In the spring of 399 BCE, A man named Socrates was put on trial in front of his native Athenians. Facing the charges of not acknowledging the gods the city acknowledges, and introducing other new divinities. In addition, He is also charged with corrupting the youth of Athens. The affidavit introduced by Meletus demands the penalty of death. These are very serious charges and the demand of death should not be taken lightly. Yet Meletus is ignorant about what he claims and his accusations can easily be rebutted.
In a legal case or trial such as the one Socrates found himself in, there is a terminology called precedent meaning “any act, decision, or case that serves as a guide or justification for subsequent situations.” There was a decree stating that it was prohibited to have disbelief in the gods of Athens. However it was not enforced, the unjust punishment of Socrates was a rarity, in fact there are documented cases of others mocking and showing greater disbelief in the gods who went unpunished. One such incidence is the case of Aristophanes who at religious festivals mocked not only Zeus, but Dionysus whom the festivals were held in the honor of.
What made Socrates the exception to the rule? Was it because so many people listened to what he had to say? Or because he was so persistent, that even in the face of death he still refused to stop spreading his thought? Either way, if there were others, who showed more disrespect, and outright mockery towards the gods, why were they not punished, what made Socrates so dangerous to the Athenians?
Meletus claims that Socrates is an atheist in the affidavit, that he teaches others to believe not in the typical Olympian gods but in other gods and demigods. However the defi...
... middle of paper ...
... corrupted testify against him? Unless the only people who consider these youth to be corrupted do not know what Socrates taught these people?
Works Cited
Plato The Apology http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html (accessed Septermber 24, 2011).
Colaiaco, James A. "Socrates Against Athens: Philosophy on Trial." By James A Colaiaco, 121-122. Taylor & Francis, Inc, 2001.
Plato. Early Socratic Dialogues. Penguin Classics, 1987.
Random House, Inc. Random House, Inc. 2011. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/precedent (accessed September 11, 2011).
Stone, I.F. The Trial Of Socrates. Little, Brown & Company, 1988.
Waterfield, Robin. Why Socrates Died: Dispelling The Myths. New York : W.W Norton & Company, 2009.
SparkNotes Editors. “SparkNote on The Apology.” SparkNotes LLC. n.d.. http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/apology/ (accessed September 23, 2011).
Plato's The Apology is an account of the speech. Socrates makes at the trial in which he is charged with not recognizing the gods recognized by the state, inventing new gods, and corrupting the youth of Athens. For the most part, Socrates speaks in a very plain, conversational manner. He explains that he has no experience with the law courts and that he will instead speak in the manner to which he is accustomed with honesty and directness. Socrates then proceeds to interrogate Meletus, the man primarily responsible for bringing Socrates before the jury. He strongly attacks Meletus for wasting the court¡¦s time on such absurd charges. He then argues that if he corrupted the young he did so unknowingly since Socrates believes that one never deliberately acts wrongly. If Socrates neither did not corrupt the young nor did so unknowingly, then in both cases he should not be brought to trial. The other charge is the charge of impiety. This is when Socrates finds an inconsistency in Meletus¡¦ belief that Socrates is impious. If he didn¡¦t believe in any gods then it would be inconsistent to say that he believed in spiritual things, as gods are a form of a spiritual thing. He continues to argue against the charges, often asking and answering his own questions as if he were speaking in a conversation with one of his friends. He says that once a man has found his passion in life it would be wrong of him to take into account the risk of life or death that such a passion might involve.
After reading “The Apology of Socrates”, I feel very strongly that Socrates was innocent in the allegations against him. “The Apology of Socrates” was written by Plato, Socrates most trusted pupil, who in fact wrote everything for Socrates. Numerous times in his defense, Socrates points out ways that what he is being accused of is false. The point of this paper is to show how Socrates did this, and to explain how he proved his innocence by using these quotes. He uses a lot of questions to the accusers to prove his points and is very skilled in speech and knowledge. This essay’s purpose is to explain why I think Socrates was innocent, and how he proves that in his speech.
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.
Plato, . The Trial and Death of Socrates, "The Apology". Trans. G.M.A. Grube. Third ed. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2000. 34. Print.
They are mad that he has “created” his own god. The act of the mind of judgment can be very controversial. The main points under review with this act are: was Socrates a corrupter or an improver? And Socrates was an atheist. In my opinion, Socrates does a good job of using judgment to rebut his charges.
"Was Socrates a Prophet? Similarities between Socrates and Jesus Christ." The Ancient Greeks: Tragedy, Philosophy, and Politics. Eastman School of Music, 24 Mar. 2011. Web. 25 Feb. 2012.
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.
In his examination of Meletus, Socrates makes three main points: 1) Meletus has accused Socrates of being the only corrupter, while everyone else improves the youth. Socrates then uses an analogy: a horse trainer is to horses as an improver is to the youth. The point is that there is only one improver, not many. 2) If Socrates corrupts the youth, either it is intentional or unintentional. No one would corrupt his neighbor intentionally, because he would harm himself in the process. If the corruption was unintentional, then the court is not the place to resolve the problem. The other possibility is that he does not corrupt them at all. 3) In frustration, Meletus accuses Socrates of being "a complete atheist," at the same time he claims Socrates teaches new gods. Thus, Meletus contradicts himself. Socrates argues that fear of death is foolish, because it is not known if death is a good or an evil, thus there is no reason to fear death.
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.
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.
The main argument in The Apology by famous ancient Greek philosopher Plato is whether, notorious speaker and philosopher Socrates is corrupting the youth by preaching ungodly theories and teaching them unlawful ideas that do harm to individuals and society. In his words Socrates quoted the prosecution’s accusation against him: “Socrates is guilty of corrupting the minds of the young, and of believing in supernatural things of his own invention instead of the gods recognized by the state.” 1 Further Socrates consistently introduces tediously compiled number of examples to provide valid and sound arguments to prove that he is innocent of the charges brought up against him to the court.
Socrates was also put on trial for being an Atheist. In the argument Socrates has with Meletus, Socrates gets Meletus to admit that Socrates is Atheist and theist. Considering that both of these practices are totally incompatible, and Meletus admits to both of theses, maybe Meletus does not really understand what he is accusing Socrates of. I understand that back then; not believing in religion was considered a crime but to actually sentence someone to death for being different is totally uncalled for.
During his trial, Socrates righteously acknowledges that he has two types of people accusing him. There were new accusers, those who were against Socrates at the time of the trial, and the previous accusers, people who might have heard of Socrates ' so called bad reputation and already felt biased against him before the trial even occurred. Although the modern legal system includes the protection of the accused from biased parties, the Athenian legal system was not exactly similar. Being on trial in front of an entire jury of Athenians who only thought badly of him, Socrates hardly had a chance of being found not guilty. He was allowed to try to defend himself, but he was not convincing enough to his jury. At the end of the famous trial, Socrates was still found guilty of not recognizing the same gods that the state recognized, presenting different deities, and polluting the minds of Athenian youth with corrupting
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 ...
Socrates was set to a trial in front of 500 males over the age of thirty who would decide his fate. He was accused on two charge, corrupting the youth and impiety. The young men of the wealthier class have been attracted to him because they enjoy listening to the way in which he exposes the ignorance of those who claim to be wise. This irritated the elders because they believed Socrates was exploiting the youth, even though Socrates did not entice the youth to listen to him. The other charge was impiety, lack of allegiance for a religion. He was charged for this because