Plato was the author of the Apology of Socrates, which was one of the four major works of ancient Greek literature. Though the title was the Apology of Socrates, the text referred to the defense speeches of Socrates against the Athenian council. At the end, Socrates was found to be guilty and was sentenced to death. However, the Athenian council was not acting justly because Socrates did nothing wrong as he had successfully developed a reasonable logic against the charges. I will address this notion through the analysis of the arguments and the logic that Socrates used to conduct his defense.
The charges of the present accusers were primarily the reasons why Socrates was on trial. Meletus was the accuser who accused Socrates of two charges.
…show more content…
Certainly, it would be better for anyone to hang out with good people rather than bad people just simply because the good people would have a better influence on everyone. This was why Socrates asked the following questions: “do not the villainous do something bad to whoever is nearest to them, while the good do something good” (Apology 75)? Then the key question to the refutation was “is there anyone, then, who wishes, to be harmed by those he associates with, rather than to be benefited” (Apology 75)? Certainly, no one wished to be harmed by whom they were surrounded with. The subsequent question posed to Meletus was “do you bring me in here saying that I voluntarily corrupt the young and make them villainous, or involuntarily” (Apology 75)? With this question, Socrates presented two possibilities in which Socrates either voluntarily corrupted the youth or he corrupted the youth involuntarily. For the first option, Socrates developed one premise, which was no one intentionally harm themselves. The reasoning behind this was that corrupting someone the same as dragging that person down. Consequently, the person wanted to revenge and tried to attack the corrupter. As the cycle was repeated, ultimately everybody was going down. Hence, corrupting someone voluntarily was to cause indirectly harm for …show more content…
The term described this concept was impiety. Specifically, the word daimonia in Greek was translated to “divinities” or “daimonic beings” (Apology 73). While Meletus accused Socrates believed in the wrong kind of God, Meletus contradicted himself as he asserted that “this is what I say, that you do not believe in gods at all” (Apology 76). How could Socrates be an atheist and at the same time believe in divinities? Furthermore, Meletus explained why he said that with another statement: “since he declares that the sun is stone and the moon is earth” (Apology 76). In fact, Anaxagoras of Clazomenae was the person stated that the sun and the moon were not Gods. Once again, Meletus was trapped in a contradiction and was not aware of the consequence of the statement he had
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.
Socrates begins to argue with Meletus about his previous statement and, what seems to become, more and more agitated with the fact that Meletus goes back and forth with his argument for the simple fact that he wants Socrates to face the death penalty, which is evident on several occasions throughout Plato’s apology. Also, throughout Plato’s version of The Apology, he also makes sure that it is known that his first charges arose from general prejudices that surrounded him over the years.
There are several main argument in The Apology by Greek Philosopher Plato, such as Socrates were that he argues the physical over metaphysical, he argued the weaker claim over the stronger claim, he went against the gods, and he was corrupting the youth. These are the allegations brought against Socrates amid his trail. But Socrates dependability presents drearily ordered number of cases to give legitimate and sound contentions to demonstrate that he is guiltless of the energizes conveyed against him to the court.
For these two articles that we read in Crito and Apology by Plato, we could know Socrates is an enduring person with imagination, because he presents us with a mass of contradictions: Most eloquent men, yet he never wrote a word; ugliest yet most profoundly attractive; ignorant yet wise; wrongfully convicted, yet unwilling to avoid his unjust execution. Behind these conundrums is a contradiction less often explored: Socrates is at once the most Athenian, most local, citizenly, and patriotic of philosophers; and yet the most self-regarding of Athenians. Exploring that contradiction, between Socrates the loyal Athenian citizen and Socrates the philosophical critic of Athenian society, will help to position Plato's Socrates in an Athenian legal and historical context; it allows us to reunite Socrates the literary character and Athens the democratic city that tried and executed him. Moreover, those help us to understand Plato¡¦s presentation of the strange legal and ethical drama.
