Plato's Defense of Socrates: Trial and Innocence

1117 Words3 Pages

Plato’s dialogues on the trial and death of Socrates demonstrate the innocence that Plato sees of Socrates in defense against his old accusers. Plato covers this issue in Euthyphro and The Apology both of which provide insight into Socrates defense. The charge from the old accusers that Socrates defends against is, in the most general terms, that he does injustice and is meddlesome (19b-c, p. 66). Within that general charge, Socrates is specifically charged with investigating things under the Earth and heavenly things, making the weaker speech the stronger, and with teaching others these same things (19b-c, p. 66). Between the Euthyphro and The Apology, Socrates thoroughly establishes his defense and proves he is not guilty of any of those accusations. First, in response to the broad charge as a whole, Socrates In order to be guilty of this element, then he must be a skilled speaker and use that skill to make the weaker speech appear stronger. However, Socrates argues that he is not a skilled or clever orator at all unless that means one who speaks the truth in which case he would be an orator (17b, p. 63). There is a disconnect at the definitional level of this argument preventing them from reaching stasis and thus proving this charge. Even if they agree on the definition of what it means to be an orator, Socrates points out that he does not in fact make the weaker speech stronger, but rather points out the flaws in the stronger speech. The old accusers create a false dichotomy here that because he shows the speech believed to be strong is actually weaker, that he must also make the weaker speech stronger. But, those are two different acts only one of which Socrates does. Thus, Socrates cannot be guilty of this second element because he is not a clever orator or does he actually make the weaker speech

Open Document