Plato's Defense of Socrates: Trial and Innocence

1117 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Critical Analysis

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

Show More
Related

  • The Innocence In Plato's The Apology Of Socrates

    1352 Words  | 3 Pages

    Aristophanes wrote a comedy about this accusation and Socrates does refer to this in his trial. The comedy portrays him as someone who “swings around claiming he’s walking on air and talking a lot of other nonsense on subject that I know neither a lot nor a little but nothing at all about.” (Plato 650) Socrates goes on to explain that he has “acquired this reputation because of nothing other than a sort of wisdom.” (Plato 651) He goes deeper into this explanation by saying he possesses “human wisdom. For it may just be that I really do have that sort of wisdom, whereas the people I mentioned just now

    Read More

  • Plato's Apology: The Argument For Corrupting The Youth Of Plato

    785 Words  | 2 Pages

    In Plato’s Apology, when Socrates is pleading his defence, he makes a good argument against the charges of corrupting the youth of Athens. This is evident when he states that, firstly, Meletus, the man who is trying to get Socrates executed, has never cared about the youth of Athens and has no real knowledge on the subject. Secondly, Socrates states that if he was in some way corrupting the youth, then he was doing it unintentionally or unwillingly, in which case he was brought to court for no reason. Finally, Socrates brings to light the fact that Meletus doesn’t have a single witness to attest to Socrates’ corruption. This is how Socrates proves his argument that he isn’t responsible for corrupting the youth of Athens.

    Read More

  • Socrates Was NOT Guilty

    1660 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Socrates and His Innocence

    907 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Essay On Euthyphro And Socrates

    1473 Words  | 3 Pages

    In the book the Republic, by Plato, revised by G.M.A. Grube, an argument is made over what Justice is. How is justice defined? Can it be defined? What incentivizes one to be a just person? The group, specifically Socrates and Thrasymachus have concluded that Justice must be defined and proven worthwhile. The argument lies within this task as Thrasymachus hastily makes the bold claim that what society knows as “just” is simply not desirable. He states that Justice is actually the advantage of the stronger and claims that injustice is a virtue. Socrates and Euthyphro have a similar argument where “Holy” acts are attempted to be defined and the controversy alludes to that of being “Just”. Euthyphro claims that it is a holy act to prosecute those

    Read More

  • Critical Analysis Of Euthyphro's The Maxims Of Good Discourse

    1268 Words  | 3 Pages

    To be a good speaker, one must master the skill of listening. The vizier Ptahhotep discloses in “The Maxims of Good Discourse” different advices on listening and speaking, reveling that the secret for becoming a great specker, the secret for people listing, is listening to others; to remain silent until the moment one has acquire enough knowledge from the elders. Meanwhile, Plato in “Euthyphro” shares the manuscript a dialogue between Euthyphro and Socrates where the later wishes to learn what is piety and how he can use in his defense in court; the manuscript shows how great listener Socrates was. He employs different techniques to convince Euthyphro to share with him the characteristics of piety and impiety. Whether Socrates was successful or not, the dialogue shows that techniques such as paraphrasing the other’s ideas before introducing yours is a great technique to make people listen. Therefore, both Ptahhotep and Plato argue that people will listen if what you say is meaningful, but the worry that

    Read More

  • The Trail Of Socrates And The Apology Of Plato

    1011 Words  | 3 Pages

    In Plato’s Apology it seems that overall Socrates did an effective job using the 3 acts of the mind. The three acts of the mind are: Understanding, Judgment, and Reasoning. These acts are stragically used to rebut the charges made against him during trial. The two charges that are formed against Socrates are corrupting the youth and not believing in the gods. The first act of the mind that we will be looking at is, understanding. The question that needs to be asked is what does corruption mean? The accuser believe that Socrates in corrupting 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 question. It is very important that people are always asking questions about why things are. The next question that needs to be address 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. They are mad that he has “created” his own god.

