Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Justice in ancient Greece
Ancient greek justice system
Ancient greek justice system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The apology is a form of speech that was addressed to a jury of some 500 Athenians by Socrates in his defense. He was accused with the charge of corrupting the youth and refused in believing in the gods of the state. He starts his speech by addressing the old accuser first. He claims that many before Meletus over the years had accused him. He says that while Meletus is the reason why he is there today, it is the multitude of the voice of old accusers that will get him convicted. People say that he makes outlandish claims and that he corrupts the youth. Also, that he refuses to believe in the gods of the state. He claimed that he knew nothing and that he lacks the ability to instruct the youth on how to make a weak argument stronger. Socrates …show more content…
suggested that the reason people hate him is because he knows that he knows nothing which makes him possess a unique wisdom which makes him wiser than those who think they know something but know nothing. He first tries to explain what this wisdom. He talked about how he sought after the poets, artisans, and politicians to see if they knew of anything of value and he came up with nothing. All he found was people who thought they were wise. He concluded that humans were foolish to think that they were wise and the only to think we can do to make it better is to admit that like Socrates we know nothing. That was his argument to show why he does what he does. The whole reason Socrates is telling the jury this is to explain how this bad reputation of him came about. He tries to explain that when the youth of the city see him do this, they imitate him. When that youth starts to question the elders of their society and make a fool out of them they start putting the blame on Socrates. But the reality is that he never actually asked them to listen to him or copy him. This was his justification for the old accusers Socrates then addresses is new accuser Meletus.
He makes two points one that no man would wish evil up his self. He knows that if he does evil then in return that evil will come back to him. So, to say that he is intentionally corrupting the youth is absurd. But if he does corrupt the youth its unintentional and therefore doesn’t need to be brought to court but needs to be cautioned privately. Meletus is still insistent on his accusations. So, he goes on to make his second point that Meletus is contradicting his own accusations by saying that he corrupts the youth by teaching them things like virtue, wisdom, and pertaining to divinities but to teach anything pertaining to gods he must acknowledge the gods in some way. But Meletus accused him of not acknowledging the gods of the state. So, therefor Meletus must be lying. He says that Meletus doesn’t care about the youth of the Athens but has a grudge against him and that’s why he wants him dead.
He goes on to compare himself to a gadfly. I didn’t know what a gadfly was, so I had to research. He says that what he does is to wake up the people of Athens from their slumber and that he will not stop even on the pain of death because it’s good for them. He goes on to make the point that if he really is corrupting the youth then why is it that the relatives of that very youth come to his defense showing that Meletus is
lying. The last point he makes is that he will not try to appeal to the jury emotionally dispute the fact that most people would because he doesn’t want their emotions to play a part in his judgment. He only asks that they do what they think is right. I think argument was very well made and clarified in a lot of detail showing his point and that Meletus was contradicting his self. But still he was charged guilty and put to death. I think part of that could be because the jury was afraid of the change that would bring among the youth if they didn’t charge him for thinking differently. That his point of view is reasonable and that it is acceptable for the society to follow. So, in order to keep the society from changing. They thought it was better to get rid of the one old man then to risk the change he might bring in the next generation.
In the Melian Dialogue, it describes the negotiation between the people of Athens and the people of Melos. The people of Melos wants their independence and the Athenians who wanted to invade and expand their territory. “Because you would have the advantage of submitting before suffering the worst, and we should gain by not destroying you”. The Athenians were giving the Melian leadership an ultimatum. They could surrender or the Athenians would take over. “While the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must”. The Athenians are demonstrating dictatorial actions on the Melians. There is also evidence in that again in the Athenian dialogue. “Of the gods we believe, and of men we know, that by a necessary law of their nature they rule wherever they can. All we do is to make use of it, knowing that you and everybody else, having the same power as we have would do the same as we do”. The Athenians believe that it is their right to take over the Melians and any country they would like to control because they
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.
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.
Plato’s "Apology" gives the substance of the defense made by Socrates to the Athenians at his trial. Meletus, Anytus and Lyncon brought Socrates to court on charges of corrupting the morals of the youth, leading the youth away from the principals of democracy, neglecting the Gods of the State and introducing new divinities.