Socrates defense at his trial was not strong enough to convince the Athenians to set him free of all charges. He was not prepared properly for his defense; yet, he managed to convince a large majority of the judges to find him not guilty of charges, but not enough to send him free.
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.
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.
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.
The Apology is Socrates' defense at his trial. As the dialogue begins, Socrates notes that his accusers have cautioned the jury against Socrates' eloquence, according to Socrates, the difference between him and his accusers is that Socrates speaks the truth. Socrates distinguished two groups of accusers: the earlier and the later accusers. The earlier group is the hardest to defend against, since they do not appear in court. He is all so accused of being a Sophist: that he is a teacher and takes money for his teaching. He attempts to explain why he has attracted such a reputation. The oracle was asked if anyone was wiser than Socrates was. The answer was no, there was no man wiser. Socrates cannot believe this oracle, so he sets out to disprove it by finding someone who is wiser. He goes to a politician, who is thought wise by him self and others. Socrates does not think this man to be wise and tells him so. As a consequence, the politician hated Socrates, as did others who heard the questioning. "I am better off, because while he knows nothing but thinks that he knows, I neither know nor think that I know" (Socrates). He questioned politicians, poets, and artisans. He finds that the poets do not write from wisdom, but by genius and inspiration. Meletus charges Socrates with being "a doer of evil, and corrupter of the youth, and he does not believe in the gods of the State, and has other new divinities of his own."
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.
Within the duration of this document, I will be discussing the charges laid against Socrates and how he attempted to refute the charges. One of the reasons why Socrates was arrested was because he was being accused of corrupting the minds of the students he taught. I personally feel that it is almost impossible for one person to corrupt the thoughts and feelings of a whole group of people. Improvement comes from the minority and corruption comes from the majority. Socrates is one man (minority).
Socrates was accused of bringing false gods into the polis and corrupting the youth. The only false god was himself. For he might have presented himself in such a way to his many followers. These followers were mostly, as he says, wealthy young men with not much to do. This I could imagine is where a good deal of his conceitedness comes from, being almost worshipped be others. These men followed all of his teachings and practices, including the condescending cross-examinations, which were probably the worst of his acts.
Whether Socrates is portrayed correctly or not, he certainly was a great man. His contribution to western thought cannot be denied. For even if his teachings were different from what they are known to be at present, his influence on Plato is immense. And so, it is no small matter to describe the tragic passing of such a man as Socrates was and remains for philosophy today. Yet in all the indignation which is expected to arise at the death of Socrates, the panache with which he departs is captured excellently in Plato's “Apology.” Specifically, at the end of the "Apology," Socrates makes a very important statement that has had great impact on philosophy ever since its original proclamation. The Stoics in particular have taken this to be the cornerstone of their ideology. The statement made is that "you must regard one thing at least as certain—that no harm can come to a good man either in his life or after his death,” (Plato 100). The following examination focuses therefore on a brief explanation of the circumstances which lead to this statement being made by Socrates, as well as a closer look at why he thinks this to be the case. It is assumed that this statement is true, and validation for that assumption is to be sought as well.
The charges against Socrates were brought upon him by a man names Meletus. Meletus was a young man that Socrates did not know very well. These charges brought on by Meletus caused the indictment of Socrates. One of the charges in the affidavit written by Meletus against Socrates is that he is "corrupting the youth." Another charge that is brought upon Socrates is that of he is making up new Gods and disregarding the old Gods the Athenians believe in. These were the charges brought on Socrates.
Meletus openly admits he wants to charge Socrates with a greater crime. This is illegal, dishonorable, disrespectful and should not be tolerated when trying to have a firm legal system. That is why even if Meletus can make a claim this whole trail should be thrown out since it's highly prejudice. For all we know Meletus could have bribe or threaten certain jurors to persuade others. There were 500 jurors and it takes is one juror to make the deciding vote.