    Read More

  • Socrates’ Speech in Apology

    968 Words  | 2 Pages

    Socrates takes the warning from the Clouds seriously. In Socrates’ speech in Apology, he disregards the newer charges made against him and rather refutes the charges made by Aristophanes. The newer charges are just shadows of the older accusations made against Socrates by a more eloquent and skilled “comic poet” (Apology 18d). The older charges made against Socrates were that Socrates “has investigated all the things under the earth, and [has] made the weaker speech the stronger,” thus teaching rhetoric and unjust speech to the population— and more importantly to the malleable, corruptible youth— in Athens (Apology 18b).

    Read More

  • Socrates was a Wise and Harmless Man

    1122 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Plato's Apology

    807 Words  | 2 Pages

    In his defense, Socrates claims over and again that he is innocent and is not at all wise, “…for I know that I have no wisdom, small or great.” Throughout the rest of his oration he seems to act the opposite as if he is better than every man, and later he even claims that, “At any rate, the world has decided that Socrates is in some way superior to other men.” This seems to be his greatest mistake, claiming to be greater than even the jury.

    Read More

  • Socrates's Accusers Essay

    746 Words  | 2 Pages

    Socrates opened his speech by simply stating, “hardly a word they [his accusers] have said is true.” (17a 4-5) He then addressed that his accusers warned the jury that Socrates was “a clever speaker”. (17b 1) Socrates went on to refute this claim as well, unless they “call a ‘clever’ speaker one who speaks the truth,” if so then he was a “clever speaker”. (17b 5-6) Socrates explained that he has no experience in court, so he was not sure what appropriate speech was for court. He concluded that he would speak the same way he always speaks, with directness and honesty.

    Read More

  • The Charges Against Socrates

    634 Words  | 2 Pages

    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 ...

    Read More

  • Euthyphro And Socrates Summary

    457 Words  | 1 Pages

    This is a summary of a conversation between Euthyphro and Socrates that happened near Lyceum. The conversation starts with what takes each person to the court today; Meletus was prosecuting Socrates for corrupting the youth and refusing the acknowledgment of the gods of the state and Euthyphro was there to prosecute his father for killing one of the servants of their house. In ancient greek taking your own family specially your own father to the court was a preposterous action, Socrates startled by this fact told Euthyphro that he must have a clear knowledge and understanding of what is pious and what is not or what is piety as a whole picture that he sees himself well qualified and befitting for such action. So Socrates ironically asks Euthyphro to explain this to him so he could use it as his defense in the court.

    Read More

  • Euthyphro Philosophy Analysis

    700 Words  | 2 Pages

    In the day by day life we live, we take things for how they are without questioning them. These “normal” things in our lives are rarely question because either they have been the way they are for so long or they aren 't worth the time and effort to evaluate. The very few that question these norms on the other hand have a philosophical attitude that is worth examining. To begin the process of deconstructing a day by day object or idea you first have to detach yourself from common and uncommon viewpoints. In Socrates encounter with Euthyphro, Socrates detaches himself from his personal viewpoint of the situation in an odd way. He tells Euthyphro that if he(Euthyphro) can give him adequate proof of this(that prosecuting Euthyphro’s own father is the right thing to do), he shall never cease to extol his wisdom (Euthyphro 10b). By socrates encouraging Euthyphro and wanting to know the actual truth behind his reasoning, he detaches himself from a viewpoint and sees the bigger picture. Although he is mocking Euthyphro in a way, the concept of detachment is still there. But to act in this philosophical way is somewhat easy when there is no

    Read More

  • Of Plato In Euthyphro, Apology, Crito And The Republic

    329 Words  | 1 Pages

    When looking at some of the writings of Plato one can see that he was not an idealist but a political realist. He didn’t focus just on ideas nor did he treat things as they should be but rather he treated them as they were. Plato realized that politics had to be dealt with practically and that the focus should be on the needs of the state as well as the leaders in place. This essay will argue that Plato showed through his writings from the Euthyphro, Apology, Crito and The Republic that he was a political realist.

    Read More

More about Plato's Defense of Socrates: Trial and Innocence

Open Document