved this by showing them as witnesses in the court. He boasted about many topics. He also attacked the opinions of many others. He believed that one should give specific definitions o... ... middle of paper ... ...ny listeners and pupils that agreed with his philosophy. He did not make any actions against the democracy that he despised so greatly. 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. Finally, as for the question “Should Socrates have been convicted”, if I were the trial’s judge, I would have decided him to be guilty although he wasn’t. I think I would have awarded him.
Socrates’ indirectly attacks democracy in ancient Athens when he discusses the differences between opinion an...
Socrates reaches a conclusion that defies a common-sense understanding of justice. Nothing about his death sentence “seems” just, but after further consideration, we find that his escape would be as fruitless as his death, and that in some sense, Socrates owes his obedience to whatever orders Athens gives him since he has benefited from his citizenship.
Socrates is one of the greatest logicians humankind has ever produced. All the scholars before him engaged in different trivial matters regarding more concrete aspects of our reality, such as mathematics or natural phenomenon, but Socrates was different. Socrates sought out more intrapersonal questions, he devoted his entire life seeking out answers to these questions. Eventually this ambition led him to a notorious standing within his city of Athens, eventually leading to his trial and execution. The rebounding question that comes from this is “Should Socrates have stayed in prison and faced his execution?”. This is controversial because Socrates was wrongly convicted in his trial, but disregarding that he
At his trial there were two kinds of accusers the ancient and the present. His accusers of the present were Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon, representing their respective fields. They claim that he is corrupting the youth, that he does not believe in the gods of the state, that he is a doer of evil, and that he makes a weaker argument seem stronger. Socrates wished to address all of these accusations and prove his innocence. On the account of corrupting the youth he calls Meletus to the stand for questioning. He basically asks if he is a bad influence on the youth then what would be a good influence. Meletus answers that the law is a fine influence for the youth. Socrates asserts that those who influence the law are only male, then Meletus asserts that the whole population of Athens is a positive influence on the youth. Socrates us...
In 399 BC, Socrates, the great philosopher in ancient Greece, was put to death under the hands of his Athenian fellow-citizens to whom he had a strong attachment, after a final vote with over two-thirds of jurymen against him. We cannot experience the situation where Socrates gave his final argument in the court of law. From Plato’s Apology, we admire Socrates’ brilliant rhetoric and rigorous logic, while at the same time feel pity for him and indignant with those ruthless jurymen. However, the question of what exactly caused his death and why was Socrates, such a remarkable thinker sentenced to death in the very society that valued democracy the most is not easy and straightforward to answer. There are multiple elements involved that finally caused this tragedy in which “a person of high moral principle is confronted step by step with a situation from which there is no escape” (38). First of all, the moral principle and belief in divinity held by Socrates are inconsistent with those of the Athenian society, implying the very crimes charged upon Socrates were not completely groundless. Secondly, the imperfect juridical system of Athens played a role in causing this tragedy. What’s more, Socrates himself, could have offered better defense in the court, also had a hand in his own death by his stubbornness regarding to his own interpretation of wisdom and piety. His rebuttal, though brilliant and insightful, was not persuasive enough to move the fellow-citizens for his wrong approach and sophistry in his cross-examination on Meletus.
In the retelling of his trial by his associate, Plato, entitled “The Apology”; Socrates claims in his defense that he only wishes to do good for the polis. I believe that Socrates was innocent of the accusations that were made against him, but he possessed contempt for the court and displayed that in his conceitedness and these actions led to his death.
Socrates spent his life wandering the streets of Athens questioning the citizens he encountered about their ideas and ideals. Because he questioned the ideas of the elders, and because some of his acquaintances had warred against Athens he was not liked by city powers, who brought him to trial"
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.
Socrates lived such a private life that it lead to the most important revelation of his entire life. He would go about his life doing nothing but self-examination. In examining his life so strenuously others would come to him to be taught, or to have their children be taught by Socrates. They would offer him money and he would refuse. They would do whatever they could to learn anything Socrates had to teach. What they did not know is that Socrates was not teaching anyone he was simply going about his usual life and people just happened to learn from it. This was also why Socrates was put on trial. He was brought up on two charges, one of impiety and the other of corrupting the youth. These two charges set the course for the last month of his life.
There are times in every mans life where our actions and beliefs collide—these collisions are known as contradictions. There are endless instances in which we are so determined to make a point that we resort to using absurd overstatements, demeaning language, and false accusations in our arguments. This tendency to contradict ourselves often questions our character and morals. Similarly, in The Trial of Socrates (Plato’s Apology), Meletus’ fallacies in reason and his eventual mistake of contradicting himself will clear the accusations placed on Socrates. In this paper, I will argue that Socrates is not guilty of corrupting the youth with the idea of not believing in the Gods but of teaching the youth to think for themselves by looking to new divinities.
Living in a democracy, everyone is exposed through television and other various forms of media everyday to numerous trials by jury. Usually they are rarely given a second thought, but every once in a while along comes a specific trial which captures the attention of the entire country. This goes the same for trials throughout centuries in our past. Although they did not have the same forms of media as in this, modern era, there were still specific trials in which everyone knew about. One trial that stands out is the one against the great philosopher Socrates. Accused of corrupting the youth, being an atheist, and believing in other gods, Socrates faced trial by jury. The early forms of democracy were not as sophisticated and complex as they are now. The outcome of the trial was that Socrates was found guilty and sentenced to be put to death by hemlock poisoning. The question is whether Socrates was truly guilty or just another person fallen to the early form of democracy of a people who were possibly jealous and afraid of Socrates. However, by understanding Socrates intentions, it is clear that he was in fact innocent of the above charges, and was wrongly accused and executed.
In any case of law, when considering truth and justice, one must first look at the validity of the court and the system itself. In Socrates' case, the situation is no different. One may be said to be guilty or innocent of any crime, but guilt or innocence is only as valid as the court it is subjected to. Therefore, in considering whether Socrates is guilty or not, it must be kept in mind the norms and standards of Athens at that time, and the validity of his accusers and the crimes he allegedly committed. Is Socrates guilty or innocent of his accusations?
...to make its final decision, Socrates was given the death penalty. However, because this man had faced death many times before, he was not fearful of his fate. He believed that it would be good for him because the internal oracle had given no sign of opposition. And so, Socrates was put to death for the violations he had committed. Because Socrates was able to maintain his composure throughout the trial, and was able to truthfully discuss his tactics with the court even though it went against the common practices of the ancient world, I feel that he was a very honorable man. Even at the brink of death, Socrates did not modify his defense to what he thought the court would want to hear. He did not apologize for his way of thinking or for the way he went about doing things, but he, essentially, apologized for the fact that others were unable to understand his virtues.
From the readings of Plato’s republic, it is very apparent that the philosopher Socrates had a very different way of thinking about politics and how society should live. Many people today and back then do not always agree with Socrates thinking but his thoughts and ideas about politics are very well known today. He did not conform to how everyone else thought and acted. I think that he was so well known because his thoughts went against the norm and conformity during his time period. I like to think of Socrates as an outcaste to Athens at the time. I have even seen a part of today’s society take on certain ways of this philosophers thinking, which is anyone who does not favor democracy because they believe things can fall apart in a democracy. He did not agree with the way the city of Athens lived as a whole. This philosopher was uncertain of our human nature and he makes us realize that yes in fact we do use it to justify our actions especially when we are wrong. Some of Socrates views on politics are quite controversial and especially poles
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 ...