During Socrates’ life on earth, he challenged traditional thinking in an honest, down to earth way and set the fundamentals of modern western philosophy. However, meletus, a young, egotistical person with the goal to destroy Socrates’ life for “corrupting the yout,” condemned him to death. Conversely, Meletus was actually the person who corrupted the youth for two obvious reasons; he is ignorant and careless.
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.
The first main argument in support of the thesis is that it is society’s job to educate the youth and Socrates argues that it is impossible for just one man to corrupt the youth. This is the first mistake made by Meletus, as he makes the absurd overstatement that “every Athenian improves and elevates [the youth]; all with the exception of [Socrates],” who alone is their corrupter. Socrates goes on to defend himself by alluding to a horse analogy. Socrates argues that (P1) trainers improve horses, (P2) all others who simply ride horses, injure or corrupt horses, (P3) there are fewer trainers than riders, (P4) therefore, those who corrupt horses are in smaller number than those who ride horses and we can conclude that (C) people are corrupted by a majority rather than a minority. Socrates believes that this analogy to horses must be true of all animals and furthermore, for all people. Socrates utilizes this analogy to point out that Meletus’ overstatement is rather ironic, since according to Meletus all other beings except for the youth in the world are more likely to be corrupted by a majority rather than a minority. For this reason, it is more logical that the youth have been corrupted by a majority like the judges, senators, and the Athenians rather than one man, Socrates. Meletus’ overstatement and inability to defend himself reflects poorly on his character and further gives more authority to Socrates as it seems that Meletus is only arguing for the sake of argument and that he has no true evidence to prove that Socrates is guilty of corrupting the youth.
In the Apology, Socrates is on trial for his so called, “corruption of the youth,” because of his philosophies. He is straightforward and confused about the chargers brought up against him. Socrates raises an argument in his defense and believes he has no reason to be sorry. Socrates believes if he is punished and killed, no one would around to enlighten the people. This view draws a connection to the question posed, “Are we
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."
The Melian Dialogue is a debate between Melian and Athenian representatives concerning the sovereignty of Melos. The debate did not really occur-the arguments given by each side were of Thucydides own creation. Thus it is reasonable to assume that we can tease out Thucydides' own beliefs. In this paper, I will first extract Thucydides views from the Melian Dialogue and then analyze whether or not these views are well founded.
Socrates and the Apology 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.
In the opening of The Apology, Socrates informed the jurors how he intends to address them, what they should pay attention to in his remarks, and what he sees as his greatest obstacle in gaining an acquittal. How does he intend to address the jury? Socrates’ approach towards addressing the jury is way different than what you would see a normal defendant doing. Socrates does not stand in front of the jury and beg that he doesn’t get charged. Instead, Socrates believes that you shouldn’t have to cry and beg for the right to live in court if the defendant has done nothing wrong. The first thing that he says when speaking to the jury was to basically hear him out, and listen to even if he started to talk in his language of habit. He then said they should excuse that because he is seventy years old and has never appeared in court. “I must beg of you to grant me one favor, If you hear me using the same words in my defense which I have been in habit of using, and which most of you may have heard in the agora, and at the table of the money-changers, or anywhere else, I would ask you to not be surprised at this, and bot to interrupt me (Dover p. 19).”
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.
In the Apology, Socrates examines the charges brought against him by Meletus and tries to prove that they are false. The first charge brought against him is that he was corrupting the youth. Socrates responds to this by asking Meletus in his opinion, how Socrates was corrupting the youth. Meletus says that Socrates was teaching the youth to go against the government. Socrates asks if there was anyone who was beneficial for the youth. Meletus says that the council, jury, assembly, even the general public was beneficial to the youth and that Socrates was the only person corrupting them. Socrates claims that it was impossible for the one person to be capable of corrupting the youth when they had so many to show them in the right direction.
Socrates reacts to the cost that he is responsible for corrupting the youngsters, in two methods. The first way tries to reveal that Meletus’ cost is “frivolous” on the causes that it does not comply with possible illustrations of how animals become damaged. Under asking from Socrates, Meletus allows that all of individuals of Athens except Socrates conserve the youngsters of Athens; Socrates alone corrupts them. Yet this is implausible, Socrates indicates, for in some instances of crime, such as the crime of horse by bad entrepreneurs, the opposite is the situation, with only one or a individuals gaining them, and a lot of individuals corrupting them.